5 ms·

This is 100% inaccurate That story leaves out significant details, and his description of the reason is wrong. He leaves out significant prior sources and reas

This is 100% inaccurate That story leaves out significant details, and his description of the reason is wrong. He leaves out significant prior sources and reasons, to the point your statement "It was not created to help artists or whoever" is simply wrong. Wikipedia provides a far better history with extensive sources [1]. Note for example the section "Early Developments" where they list precursors to anything in your source as having significant components of individual and author rights. Note also in the US copyright law was started by author guilds wanting author protection, and the first federal copyright act in 1790 was about protection for authors, not for printers. This was an extension of many states laws that had passed author protections. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

belorn 10y ago
Using Wikipedia as an authoritative source is actively discourage by Wikipedia project itself and by basically every university and research body in existence. The Early Developments section you talk about is about the concept of copyright as it exist today, rather than the history of copyright law as it was made. The French law, while tangential, followed a different path and focus heavily on the concept of moral right, concept which does not explicitly exist in the US copyright law. US law focused instead on statutory monopolies, and loosely match that of the French commercial right that authors was granted. Authors moral rights, as the existed in French copyright law, was instead weakly incorporated into libel laws. You claim that the US copyright law was started by authors guild, but three states had already enacted copyright statutes prior to the Continental Congress resolution. Where is your evidence that author protection was the intention behind the law makers of the time, which goes in rather stark contrast to every other aspect and the final text which focuses on the commercial aspects and not the rights of the authors. If the US copyright law was derrived from the French law, why is there no concept of "authors moral right" as there is in many EU countries to this day?
- ChrisLomont 10y ago
  >Using Wikipedia as an authoritative source... Which is why you can check the references. When the article linked above about copyright is clearly coming from an anti-copyright source, and does not mention multiple important things Wikipedia does, I think any intelligent person realizes the Wikipedia source is more credible. As to overall accuracy of Wikipedia, many, many studies show it is quite accurate. Google and read the evidence. >You claim that the US copyright law was started by authors guild It's not my claim - Wikipedia sourced it. Since you don't like it, here [3] are some details with names and dates you can check, and here [4] is a paper titled "The Anti-Monopoly Origins of the Patent and Copyright Clause" with significant details. >three states had already enacted copyright statutes prior to the Continental Congress resolution "The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War." [1] And.... "Twelve states passed copyright laws prior to the work of the Continental Congress. Delaware chose not to pass a copyright law." [2] Here [2] is the text of the 1790 Copyright Act. It is completely about protecting author rights - every single section details this. The word author occurs 21 times in a page and a half. For example, (cutting out wordy clauses - go read the original if you doubt this) Section 1 - "the author...shall have the sole right ... of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending..." Section 2 - "any person .. without the consent of the author...shall forfeit all and every sheet and item.. and pay the sum of fifty cents for every sheet..." Section 6 - "any person .. who shall print ... without consent ... of the author.. shall be liable to suffer and pay ... all damages.." >the final text which focuses on the commercial aspects and not the rights of the authors I have no idea how you arrived at this statement. I just cited the law which clearly, in every section, enumerates authors rights. Care to cite this "final text" which does not? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 [2] http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf [3] http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/intellectualproperty/4.htm http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/intellectualproperty/4.htm [4] http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=facpubs http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
  - DannyBee 10y ago
DannyBee 10y ago
"That story leaves out significant details, and his description of the reason is wrong. He leaves out significant prior sources and reasons, to the point your statement "It was not created to help artists or whoever" is simply wrong. " If you want to point out details, i'm sure Karl will correct it. "Wikipedia provides a far better history with extensive sources [1]. Note for example the section "Early Developments" where they list precursors to anything in your source as having significant components of individual and author rights. " These citations are, honestly, mostly BS. Read the early documents yourself, and you'll see they pretty much make it up as they go along. "Note also in the US copyright law was started by author guilds wanting author protection, and the first federal copyright act in 1790 was about protection for authors, not for printers." This is kind of irrelevant to why copyright law came to be, since by then it was already a thing, and part of the entire point is that by then, authors and others had started trying to convince others that it was needed for protectionist reasons, claiming that history also felt a need to be protectionist, when this is completely inaccurate.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782568 and marked it off-topic.
- ChrisLomont 10y ago
  It was a reply to DannyBee's post claiming copyright "was not created to help artists or whoever". It starts with "This is 100% inaccurate" which is why I began this the same way. I note others have since reposted the same links in reply to DannyBee for the same reason. How it is off topic since it directly addresses that claim? Did it get detached from the parent, removing context?
  - dang 10y ago
    It's off-topic because it turned into a tedious back-and-forth in which you became increasingly uncivil. You've done that repeatedly in arguments on HN. Please don't do that. When comments get aggressive and litigious, good conversation flees the room. Such spats also go inevitably off-topic, since how-right-I-am-and-how-wrong-you-are is not a topic.
    - ChrisLomont 10y ago
      You're right. I'll do better in the future. Sorry.

belorn 10y ago

Using Wikipedia as an authoritative source is actively discourage by Wikipedia project itself and by basically every university and research body in existence. The Early Developments section you talk about is about the concept of copyright as it exist today, rather than the history of copyright law as it was made. The French law, while tangential, followed a different path and focus heavily on the concept of moral right, concept which does not explicitly exist in the US copyright law. US law focused instead on statutory monopolies, and loosely match that of the French commercial right that authors was granted. Authors moral rights, as the existed in French copyright law, was instead weakly incorporated into libel laws. You claim that the US copyright law was started by authors guild, but three states had already enacted copyright statutes prior to the Continental Congress resolution. Where is your evidence that author protection was the intention behind the law makers of the time, which goes in rather stark contrast to every other aspect and the final text which focuses on the commercial aspects and not the rights of the authors. If the US copyright law was derrived from the French law, why is there no concept of "authors moral right" as there is in many EU countries to this day?

ChrisLomont 10y ago
>Using Wikipedia as an authoritative source... Which is why you can check the references. When the article linked above about copyright is clearly coming from an anti-copyright source, and does not mention multiple important things Wikipedia does, I think any intelligent person realizes the Wikipedia source is more credible. As to overall accuracy of Wikipedia, many, many studies show it is quite accurate. Google and read the evidence. >You claim that the US copyright law was started by authors guild It's not my claim - Wikipedia sourced it. Since you don't like it, here [3] are some details with names and dates you can check, and here [4] is a paper titled "The Anti-Monopoly Origins of the Patent and Copyright Clause" with significant details. >three states had already enacted copyright statutes prior to the Continental Congress resolution "The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War." [1] And.... "Twelve states passed copyright laws prior to the work of the Continental Congress. Delaware chose not to pass a copyright law." [2] Here [2] is the text of the 1790 Copyright Act. It is completely about protecting author rights - every single section details this. The word author occurs 21 times in a page and a half. For example, (cutting out wordy clauses - go read the original if you doubt this) Section 1 - "the author...shall have the sole right ... of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending..." Section 2 - "any person .. without the consent of the author...shall forfeit all and every sheet and item.. and pay the sum of fifty cents for every sheet..." Section 6 - "any person .. who shall print ... without consent ... of the author.. shall be liable to suffer and pay ... all damages.." >the final text which focuses on the commercial aspects and not the rights of the authors I have no idea how you arrived at this statement. I just cited the law which clearly, in every section, enumerates authors rights. Care to cite this "final text" which does not? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 [2] http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf [3] http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/intellectualproperty/4.htm http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/intellectualproperty/4.htm [4] http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=facpubs http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- DannyBee 10y ago

DannyBee 10y ago

"That story leaves out significant details, and his description of the reason is wrong. He leaves out significant prior sources and reasons, to the point your statement "It was not created to help artists or whoever" is simply wrong. " If you want to point out details, i'm sure Karl will correct it. "Wikipedia provides a far better history with extensive sources [1]. Note for example the section "Early Developments" where they list precursors to anything in your source as having significant components of individual and author rights. " These citations are, honestly, mostly BS. Read the early documents yourself, and you'll see they pretty much make it up as they go along. "Note also in the US copyright law was started by author guilds wanting author protection, and the first federal copyright act in 1790 was about protection for authors, not for printers." This is kind of irrelevant to why copyright law came to be, since by then it was already a thing, and part of the entire point is that by then, authors and others had started trying to convince others that it was needed for protectionist reasons, claiming that history also felt a need to be protectionist, when this is completely inaccurate.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782568 and marked it off-topic.

ChrisLomont 10y ago
It was a reply to DannyBee's post claiming copyright "was not created to help artists or whoever". It starts with "This is 100% inaccurate" which is why I began this the same way. I note others have since reposted the same links in reply to DannyBee for the same reason. How it is off topic since it directly addresses that claim? Did it get detached from the parent, removing context?
- dang 10y ago
  It's off-topic because it turned into a tedious back-and-forth in which you became increasingly uncivil. You've done that repeatedly in arguments on HN. Please don't do that. When comments get aggressive and litigious, good conversation flees the room. Such spats also go inevitably off-topic, since how-right-I-am-and-how-wrong-you-are is not a topic.
  - ChrisLomont 10y ago
    You're right. I'll do better in the future. Sorry.