3 ms·

Copyright is not, and never was, for creators. It's for publishers.

ryandrake 9y ago
More specifically, it's for copyright holders, who rarely might be creators, but are more often than not publishers.
cyphar 9y ago
Copyright was for authors a very long time ago[1]. It's been slowly corrupted by the greed of publishers over a very long time, but it is important to remember where copyright actually comes from and to reject emotional arguments about the rights of publishers (in truth, they don't deserve rights over creators' works -- they abuse creators enough as-is). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
- monocasa 9y ago
  Uhhhh.... > These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to censor—literary works.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    If you read the full paragraph in context (and the following paragraph), it says: > Prior to the statute's enactment in 1710, copying restrictions were authorized by the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. [Your quote about the Stationers' Company]. The censorship administered under the Licensing Act led to public protest; as the act had to be renewed at two-year intervals, authors and others sought to prevent its reauthorisation. In 1694, Parliament refused to renew the Licensing Act, ending the Stationers' monopoly and press restrictions. Over the next 10 years the Stationers repeatedly advocated bills to re-authorize the old licensing system, but Parliament declined to enact them. Faced with this failure, the Stationers decided to emphasise the benefits of licensing to authors rather than publishers, and the Stationers succeeded in getting Parliament to consider a new bill. Which means that your quote is quite out-of-context. The Stationers' Company lost their monopoly over printing rights due to public outcry, and they failed to get a new law passed until they made a change to it that emphasised the protection of authors. That law was called the Statute of Anne. Even earlier on, copyright "law" was used as a tool of censorship by the Queen of England (who was Mary at the time). Effectively, a publisher would ask the monarch for the exclusive right to publish a particular book, and a guild of printers (the Stationers' Company) was formed later that then enforced their own version of Copyright under these monopolies they were given. The Statute of Anne was the first time copyright was actually a public law, that anyone could enforce -- and it was the first time that something you could call a "copyright system" was intended to protect _authors_.

More specifically, it's for copyright holders, who rarely might be creators, but are more often than not publishers.

Copyright was for authors a very long time ago[1]. It's been slowly corrupted by the greed of publishers over a very long time, but it is important to remember where copyright actually comes from and to reject emotional arguments about the rights of publishers (in truth, they don't deserve rights over creators' works -- they abuse creators enough as-is). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

monocasa 9y ago
Uhhhh.... > These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to censor—literary works.
- cyphar 9y ago
  If you read the full paragraph in context (and the following paragraph), it says: > Prior to the statute's enactment in 1710, copying restrictions were authorized by the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. [Your quote about the Stationers' Company]. The censorship administered under the Licensing Act led to public protest; as the act had to be renewed at two-year intervals, authors and others sought to prevent its reauthorisation. In 1694, Parliament refused to renew the Licensing Act, ending the Stationers' monopoly and press restrictions. Over the next 10 years the Stationers repeatedly advocated bills to re-authorize the old licensing system, but Parliament declined to enact them. Faced with this failure, the Stationers decided to emphasise the benefits of licensing to authors rather than publishers, and the Stationers succeeded in getting Parliament to consider a new bill. Which means that your quote is quite out-of-context. The Stationers' Company lost their monopoly over printing rights due to public outcry, and they failed to get a new law passed until they made a change to it that emphasised the protection of authors. That law was called the Statute of Anne. Even earlier on, copyright "law" was used as a tool of censorship by the Queen of England (who was Mary at the time). Effectively, a publisher would ask the monarch for the exclusive right to publish a particular book, and a guild of printers (the Stationers' Company) was formed later that then enforced their own version of Copyright under these monopolies they were given. The Statute of Anne was the first time copyright was actually a public law, that anyone could enforce -- and it was the first time that something you could call a "copyright system" was intended to protect _authors_.