4 ms·

The introduction of copyright by the royal censor had measurable negative effects on literacy in England[0]. [0] https://archive.ph/ybifz https://archive.ph/yb

The introduction of copyright by the royal censor had measurable negative effects on literacy in England[0]. [0] https://archive.ph/ybifz https://archive.ph/ybifz

cfn 4y ago
This is a very interesting take on the history of copyright I had not come across before. It is interesting because the historic facts don't match the pro-copyright narrative. It also echoes what happened in China where the absence of IP enforcement helped them become the "factory of the world" and what piracy did for software a couple of decades ago.
- IX-103 4y ago
  And also echoes what happened in the early US (which didn't recognize foreign patents or copyrights).
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    And what happened in Germany (which didn't recognize patents) compared to the UK. Germany had a similar boom in technology.
hilbert42 4y ago
Yes, I'd agreed with that. The present day example is China which has only paid lip service to international copyright law and patents but which in practice has essentially ignored them. No other country is booming ahead like it is - it proves your point. We in the West really need to wake up over the damage bad copyright and overly long (and often imbecilic and trivial) patents have caused, they've slowed progress down and made its overhead much more complicated. I'm not against patent and copyright law per se but they ought to be both reasonable and workable. Currently, they benefit few. When we have so-called 'legal' information raiders like Elsevier and that illegal ones like Sci Hub have to come into existence to redress the balance then it's obvious even to Blind Freddy that our IP laws are fucked (i.e.: favor few at the expense of the national interest/population at large).
- Valakas_ 4y ago
  They're booming because they're benefiting from our work. Copy + paste only works for some time until you start needing to create your own original things. But without copyright what's the point? Someone else will quickly take your investment of time and effort, and make profit that you can't (because you need to price what you developed higher than the competition, who is using your work, to recoup that investment). Copyright is useful, just not in its current state where it's being abused.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    As long as you stay ahead of competition or make simply better products it will work. Someone might steal your design, but they still have to manufacture it and parts like pcb, case and so on. This will take certain amount of time and in this time you should come up with new better model that offers more to customers.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      That's fine if there's a level playing field. If a manufacturer can steal your design in China and get away with it and you can't do the same in the US then you're stuffed. And that's what's happened.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    "Copyright is useful, just not in its current state where it's being abused." I'd agree—and I'm not contradicting my earlier comment by saying that. It's that what passes as breach of copyright and patent law is so finely ground that neither corporate or national interests are properly served. So much time is wasted on protecting stuff that either isn't really a breach (so close to prior art) or on developments that are so trivial that they effectively amount to very little, that is the overall net result/outcomre is negative (even the winners only achieve a Pyrrhic victory). The only people who truly benefit from this over-grinding of the law are those in countries whose laws allow more flexibility. The over-fine grinding of law also acts as a disincentive as it's intimidatory, people aren't going to invest in developing products if they have to spend most of the profits from them on litigation brought on by competitors whose principal aim is to just thwart competition.

The introduction of copyright by the royal censor had measurable negative effects on literacy in England[0]. [0] https://archive.ph/ybifz https://archive.ph/ybifz

cfn 4y ago

This is a very interesting take on the history of copyright I had not come across before. It is interesting because the historic facts don't match the pro-copyright narrative. It also echoes what happened in China where the absence of IP enforcement helped them become the "factory of the world" and what piracy did for software a couple of decades ago.

IX-103 4y ago
And also echoes what happened in the early US (which didn't recognize foreign patents or copyrights).
- alexvoda 4y ago
  And what happened in Germany (which didn't recognize patents) compared to the UK. Germany had a similar boom in technology.

hilbert42 4y ago

Yes, I'd agreed with that. The present day example is China which has only paid lip service to international copyright law and patents but which in practice has essentially ignored them. No other country is booming ahead like it is - it proves your point. We in the West really need to wake up over the damage bad copyright and overly long (and often imbecilic and trivial) patents have caused, they've slowed progress down and made its overhead much more complicated. I'm not against patent and copyright law per se but they ought to be both reasonable and workable. Currently, they benefit few. When we have so-called 'legal' information raiders like Elsevier and that illegal ones like Sci Hub have to come into existence to redress the balance then it's obvious even to Blind Freddy that our IP laws are fucked (i.e.: favor few at the expense of the national interest/population at large).

Valakas_ 4y ago
They're booming because they're benefiting from our work. Copy + paste only works for some time until you start needing to create your own original things. But without copyright what's the point? Someone else will quickly take your investment of time and effort, and make profit that you can't (because you need to price what you developed higher than the competition, who is using your work, to recoup that investment). Copyright is useful, just not in its current state where it's being abused.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  As long as you stay ahead of competition or make simply better products it will work. Someone might steal your design, but they still have to manufacture it and parts like pcb, case and so on. This will take certain amount of time and in this time you should come up with new better model that offers more to customers.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    That's fine if there's a level playing field. If a manufacturer can steal your design in China and get away with it and you can't do the same in the US then you're stuffed. And that's what's happened.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  "Copyright is useful, just not in its current state where it's being abused." I'd agree—and I'm not contradicting my earlier comment by saying that. It's that what passes as breach of copyright and patent law is so finely ground that neither corporate or national interests are properly served. So much time is wasted on protecting stuff that either isn't really a breach (so close to prior art) or on developments that are so trivial that they effectively amount to very little, that is the overall net result/outcomre is negative (even the winners only achieve a Pyrrhic victory). The only people who truly benefit from this over-grinding of the law are those in countries whose laws allow more flexibility. The over-fine grinding of law also acts as a disincentive as it's intimidatory, people aren't going to invest in developing products if they have to spend most of the profits from them on litigation brought on by competitors whose principal aim is to just thwart competition.