4 ms·

Is there some historical evidence of this?

by such12 4y ago

nashashmi 4y ago
Take every rant with lots of salt (unless it is labeled as a rant). (Edit: Jest removed in favor of discussion)
- such12 4y ago
  It seems like your goal here is to deliberately prevent curious inquiry.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    [Ignore this post; not who I intended it to address. Leaving it for context.] No, his goal is to point out that you've failed to engage in any.
    - such12 4y ago
      You honestly don’t believe there could be historical information about how a law came into being?
      - jfengel 4y ago
        Whoops; I apologize. I thought you were the OP. I was replying to the wrong person.
      - nashashmi 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum?wp... "Modern copyright law has been influenced by an array of older legal rights that have been recognized throughout history, including the moral rights of the author who created a work, the economic rights of a benefactor who paid to have a copy made, the property rights of the individual owner of a copy, and a sovereign's right to censor and to regulate the printing industry. The origins of some of these rights can be traced back to ancient Greek culture, ancient Jewish law, and ancient Roman law. In Greek society, during the sixth century B.C.E., there emerged the notion of the individual self, including personal ideals, ambition, and creativity. The individual self is important in copyright because it distinguishes the creativity produced by an individual from the rest of society.[citation needed] In ancient Jewish Talmudic law there can be found recognition of the moral rights of the author and the economic or property rights of an author."
        such12 4y ago
        Very helpful - also contradicts the claim of the person I originally asked the question of.
saurik 4y ago
FWIW, the most obvious Google search found this within a few seconds: https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/11/the-cycle-of-copyright-originally-a-tool-for-censorship-attempted-as-a-tool-for-incentives-back-to-a-tool-for-censorship/ https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/11/the-cycle-of-copyright-o... Which references this: http://web.archive.org/web/20110616151937/http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/copyright-monopoly-and-misconceptions/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110616151937/http://www.telerea... As its source for this: https://open-spaces.com/articles/the-purpose-of-copyright/ https://open-spaces.com/articles/the-purpose-of-copyright/ Where we find an explanation: > In 1557, the desires of the booksellers and the desires of the crown coincided. The crown perceived the need to gain greater control over “the dangerous possibilities of the printed word” and so granted a royal charter to the Stationers’ Company that limited most printing to only members of the company. This charter also empowered the company to search out and destroy “unlawful” books, which gave the guild the public enforcement mechanism for its private law. If a nonmember was printing a work that had been registered with the company by a member, the nonmember could now be stopped. It also meant that if a work which was disagreeable to the crown was being published, it too could be stopped. This arrangement provided the crown with added policemen to enforce its goal to control printed works. Censorship was born. But like, once I found that, I immediately realized that we can just look at Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright > The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[9] Before the invention of the printing press, a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes did not exist, as scribes were scattered and worked on single manuscripts.[10] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[9] In 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[10] Which cites: [9]: MacQueen, Hector L; Charlotte Waelde; Graeme T Laurie (2007). Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4. https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary+intellectual+property&source=gbs_navlinks_s https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary... [10]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain&pg=PA15 https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitic... There is another, much more detailed paragraph, which starts a bit later with: > As the "menace" of printing spread, governments established centralized control mechanisms,[16] and in 1557 the English Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses. The French crown also repressed printing, and printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. Citing a different page of the same source as 10: [16]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15 https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15
M2Ys4U 4y ago
The Licensing of the Press Act 1662, entitled "An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses",[0] gave the Stationers' Company a monopoly on printing - only people licensed by the Company could operate printing presses, and similarly nobody was allowed to sell books unless licensed. The Company also had the power, under its royal charter, to make regulations about printing, effectively creating a private system of copyright controlled by the Company. The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 had to be continually renewed, but eventually it lapsed in 1692. Publishers lobbied hard for the act to be reinstated but all attempts failed to pass through the House of Commons. It wasn't until 1710 that authors gained a time-limited exclusive statutory right to control the printing of their books (and only books), with what would be the first "modern" public copyright law in the Copyright Act 1710 (also known as the Statute of Anne), and naturally this right was exploited by publishers (just as it is today) who refused to publish without acquiring the rights along with the manuscript. [0] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp428-435 https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp428-...
- such12 4y ago
  Very helpful history, thank you, however it contradicts your claim.

Is there some historical evidence of this?

by such12 4y ago

Is there some historical evidence of this?

nashashmi 4y ago

Take every rant with lots of salt (unless it is labeled as a rant). (Edit: Jest removed in favor of discussion)

such12 4y ago
It seems like your goal here is to deliberately prevent curious inquiry.
- jfengel 4y ago
  [Ignore this post; not who I intended it to address. Leaving it for context.] No, his goal is to point out that you've failed to engage in any.
  - such12 4y ago
    You honestly don’t believe there could be historical information about how a law came into being?
    - jfengel 4y ago
      Whoops; I apologize. I thought you were the OP. I was replying to the wrong person.
    - nashashmi 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum?wp... "Modern copyright law has been influenced by an array of older legal rights that have been recognized throughout history, including the moral rights of the author who created a work, the economic rights of a benefactor who paid to have a copy made, the property rights of the individual owner of a copy, and a sovereign's right to censor and to regulate the printing industry. The origins of some of these rights can be traced back to ancient Greek culture, ancient Jewish law, and ancient Roman law. In Greek society, during the sixth century B.C.E., there emerged the notion of the individual self, including personal ideals, ambition, and creativity. The individual self is important in copyright because it distinguishes the creativity produced by an individual from the rest of society.[citation needed] In ancient Jewish Talmudic law there can be found recognition of the moral rights of the author and the economic or property rights of an author."
      - such12 4y ago
        Very helpful - also contradicts the claim of the person I originally asked the question of.

saurik 4y ago

FWIW, the most obvious Google search found this within a few seconds: https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/11/the-cycle-of-copyright-originally-a-tool-for-censorship-attempted-as-a-tool-for-incentives-back-to-a-tool-for-censorship/ https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/11/the-cycle-of-copyright-o... Which references this: http://web.archive.org/web/20110616151937/http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/copyright-monopoly-and-misconceptions/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110616151937/http://www.telerea... As its source for this: https://open-spaces.com/articles/the-purpose-of-copyright/ https://open-spaces.com/articles/the-purpose-of-copyright/ Where we find an explanation: > In 1557, the desires of the booksellers and the desires of the crown coincided. The crown perceived the need to gain greater control over “the dangerous possibilities of the printed word” and so granted a royal charter to the Stationers’ Company that limited most printing to only members of the company. This charter also empowered the company to search out and destroy “unlawful” books, which gave the guild the public enforcement mechanism for its private law. If a nonmember was printing a work that had been registered with the company by a member, the nonmember could now be stopped. It also meant that if a work which was disagreeable to the crown was being published, it too could be stopped. This arrangement provided the crown with added policemen to enforce its goal to control printed works. Censorship was born. But like, once I found that, I immediately realized that we can just look at Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright > The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[9] Before the invention of the printing press, a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes did not exist, as scribes were scattered and worked on single manuscripts.[10] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[9] In 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[10] Which cites: [9]: MacQueen, Hector L; Charlotte Waelde; Graeme T Laurie (2007). Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4. https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary+intellectual+property&source=gbs_navlinks_s https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary... [10]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain&pg=PA15 https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitic... There is another, much more detailed paragraph, which starts a bit later with: > As the "menace" of printing spread, governments established centralized control mechanisms,[16] and in 1557 the English Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses. The French crown also repressed printing, and printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. Citing a different page of the same source as 10: [16]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15 https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15

M2Ys4U 4y ago

The Licensing of the Press Act 1662, entitled "An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses",[0] gave the Stationers' Company a monopoly on printing - only people licensed by the Company could operate printing presses, and similarly nobody was allowed to sell books unless licensed. The Company also had the power, under its royal charter, to make regulations about printing, effectively creating a private system of copyright controlled by the Company. The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 had to be continually renewed, but eventually it lapsed in 1692. Publishers lobbied hard for the act to be reinstated but all attempts failed to pass through the House of Commons. It wasn't until 1710 that authors gained a time-limited exclusive statutory right to control the printing of their books (and only books), with what would be the first "modern" public copyright law in the Copyright Act 1710 (also known as the Statute of Anne), and naturally this right was exploited by publishers (just as it is today) who refused to publish without acquiring the rights along with the manuscript. [0] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp428-435 https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp428-...

such12 4y ago
Very helpful history, thank you, however it contradicts your claim.