> First myth: Copyright is meant primarily to protect authors. > State-enforced copyright came about with the Statute of Anne in 1710. It was the result lobby

> First myth: Copyright is meant primarily to protect authors. > State-enforced copyright came about with the Statute of Anne in 1710. It was the result lobby of a group English publishers who sought to regain their monopoly on publishing. Handing out the initial copyright to the authors was a political gesture: the goal has always been to get authors to hand over the copyright to the publisher, effectively giving the publisher a monopoly. > In most countries, copyright holds for 70 years after the death of the author. Such a long-term copyright cannot possibly be meant to protect authors. Please ... I'm quite critical of copyright, particularly the extended terms, but these are absurd arguments, and any criticism of copyright that doesn't have the courage to question whether authors (and their descendants) should get a monopoly on their work for 70 years after their death is not worth considering. Historically, who lobbied for copyright and why is irrelevant. Authors and publishers obviously have the same interests here. If anyone questions copyright on twitter, even just the extended terms, they always get mobbed by a bunch of authors. As for the fact that copyright holds for 70 years after the death of the author, that is obviously also in the interest of the author and his descendents, because it makes the copyright more valuable. Even if the author doesn't care about his descendants, he can sell the copyright before his death for more money. We should ask ourselves how long copyright terms are necessary. We should make this judgement considering not only the interests of authors, but also those of readers, of society, of an intellectual discourse that everyone can participate in, not denying that the interests of authors might not perfectly overlap with those of society.