I'd guess the point is that prior to the invention of the printing press, an "author" would be financed through a patron. That patron could monetize their initi

I'd guess the point is that prior to the invention of the printing press, an "author" would be financed through a patron. That patron could monetize their initial investment by either hiring people to copy a work by hand or allowing access to the book. Once the printing press arrived the patron / publisher needed another way to monetize their initial investment as modes of reproduction became more easy, copyright became more restrictive. Depending on your side of the copyright argument, it either allows whomever is making the initial investment (publisher, author) to be a generous patron of human creative progress ... or ... it allows the to maintain a monopoly on knowledge and be able to profit off it.