3 ms·
Your Wikipedia reference begins with "The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books." Not 'authors of bo
by vannevar 14y ago
Your Wikipedia reference begins with "The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books." Not 'authors of books'. Printers. Why? Because printing books was expensive, and printers needed some assurance they were going to have a monopoly if they were going to invest the money. How is that in any way contradictory to my statement?
- 001sky 14y agoand only rationalized as a benefit for creators The public policy goal is to spread knowledge. If the printing is a critical step, it needs to get done. You're conflating ends and means. It was eg the guttenburg bible that increased the spread of literacy and the use of vernacular language in european history, right? Ergo Dante: Inferno etc. In other words, this is constructive criticism. I'm not slighting your observations. The point is that the public policy goal which makes copyright "poltically correct", needs to be articulated clearly and benchmarked for performance. Even in your formulation, it is this what shields it from reform. That's the end [or not]. And so, then the question is: what means [x from the set X] do we pick? Well, we need to look at all the alternatives. The, its ends<=>means + some thought optimaztion or "natural selection" or whatever. Is a different framework.
- 001sky 14y agoIts a fair question to ask: Since the original dynamics were set in place, we don't need to print books, since we don't need capital to distribute recordings, etc should we re-evaluate in light of this.