4 ms·

"Copyright was never about rights holders making money." Here's a quote from the Statute of Anne: "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of l

by cewawa 14y ago

"Copyright was never about rights holders making money." Here's a quote from the Statute of Anne: "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:" Also copyright doesn't protect ideas. Also the "high quality ideas (and shit)" are not free. High quality work is expensive, but may be free to you because they are subsidised. A model not without its problems.

logn 14y ago
Well, one problem with this is that most authors don't hold the rights to their works and it's not possible to get their permission. I think if all I had to do to publish a homemade video to Weird Al song was get Al's permission, it would be pretty sensible. But he signed away his right to a corp who will fight to the death to extend and exclusively control the work. The authors would have a much better sense of whether a derivative work robs them of income or is reasonable. Also, high quality work is expensive. And in the old days, it probably took decades to recoup costs when books were prohibitively expensive. But when a film these days make 100MM in its premiere, I think we need to seriously shorten copyright terms.
antidoh 14y ago
Thanks for that. I am assuming too much in favor of the public interest at the expense of authors. However, today's debate does acknowledge that there was and is a public interest in dissemination, which helps to support copyright law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne Linguistic amendments were also included; the line in the preamble emphasising that authors possessed books as they would any other piece of property was dropped, and the bill moved from something designed "for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof" to a bill "for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies".[39] Another amendment allowed anyone to own and trade in copies of books, undermining the Stationers.[39] Other changes were made when the bill went to the House of Lords, and it was finally returned to the Commons on 5 April. The aims of the resulting statute are debated; Ronan Deazley suggests that the intent was to balance the rights of the author, publisher and public in such a way as to ensure the maximum dissemination of works,[40] while other academics argue that the bill was intended to protect the Company's monopoly or, conversely, to weaken it. Oren Bracha, writing in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, says that when considering which of these options are correct, "the most probable answer [is] all of them".[41] Whatever the motivations, the bill was passed on 5 April 1710, and is commonly known simply as the Statute of Anne due its passage during the reign of Queen Anne.[42]

by cewawa 14y ago

logn 14y ago

Well, one problem with this is that most authors don't hold the rights to their works and it's not possible to get their permission. I think if all I had to do to publish a homemade video to Weird Al song was get Al's permission, it would be pretty sensible. But he signed away his right to a corp who will fight to the death to extend and exclusively control the work. The authors would have a much better sense of whether a derivative work robs them of income or is reasonable. Also, high quality work is expensive. And in the old days, it probably took decades to recoup costs when books were prohibitively expensive. But when a film these days make 100MM in its premiere, I think we need to seriously shorten copyright terms.

antidoh 14y ago

Thanks for that. I am assuming too much in favor of the public interest at the expense of authors. However, today's debate does acknowledge that there was and is a public interest in dissemination, which helps to support copyright law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne Linguistic amendments were also included; the line in the preamble emphasising that authors possessed books as they would any other piece of property was dropped, and the bill moved from something designed "for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof" to a bill "for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies".[39] Another amendment allowed anyone to own and trade in copies of books, undermining the Stationers.[39] Other changes were made when the bill went to the House of Lords, and it was finally returned to the Commons on 5 April. The aims of the resulting statute are debated; Ronan Deazley suggests that the intent was to balance the rights of the author, publisher and public in such a way as to ensure the maximum dissemination of works,[40] while other academics argue that the bill was intended to protect the Company's monopoly or, conversely, to weaken it. Oren Bracha, writing in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, says that when considering which of these options are correct, "the most probable answer [is] all of them".[41] Whatever the motivations, the bill was passed on 5 April 1710, and is commonly known simply as the Statute of Anne due its passage during the reign of Queen Anne.[42]