« Return to Thread: Re: What has copyright to do with democracy?
Re: What has copyright to do with democracy?
by Karl-Erik Tallmo
::
Rate this Message:
Well, Fogel writes several strange things in his article, for example:
"The first copyright law was a censorship law. It had nothing to do
with protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce
new works. Authors' rights were in no danger in sixteenth-century
England, and the recent arrival of the printing press (the world's
first copying machine) was if anything energizing to writers."
What he refers to is when the Stationers' Company in 1557 was granted
the monopoly of printing and in return let themselves be used as an
instrument for censorship. But this was not a copyright law and
definitely not the first, not even in the old sense, that is, a guild
member's license to print copies of a certain work. Such copyright
had existed since the rise of printing, although the word was not
used. The word copyright was probably not used until 1701, at least
not in writing or in print. And censorship had, of course, also
existed earlier. (Even in France there was a printers' "droit de
copie" long before the "droit d'auteur".) What happened in 1557 was
the "incorporation" of the Stationers' Company into the royal
prerogative.
Fogel's idea is that the statutory copyright of 1710 was a direct
continuation of the ideas that granted the monopoly of the
Stationers' Company. But this is not correct. Censorship ended in
1695 when the Licensing Act was abolished. The Act of 1710 granted
copyright to authors or their assignees. So it is definitely an
authors' right, although it is true that authors (as today) seldom
published their books themselves but were dependent upon
booksellers/printers. It would be wrong, however, to say that the act
was a distributors' law and not an authors' law. The famous "Battle
of the booksellers" that took place approx. 1740-1774 is a well known
series of court cases, but there were also authors who sued
booksellers and others, using their new right, for instance Burnet v.
Chetwood 1720, Gay v. Read 1729, Pope v. Curll 1741 (Pope also went
to court four more times), Webb v. Rose 1732 (the son of an author)
and Forrester v. Waller 1741.
It is true, however, that the Statute of Anne was not the result of a
widespread concern for the wellbeing of authors. After censorship was
abolished the Stationers wanted to save what they could of their old
privileges, so they strongly advocated the right for authors, hoping
that they would assign the rights to the printers/sellers for ever,
as the old common law rules allowed. In Parliament there were several
members who wanted an antimonopoly law for the book trade, and they
also advocated the Lockean idea to encourage learning. And there were
also some authors who published pamphlets supporting this, Defoe
among others. He said that "'Twould be unaccountably severe, to make
a Man answerable for the Miscarriages of a thing which he shall not
reap the benefit of if well perform'd ..." The booksellers' hopes for
a perpetual copyright practically came to nought as we know. 14 years
at a time was all they got.
/Karl-Erik Tallmo
> >>What has copyright to do with democracy?
>>>
>>>Abstract: The debates on whether or not copyright and democracy are
>>>compatible concepts are not new. It has been discussed since the
>>>1700s and concerns a form of separation of powers. Copyright is a
>>>monopoly, but at the same time, when copyright came, it was a strike
>>>at another form of monopoly, the printers' rights, with their roots
>>>in the guild system. Copyright could not occur until censorship was
>>>abolished, and it can actually be seen as a complement to the
>>>freedom of expression. Copyright was early associated with privacy
>>>issues. However, if proportionality is not followed in the
>>>maintenance of law, both integrity and freedom of expression could
>>>be threatened.
>
>I read your article and found the parts about the first introduction
>of copyright very interesting.
>
>It reminded me of another article I've read, but this one has a
>completely opposite view on the Statute of Anne: <...>
--
__________________________________________________________________
KARL-ERIK TALLMO, Swedish writer, artist and journalist.
ARTICLES: http://www.nisus.se/archive/artiklar.html
BLOG: http://slowfox.wordpress.com
IN ENGLISH: http://slowfox.wordpress.com/category/in-english/
__________________________________________________________________
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@...
"The first copyright law was a censorship law. It had nothing to do
with protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce
new works. Authors' rights were in no danger in sixteenth-century
England, and the recent arrival of the printing press (the world's
first copying machine) was if anything energizing to writers."
What he refers to is when the Stationers' Company in 1557 was granted
the monopoly of printing and in return let themselves be used as an
instrument for censorship. But this was not a copyright law and
definitely not the first, not even in the old sense, that is, a guild
member's license to print copies of a certain work. Such copyright
had existed since the rise of printing, although the word was not
used. The word copyright was probably not used until 1701, at least
not in writing or in print. And censorship had, of course, also
existed earlier. (Even in France there was a printers' "droit de
copie" long before the "droit d'auteur".) What happened in 1557 was
the "incorporation" of the Stationers' Company into the royal
prerogative.
Fogel's idea is that the statutory copyright of 1710 was a direct
continuation of the ideas that granted the monopoly of the
Stationers' Company. But this is not correct. Censorship ended in
1695 when the Licensing Act was abolished. The Act of 1710 granted
copyright to authors or their assignees. So it is definitely an
authors' right, although it is true that authors (as today) seldom
published their books themselves but were dependent upon
booksellers/printers. It would be wrong, however, to say that the act
was a distributors' law and not an authors' law. The famous "Battle
of the booksellers" that took place approx. 1740-1774 is a well known
series of court cases, but there were also authors who sued
booksellers and others, using their new right, for instance Burnet v.
Chetwood 1720, Gay v. Read 1729, Pope v. Curll 1741 (Pope also went
to court four more times), Webb v. Rose 1732 (the son of an author)
and Forrester v. Waller 1741.
It is true, however, that the Statute of Anne was not the result of a
widespread concern for the wellbeing of authors. After censorship was
abolished the Stationers wanted to save what they could of their old
privileges, so they strongly advocated the right for authors, hoping
that they would assign the rights to the printers/sellers for ever,
as the old common law rules allowed. In Parliament there were several
members who wanted an antimonopoly law for the book trade, and they
also advocated the Lockean idea to encourage learning. And there were
also some authors who published pamphlets supporting this, Defoe
among others. He said that "'Twould be unaccountably severe, to make
a Man answerable for the Miscarriages of a thing which he shall not
reap the benefit of if well perform'd ..." The booksellers' hopes for
a perpetual copyright practically came to nought as we know. 14 years
at a time was all they got.
/Karl-Erik Tallmo
> >>What has copyright to do with democracy?
>>>
>>>Abstract: The debates on whether or not copyright and democracy are
>>>compatible concepts are not new. It has been discussed since the
>>>1700s and concerns a form of separation of powers. Copyright is a
>>>monopoly, but at the same time, when copyright came, it was a strike
>>>at another form of monopoly, the printers' rights, with their roots
>>>in the guild system. Copyright could not occur until censorship was
>>>abolished, and it can actually be seen as a complement to the
>>>freedom of expression. Copyright was early associated with privacy
>>>issues. However, if proportionality is not followed in the
>>>maintenance of law, both integrity and freedom of expression could
>>>be threatened.
>
>I read your article and found the parts about the first introduction
>of copyright very interesting.
>
>It reminded me of another article I've read, but this one has a
>completely opposite view on the Statute of Anne:
--
__________________________________________________________________
KARL-ERIK TALLMO, Swedish writer, artist and journalist.
ARTICLES: http://www.nisus.se/archive/artiklar.html
BLOG: http://slowfox.wordpress.com
IN ENGLISH: http://slowfox.wordpress.com/category/in-english/
__________________________________________________________________
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@...
« Return to Thread: Re: What has copyright to do with democracy?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
