Re: [ox-en] Re: Property, scarcity, selbstentfaltung
- From: Graham Seaman <graham seul.org>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:10:32 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Graham Seaman <graham seul.org> wrote:
This is a complete sidetrack from the main argument... but copyright laws
have never truly been intended to encourage creativity. [...]
Can you throw me some references from your argument? I would like to read
more about these issues. I've not seen much about this, so I'd appreciate
your "expert guide" as an introduction. I found
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/copyright_and_culture.html but little
else that seemed relevant.
I don't know of much on the web, I've been reduced to looking for dead
trees in libraries ;-) With this kind of stuff, web pages often just seem
to recycle cliche's, instead of actually doing any research...
From what I've read, the link you give does refer to the main points in
the UK history, but the point of view it has is arguable (not factually
wrong AFAIK, just arguable). For example, it says the Statute of Anne
was 'intended to prevent a publishing monopoly'. From things I've read,
it was actually mainly aimed by the London publishers against provincial
publishers reprinting works first printed in London, and effectively
tended to replace the guild monopoly of the Stationers with a local
monopoly of London publishers (who were in fact just the publishers who
had been in the Stationers...). Similarly, your link presents the 'natural
rights' argument as one favouring authors; my impression it was one
favouring publishers: the Statute of Anne gave a 14 year limit to
copyright (modelled on patents, ultimately derived from the duration
of 2 7-year apprenticeships); publishers wanted a longer one, and if
authors had a 'natural right' that would mean that the publishers the
copyright had been sold to got rights for the authors lifetime, not just
14 years (to be fair, the article does mention this side of things).
In fact the rights on Milton's books, which the article mentions were sold
to Sam Symons in 1667 were resold to Jacob Tonson (the Bill Gates of books
of the 18th century) who won court cases over them in 1739 and 1752,
regardless of the 14 year limit of Anne or the 'natural right' argument
(Milton was long dead); the publishers effectively already had perpetual
copyright, regardless of the few well known court cases - like the
Microsoft court cases, they didn't have much effect on what really
happened.
Anyway, if you want 'dead tree' references, this is a list of the
rather random things I've looked at:
The Milton quotes came from Areopagitica, in John Milton
Selected Prose, Penguin 1974. The bulk of Areopagitica is an attack
on censorship rather than on copyright as such, though.
The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law; the British
Experience 1760-1911 Sherman & Bentley, CUP 1999
Copyright in Books, A. Birrell, 1898 (gossipy and old, but the examples
tend to get recycled as raw materials for newer books)
Englightenment, Roy Porter, Penguin, has a bit on copyright and the
development of regional publishers in the 18th century
The Gilds and Companies of London, George Unwin 1908 - good for
pre-copyright history of Stationer's company (15th-17th century) and
the periodic (failed) revolts against their monopoly.
For the rather separate French tradition:
This interview with Anne Latournerie pups up everywhere:
http://www.temps-reels.net/article.php3?id_article=1178
Unfortunately I can't find anything else she's written on the web -
anyone seen anything?
The intro to this thesis is ok (and also goes over the english
history)
http://www.journal.law.mcgill.ca/abs/433moyse.htm
I'm sorry all that probably doesn't help very much...
Graham
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/