100 years of Big Content fearing technology, in its own words.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars

by jjguy • 17 years ago

36 16 17 years ago

"Sousa was making the argument at the heart of copyright: that it promotes innovation, and that without any protection for works, many will never be created."

What I would love to see is a study to see if this core argument for the copyright industry /has any merit at all/. Music, and masterpieces, existed long, long before copyright became a social reality - the idea that we, as a culture, /must/ have copyright to defend our poor artists and creators is disingenuous at best.

chrischen3• 17 years ago

In his defense, long ago there wasn't the technology to trivialize copying. So human performances were like mechanical/digital reproductions and mass distribution through copying was less of an issue.

JCThoughtscream2• 17 years ago

But was copyright law developed out of /fear/ of theft, or out of actual, documented loss of creativity post-innovation? What quantitative basis does the copyright industry have to assert so much control over our artistic culture, in the name of protecting it?

(my bias appears to be peeking through at this point, I'll admit)

thwarted4• 17 years ago

And an economic argument against that is that if many of those works are never created, then that would make those that are created more valuable. Copyright thus limits the income potential of the _really_ good creators.

jamesbritt2• 17 years ago

" ... then that would make those that are created more valuable."

Only if they are hard to copy.

Lack of copyright would alter the kinds of things people produce.

electromagnetic2• 17 years ago

Music and masterpieces did exist long before copyright came into existence, however it also existed long before technology to reproduce them existed. Arguing that it didn't exist in the past and it worked fine isn't applicable to current events.

Since 1557 the Stationers' Company enforced the copyright of all published works in the UK until 1709, which then transferred copyright from the manufacturer to the author. Essentially put, all of modern English literature has been covered by copyright in one form or another.

Literature before copyright was fortunate to be read by more than a thousand people. Most of our literary heritage is dependent solely on the work of Monasteries that preserved the works through reproduction for hundreds of years and passed on tomes that would never have survived. The mere fact is, is that copyright followed shortly after the printing press' mass adoption to protect writers from the illegal reproduction of their works on a mass scale.

It's ignorant to argue the world would be better without copyright when copyright has existed throughout the whole of modern western civilization. We wouldn't have many of our greatest works, with original copies still available if it wasn't for the mass production and publication enabled by copyright. Mary Shelley had more copies made of Frankenstein in its first print run (~10,000) than entire authors just a few hundred years before her would manage in their entire careers as an author.

So please, please point to an era of civilization where copyright didn't exist and where mass production of literature, music or art was available and the industry thrived. Because in 1400's a single book was worth equivalent to a farm or vineyard. Universities rarely had more than a few hundred books.

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria would be equivalent to the destruction of a federal reserve. I still fail to see how the argument against copyright always descends into an absurdest world without its existence, where book prices will literally end up costing houses because authors will be forced to make all their profit off of the sale of a single book for a years work. Quite literally it'll be ~$30,000 per book, or copyright will be required in some form to ensure the author is paid his dues.

Culture has never been free, it's just that in recent times it has become free to steal and people have absurdly come to believe that that's how our ancestors lived.

chrischen3• 17 years ago

I don't think we should ever stifle technological innovation in order to satisfy the interests of some industry. Just as we accept the fact that if someone leaves money out in the open, it may be stolen, the copyright industry should accept the fact that certain technological advancements will force them to do things differently.

chedigitz• 17 years ago

As a content creator, I feel copyright as we know it is flawed, and hinders the virility of content to gain exposure. The world is filled with wholesomely good people,and artist will always be compensated one way or another. Artists convey feelings and emotions that offer each individual a unique interpretation. The movies I love, you may hate. Some people would pay thousands for a specific painting, that may be worthless to me. The variable pricing model that Nine Inch Nails made popular seems more in tune with the 21st century.

100 years of Big Content fearing technology, in its own words.

Related Stories