RE: Copyright and Plagiarism – Your Opinions Please.
Don't forget that copyright started (in the Statute of Anne) as a tool for
A) censoring and
B) giving a very profitable monopoly to a group of printers (who, in turn, would watch the censoring, even having the right to destroy "unlawful" printing presses).
You could say it was one of the first Public Private Partnerships.
Censoring is still a much used possibility of copyright. Also monopoly for earning money with works the "owner" should no longer have any monopoly right over, if you ask me.
btw: The statute of Anne (copyright) was abolished for the censoring reason and it tooo decades for a new copyright.
The US founding fathers where very much split about copyright. Thats why the connected it to a prerequisite "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" - if it does not do this, it is unconstitutional.
In Theory.
A study compared the number of works available under copyright and after it, measured by titles available at Amazon, devided into decades.
They found that the in the decade after the copyright run out more books were available then in the 3rd decade of copyright. Since the decades were made on the calender decades and not "age of book", you could say that after about 14 years copyright prevents books from being printed.
Incidentally (or not) the first copyright and patent times were 14 years and 17 years.
not really, though i upvoted you for the interesting legal discussion
You're mixing up the Statute of Anne (enacted in 1710) with several laws that came before it. Most notably the The royal charter of the stationers company in the 1500s and The Licensing act in the 1600s
Copyright existed prior to the statute of anne. The difference was that unlike modern copyright, pre-18th-century copyright was a right granted to publishers, not authors. The statute of Anne was significant in that it redefined copyright as a right given to authors.
The statute of Anne harmed publishers, as it forced them to pay royalties and allowed authors to control who published their book. That is to say, it took rights away from publishers and gave them to authors. You could argue that it did so incompletely., but it was definitely a move away from commercial monopoly over information.
It ended the abuses under the royal charter of the stationers company and the licensing act (including government sponsored censorship and the right of the government or the stationers company to enter a property and destroy "unlawful" printing presses)
Isn't the word copyright from the Anne?
I had to look that up. The word copyright actually doesnt appear in the statute of anne.
The word "copyright" comes from the Stationers Company, which was granted a royal-charter-backed monopoly on book printing int he 1500s. It was their royal charter that allowed the smashing of printing presses and such.
The way it was used at the time, copyright literally ment the right of the book publishers to copy and publish the book. The statute of anne established the modern meaning of the term, but didnt actually use it.
from "Copyright in Historical Perspective"
I'm not quite sure of the point you're making. Would you elaborate further please? :)
Just throwing in a few facts to my opinion that copyright is out of control.
Out of control? Copyright laws protect artists and creatives from theft. How is it out of control?
Which theft?
Theft is if you take away something that the other does not have anymore after the theft. If I take your sentence and post it somewhere else, then MORE people have it. Quite the contrary to theft.
Copyright is a monopoly (with all the bad things monopolies have) created with a purpose: The US constitution has put it down quite good.
If copyright does not work towards this, it's broken and needs to be fixed. That it is broken should be very very clearly visible, not only on the Amazon numbers I wrote above.
Think of it this way then.
You make a post here on Steemit. It's a good post and someone decides to copy it and post it with different tags, just five minutes after you post it.
A few whales see your post and you're making more than you've ever made on Steemit for any of your work to date.
The other post, copied from yours also attracts the attention of some whales, but they have more steempower than 'your' whales and the other guy's post makes double.
Should that money have been yours or the other guy's?
After all, you wrote the post, took time to research your data and the pictures. All he did was copy it and use different tags.
My point is, it is the Author/Creator's privilege where, when or whether to post their work, no one else's - ever.
5 minutes is not 70 years after death. I think you misunderstood it.
I am not for abolishing both authors moral right nor copyright.
I am a "society-maximist" though. So if copyright leads to less works available after time X, then it should stop at time X.
Besides: Nobody is writing a book today with the warm thought that in 100 years her great-great-grandchildren will be able to earn money with it, mostly because there are no great-great-grandchildren and because that possibility is extremely remote.
Hmm... I'm not yet dead but you said:
I could be mistaken but I assumed you meant taking anyone's work and posting it wherever you like is your right and not theft.
"meant taking anyone's work and posting it wherever you like is your right and not theft."
Its not theft. If it is your right is a debatable thing. Currently the majority says no.
After all, you "stole" all those words and sentences from someone else before you, so why should those after you not have the right you yourself exercised?
We are tiny spots of dust on the shoulders of giants.
Let's go back to my example:
Should that money have been yours or the other guy's?
Depends on your stance on copyright ;)
The poster has (and yes, should have imho) a monopoly right on the distribution and monetization. Definitely in the first 5 minutes ^^
And that is the point of copyright.
Thats the point of copyright as YOU understand it.
But that the author should get money is just the latest addition to copyright, after all that other stuff. In fact even today most authors have to pay if they want something published. It definitely is not the main point of copyright and not the intention of the creators of copyright.
To "And that is the point of copyright."
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/01/modern-copyright-was-built-fundamental-assumption-internet-reversed/