I’ve heard arguments for both sides and i think it’s more complicated then simply yes or no. what do you guys think?

  • duncesplayed@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The original intention of copyright was the same as that of patents: To encourage the creation of new works by making it possible to monetize them through licensing

    Not that it really changes much of your larger point, but that’s not really true. The original intention of copyright comes from the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 and the Statute of Anne 1710 and neither of those was intended to encourage the creation of new works. On the contrary, they were intended to discourage the creation of new works. The problem at the time is that people were printing too many new works, many of which were considered a threat to the monarchy and/or the church. Copyright forced all printers to be registered with the Stationers’ Company initially (a crown-monitored guild) and later the crown itself, to aid in censorship and government control of the press.

    • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Statute of Anne 1710 gives this justification: […]for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books.

      There are many precursors, but I don’t think they can be called copyright in the modern sense. All guilds had monopolies which they defended at the expense of society. It was a feature of feudalism that the elites sought to prevent change to preserve their positions.

      But yes, copyright is the major remaining limitation on the freedom of the (printing) press.

      (It’s interesting how many of the demands to regulate AI are parallel to the controls on the printing press, in the first few centuries after its introduction in Europe.)