A few points I want to bring up concerning the Dallon piece. First, I think it is a little ironic that the Copyright Law of 1790 pretty much COPIES EXACTLY the Statute of St Anne.
Anne – “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.”
1790 – “An Act for the encouragement of Learning, by Securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.”
I know, its all in the subtle difference, but common. If you want to promote originality, be original.
Okay, all banter aside. I thought it was interesting how the early founders of copyright law believed that the security of a copyright would “encourage men of learning and genius to publish their writings.” Though reluctant to support a limited monopoly, the founders, namely Madison, believed that the ‘public benefit rationale’ trumped any sort of ‘natural property right’ rationale. I guess the argument goes something like this: Encourage learning by introducing books, and introduce more books by creating a copyright law that encourages the creation of new works through protection and compensation (wordy).
With this mindset, the 1790 law was born. Further, the 1830 House committee “appreciated” there was a correlation between strong copyright protection and the production of works. I’m not sure how much I believe this…at least in current times. This again might be an issue of changing times/technology, but I see indie bands as a counter-argument. These bands delve into the business unsure if they’ll ever see any sort of compensation; and often times they don’t (i.e. Radiohead, In Rainbows set-your-own-price release. Although I think they made a decent amount of money off that release). Yet they continue to produce unbelievable music. Then again that probably has less to do with copyright than it has to do with the industry itself. Nevertheless I think our generation as a whole is willing to take that chance. I don’t think that a stronger copyright law would encourage more production. As we’ve talked about in class, the law itself cannot be readily applied, and is thus not a serious factor. Nor do I think that a lack of copyright law would inhibit production. Maybe I’m naïve, but I just don’t see the correlation (check out Film, TV Music Composers Urge Copyright Law Change. I posted this article on delicious a few days ago. I guess it proves me wrong.)
Alright, enough babbling. I’ll leave you with the question I was posed with after reading Dallon’s piece. Do you think that copyright law, as originally intended, has indeed facilitated the production of new works, both in the ‘olden days’ and now?
Some Rights Reserved
This is a really interesting point. If copyright did not exist, I still believe the great works of the past and today would have surfaced. Copyright protects the original work, insuring its authenticity, but I do not believe it has been the fundamental influence in the making of such work. If there were never any creative works, there would have never been a call for copyright. I feel it is human nature to experiment and create and it isn’t until one faces profit and fame that the idea of copyright seems appealing. My humble opinion, see you tomorrow!
I completely agree with pretty much everything that Kfwhel said. I would say though, that as we saw in our readings for the past Tuesday, copyright, around the time of its creation, did encourage education. This goes back to the original purpose of copyright in America – to increase competition between booksellers, which in turn, increased the spread of culture and the education of a previously (mostly) uneducated society. I suppose that you could argue that the more educated population that developed as a result of the existence of the copyright then facilitated the production of new works that previously would have not been created due to a lack of stimulation and intellectual knowledge. So I guess as I look back on this, I have mixed feelings about the copyright law’s facilitation of the production of new works – perhaps originally it inadvertently was responsible for new works, but I think in today’s society, the copyright serves as protection for a work that would be created with or without copyrights.
-Ali
While I don’t know if I have the answer to the question you’ve posed, what I found most interesting about early copyright laws/acts is the apparent concern for the public good through the sharing of ideas. However, it seems there were other, more economic motives for the passing of these acts (sure, copyright law benefits the public and the author, but perhaps also the blossoming economy of the U.S. at the time?). Essentially, in the wording of the first copyright act of Connecticut in 1783, I’ve found what seems to be an obvious capitalistic undertone in their justification for such protection laws. For instance it says “every author should be secured in RECEIVING THE PROFITS…and such SECURITY [presumably, monetary security] may encourage men of learning and genius to publish their writing.” Additionally, North Carolina’s act says, “men should be encouraged to pursue useful knowledge by the hope of reward.” I have no doubt that during this time when the United States was carving out its own identity and niche as an independent, progressing republic, capitalistic and pioneer-esque attitudes had something to do with the passing of this act. Naturally, authors want to and should get rewarded for their works, but it seems to me the states’ motives were not only to protect and reward their authors, but also to instill and encourage capitalistic ideals in their citizens. Not that I’m suggesting any of this is positive or negative, just found it something to point out that the motives for these acts may not have been purely for the benefit of the author and the public. Perhaps I did a poor job of wording all of the above, but I just wanted to add my input (didn’t have enough to make it a full blog post).
First i dont agree with the belief that copyright encourages a more productive creative culture, so i agree with you there. Many great works of art and literature, especially older works now considered genius were made without the presupposition of monetary gain. It is not as if the only reason people create is so that they can make money, i believe that is the work of the market imposing its sense of universal values (ie everything is worth something and is property). However i do believe in an artists right to there own work, not in terms of a monopolistic control over the dissemination of their work, but if someone is using there work and making money, the author should get a cut. Right?
I meant to comment on this earlier.. but how about the fact that music publishers are demanding to be paid every time an artist’s 30-second music sample is played? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10355448-93.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20) There are already two fees paid for the songs: synchronization and performance fee. Now, I don’t see how previewing a song–be it through a youtube video or a 30-sec sample–would be considered a performance. I think it’s a weak case to demand for more charges, especially since the point is to SAMPLE the music. This makes it seem like authors/artists nowadays are just trying to squeeze money out of every little detail pertaining to their work rather than take appreciate that their creation is credited properly.