[A2k] Setting The History of Copyright Straight

[Michael S. Hart]

Setting The History of Copyright Straight

Or at least straighter.


While I know hundreds of times more about copyright than I had
ever wanted to know, I do not consider myself an expert, yet I
must speak up when the acknowledged experts believe what I see
as lies and propaganda written by The Stationers, WIPO and all
those who passed in between then and now.

For the record, I state that The Stationers, and predecessors,
had a virtual monopoly on our written history.

This monopoly was shattered by The Gutenberg Press.

The reason was that since virtually all scribes fell under the
protection, and thus the control, of royal, military, and also
the religious powers of the times, that power, and the scribes
themselves, were pretty much the ultimate in censors, controls
and all other biases, slants, distortions, etc., of history.

Our history.

Only it wasn't.

It was their history, not as they saw it, as they wanted it.

///

Thus, we are totally at the not so tender mercies of those who
had this control, and that includes the first copyright laws.

Anyone who doesn't understand the troubles times of Queen Anne
when she began her reign simply cannot understand the pressure
under which she finally gave in to, after 250 years of monarch
after monarch after monarch, including Cromwell, refusing!

Anne was in deep trouble, not that Henry VIII, Elizabeth, etc.
had not been, but her critics were so vociferous through media
provided by The Gutenberg Press, that she felt she had to stop
their freedom of speech.

Do not forget that from The Statute of Anne to George III, who
was perhaps the most famous of all royal censors, was only the
period of 50 years. . .censorship was a big thing in the U.K.,
from Queen Anne onwards.

Such trends should be obvious to all interested parties.



What Happened in 1710?


>From today's perspective, the most important thing to happen as
a result of The Statute of Anne was that the publishers, known,
in the U.K., at least, as The Stationers, got back much of that
monopoly they had enjoyed naturally up to The Gutenberg Press.

However, this was no natural monopoly.

This was a government sponsored monopoly.

Since The Stationers could not compete with The Gutenberg Press
they made it illegal.

If you don't think this actually took place, read about how The
Stationers literlly broke up or burned The Gutenberg Presses of
their competitors. . .or did both.

This was no simple law, it was a counter-revolution!!!

A revolution against free speech on the one hand, and progress,
on the other.

The trouble is that we are still stuck with the result today!!!

See:  "The Law of Unplanned Consquences."

This did not, as Mr. Stallman claims, ruin The Stationers, but,
rather it allowed them to legally regain their monopoly, after,
albeit, after 250 years, but they did regain it.

After The Statute of Anne there were only 12 printing presses a
person could go to in the U.K. to have anything printed at all,
AND THEY WERE ALL IN LONDON!!!

If you read anything at all about those times, you understand a
little about how different Londoners were, and how much control
they had of all U.K. society.

All other presses were made illegal, smashed, burned, etc., and
the only exceptions were the two student edition presses at the
colleges of Cambridge and Oxford.

Now, perhaps, just perhaps, you might understand a little more,
just a little, about how "The Pamphleteers" were a force in the
revolution that created The United States.



More Details


Richard Stallman and a few other acknowledged copyright experts
have recently raised a few issues about how our copyright laws,
and those of most of The Western World, got started; whether or
not The Stationers Guild, later The Stationers Company, gained,
lost, or broke even when The Statute of Anne took place [1710].

To analyze this watershed event, we must examine events from an
assortment of periods both before and after this statute.

Obviously, at least to anyone who is willing to read histories,
the various collections of secular and religious scribes had an
almost complete monopoly on what was written down, back all the
way to the dawn of recorded history.

As with nearly any history, it was written by the insiders, the
people in power, and very little mention was made of the others
and particularly of their points of view. . .there were not any
other points of view when it came down to it, other than royal,
military or religious powers throughout most of our history.

The ancient Greeks are one of our best counterexamples, and the
fact that we use their examples so often might actually mean it
is overly influenced our viewpoint of so many histories that in
most cases were, at best, benevolent dictatorships.


What Took Place

What actually took place in nearly all of these was that scribe
circles were pretty much under the control of the above list of
religious, royal and military leaders, and in rare cases, among
the politicians of the time, who may not have been all that far
above the level of the politicians we have today.



What Did NOT Take Place


What all those who either pretend The Stationers gave up a very
valuable commodity to the authors, or who have been fooled by a
pretense that they gave up anything, what these persons believe
is that The Stationers gave up very valuable reprint rights.


Here is what they actually gave up around 1710.


For this example I am going to use a hypothetical book that was
published just after midnight on January 1, 1710.

On the average [50%] it would be out of print January 1, 1715.

Better seller, [25%] would be out of print January 1, 1720.

Even better, [87.5%] would be out of print January 1, 1725.

Let's say the author of this hypothetical book was 35 in 1710.

The author would be 50 by January 1, 1725.

The average lifespan in those days wasn't terribly long.

This is important because The Stationers were careful to insist
that the author still be alive to have the right to reprint the
materials under The Statute of Anne.  This right was not willed
or inherited and it could not be sold, even though copyright in
the original period could be tranferred from one Stationer to a
different member of The Stationers. . .very insider trading.

These two probabilities, one, that the book would still sell in
quantities large enough to warrant still being in print, two, a
requirement that the author be the only one who should benefit,
no family or assigned heirs, combined to the effect that not an
awful lot of authors ever were entitled to reprint their work.

Even moreso was the fact that the original publisher would sell
off their remaining copies at a significant discount at the end
of their print runs, just as they do now, just decreasing value
for any possible reprint by the author.

Even worse was the fact that the only people the author had for
republishing the works were The Stationers, who were easily not
the easiest group of businessmen to make a deal with.



The Result


The result was that the vast majority of books were never quite
able to be republished by their authors for any combinations of
of these reasons, not to mention that before they expired their
health may have been declining for years, and it was only they,
not their families, who had the right to republish.

Then, as now, about 90% of all copyrighted materials were in an
out of print status after such a period.

Add in all the other reasons listed above, and the result is an
additional percentage that came all to close to 100%.

The Stationers really gave up very little.

In most cases, the vast majority, they gave up nothing at all.