Copyright history. Part 4: US and Libraries
Continued.
The first part is the Black Death .
The second part is Bloody Mary .
The third part - Monopoly dies ... and is reborn .
As we saw in previous articles, copyright was not invented in the United States. The founding fathers brought it with them to their new homeland. Nevertheless, not everyone welcomed the monopoly on ideas. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
')
In the end, a compromise was reached, and the US Constitution was the first document, which stated the reasons why the copyright was established (and patents). This is a very simple and straightforward formulation:
That is, the monopoly was not introduced so that representatives of some profession, whether authors or publishers, earn money. Instead, it was clearly stated: the only justification for the existence of a monopoly was that it maximized the accessibility of culture and knowledge in society.
Thus, copyright (in the United States, and today and throughout the world) is a compromise between public access to the fruits of culture and the public interest in creating these fruits. It is very important. In particular, note that it is society that is the only legitimate entity in whose interests copyright laws should be written. Monopolists who profit from copyright are not and the right to vote does not have, just like residents of the city where the military base is located, have no right to decide whether this base is important for national security or not.
It is useful to recall this formulation from the American Constitution more often, since many often mistakenly believe that copyright exists so that authors can earn. This is not the case and has never been the case in any other country in the world.
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, books were still very expensive, mainly due to the monopoly of copyright. The collections of books were only in the homes of rich people, and they sometimes generously gave them to read to ordinary people.
Publishers strongly resented this and they sought to pass a law prohibiting reading books for which the reader did not pay. They tried to ban public libraries before they even appeared! “Do you read for free? Yes, you steal from the author, take out the crust of bread from the mouth of his children! "
But the parliament had a different point of view, seeing the positive impact of reading on society. He was not worried about the plight of the monopolists (according to the monopolists themselves), but about what the rich decided who and what could be read. It seemed to parliamentarians that it would be useful for society if opportunities become equal for all, and they decided to create public libraries that could be used by both the poor and the rich.
Hearing this, the publishers are completely enraged. “You can't let everyone read books for free! After all, after this, never a single book will be sold again! No author can earn a living! No one will ever write a single book if we adopt such a law! ”
Nevertheless, parliamentarians in the 19th century were much wiser than they are today, and did not listen to the monopolists' cries. Parliament firmly believed that free access to knowledge and culture was more useful for society than the monopoly of copyright, and in 1849 the law establishing public libraries was passed. The first library opened in 1850.
And, as you know, since then there has not been written a single book. Well, or the prophecies of the publishers that creativity would cease without a strict monopoly, were then exactly the same lie as they are now.
(Note: in some European countries, authors and translators receive a small reward for each book issued by the library to the reader. This is not at all a compensation for the alleged loss of profits from breaking the monopoly, but a national cultural grant that is distributed among the authors in proportion to their popularity. In addition, such grants began to appear only in the XX century, much later than the emergence of public libraries) .
In Germany, there was no intellectual monopoly at all. Many historians believe that it was the rapid spread of knowledge that caused the industrial and scientific boom, thanks to which Germany occupied the leading position in the world in these areas. Knowledge could be spread very cheaply and quickly, so the example of Germany confirmed the correctness of British parliamentarians - the public benefit from free access to culture and knowledge outweighs the benefit from the monopoly of publishers.
The fifth part: non-property rights .
The first part is the Black Death .
The second part is Bloody Mary .
The third part - Monopoly dies ... and is reborn .
As we saw in previous articles, copyright was not invented in the United States. The founding fathers brought it with them to their new homeland. Nevertheless, not everyone welcomed the monopoly on ideas. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
')
If nature has created something less suitable for private property than anything else, then this is an act of thinking power, called the idea, which a person can have only as long as he saves it for himself; but at the very moment when it is announced, it invades the possession of everyone, and the one who received it cannot refuse to possess it. Its other characteristic feature is that no one is deprived of the fact that any other person possesses it entirely. The one who perceives an idea from me, receives knowledge himself, without diminishing mine; as one who lights his candle from mine, gains light without leaving me in darkness. The fact that ideas should be freely distributed from one to another throughout the world in the name of a person’s moral and mutual instruction and improvement of their well-being seemed to be intentionally and generously provided by nature when she gave them the ability to spread like fire in space, so that at one point their density does not decrease, and also made them similar to the air in which we breathe, move, and physically exist, for it is impossible to sharpen them in a prison or to acquire them in exclusive ownership. So, inventions by their very nature can not be the subject of property.
In the end, a compromise was reached, and the US Constitution was the first document, which stated the reasons why the copyright was established (and patents). This is a very simple and straightforward formulation:
... to promote the development of science and useful crafts ...
That is, the monopoly was not introduced so that representatives of some profession, whether authors or publishers, earn money. Instead, it was clearly stated: the only justification for the existence of a monopoly was that it maximized the accessibility of culture and knowledge in society.
Thus, copyright (in the United States, and today and throughout the world) is a compromise between public access to the fruits of culture and the public interest in creating these fruits. It is very important. In particular, note that it is society that is the only legitimate entity in whose interests copyright laws should be written. Monopolists who profit from copyright are not and the right to vote does not have, just like residents of the city where the military base is located, have no right to decide whether this base is important for national security or not.
It is useful to recall this formulation from the American Constitution more often, since many often mistakenly believe that copyright exists so that authors can earn. This is not the case and has never been the case in any other country in the world.
Meanwhile in the United Kingdom ...
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, books were still very expensive, mainly due to the monopoly of copyright. The collections of books were only in the homes of rich people, and they sometimes generously gave them to read to ordinary people.
Publishers strongly resented this and they sought to pass a law prohibiting reading books for which the reader did not pay. They tried to ban public libraries before they even appeared! “Do you read for free? Yes, you steal from the author, take out the crust of bread from the mouth of his children! "
But the parliament had a different point of view, seeing the positive impact of reading on society. He was not worried about the plight of the monopolists (according to the monopolists themselves), but about what the rich decided who and what could be read. It seemed to parliamentarians that it would be useful for society if opportunities become equal for all, and they decided to create public libraries that could be used by both the poor and the rich.
Hearing this, the publishers are completely enraged. “You can't let everyone read books for free! After all, after this, never a single book will be sold again! No author can earn a living! No one will ever write a single book if we adopt such a law! ”
Nevertheless, parliamentarians in the 19th century were much wiser than they are today, and did not listen to the monopolists' cries. Parliament firmly believed that free access to knowledge and culture was more useful for society than the monopoly of copyright, and in 1849 the law establishing public libraries was passed. The first library opened in 1850.
And, as you know, since then there has not been written a single book. Well, or the prophecies of the publishers that creativity would cease without a strict monopoly, were then exactly the same lie as they are now.
(Note: in some European countries, authors and translators receive a small reward for each book issued by the library to the reader. This is not at all a compensation for the alleged loss of profits from breaking the monopoly, but a national cultural grant that is distributed among the authors in proportion to their popularity. In addition, such grants began to appear only in the XX century, much later than the emergence of public libraries) .
Meanwhile in Germany ...
In Germany, there was no intellectual monopoly at all. Many historians believe that it was the rapid spread of knowledge that caused the industrial and scientific boom, thanks to which Germany occupied the leading position in the world in these areas. Knowledge could be spread very cheaply and quickly, so the example of Germany confirmed the correctness of British parliamentarians - the public benefit from free access to culture and knowledge outweighs the benefit from the monopoly of publishers.
The fifth part: non-property rights .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/162123/
All Articles