Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Government News Your Rights Online

We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago 152

Posted by kdawson
from the intelligent-debate dept.
An anonymous reader writes "James Boyle has a blog post comparing the recording industry's arguments in 1909 to those of 2009, with some lovely Google book links to the originals. Favorite quote: 'Many and numerous classes of public benefactors continue ceaselessly to pour forth their flood of useful ideas, adding to the common stock of knowledge. No one regards it as immoral or unethical to use these ideas and their authors do not suffer themselves to be paraded by sordid interests before legislative committees uttering bombastic speeches about their rights and representing themselves as the objects of "theft" and "piracy."' Industry flaks were more impressive 100 years ago. In that debate the recording industry was the upstart, battling the entrenched power of the publishers of musical scores. Also check out the cameo appearance by John Philip Sousa, comparing sound recordings to slavery. Ironically, among the subjects mentioned as clearly not the subject of property rights were business methods and seed varieties." Boyle concludes: "...one looks back at these transcripts and compares them to today's hearings — with vacuous rantings from celebrities and the bloviation of bad economics and worse legal theory from one industry representative after another — it is hard not to feel a sense of nostalgia. In 1900, it appears, we were better at understanding that copyright was a law that regulated technology, a law with constitutional restraints, that property rights were not absolute and that the public would not automatically be served by extending rights out to infinity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago

Comments Filter:
  • by bonze (1578437) on Saturday July 18 2009, @03:22PM (#28742779)
    Decades ago, when reading Jerome Tuccile's "It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand," I thought that Galambosianism--founded on the principle that rights in ideas should be private property in perpetuity, and subject to royalties for all uses--was just another of Tuccile's hilarious inventions.

    No, the reason you never heard of the all-too-real Andrew Galambos' [wikipedia.org] absolutarian IP concepts is because he had his lecture attendees sign an NDA! Would Galambos compromise his principles by giving away his startling revelations or permitting the great unwashed unrecompensed access to his revolutionary concepts? NAY!

  • by tylersoze (789256) on Saturday July 18 2009, @04:07PM (#28743029)
    Wow, I didn't realize there were that many 100+ year old Slashdot readers pining for the early 1900s.

To be wise, the only thing you really need to know is when to say "I don't know."

Working...