We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago 152
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."
A different time, a different place. (Score:2, Informative)
The phonograph of 1910 would set you back $50-$250 good-as-gold dollars.
Why else do you think public performance rights -
the coin-in-the-slot nickelodeon - became the real sticking point for musicians and composers?
The phonograph record or cylinder of those days was for all practical purposes a rental.
Only the most expensive players would have had separate - acoustically linked - tonearms and horns ["speakers'] and a diamond or perhaps carbide-tipped stylus.
Edison used custom pressings and a set up like this in blind "tone tests" with live musicians and singers to demonstrate "hi-fi" reproduction.
Re:Not a troll. (Score:5, Informative)
It's a troll. Thomas McCaulay's speech was effective and the amendments to the law under consideration were adopted. The era of endless copyrights didn't begin until 1976 [wikipedia.org] and we are only now realizing what damage it's done. The various copyright extension acts also retroactively protect works already produced - which could not in any way serve the "promote progress" goal.
Oh, and Thomas MaCaulay was a Brit was speaking in the British House of Commons about a British law. He was renowned for his eloquent and thoughtful speeches. He later traveled, wrote the History of England and other works, was made Baron Macaulay and eventually of course, died.