Comments on: Future of Copyright: Roundtable 2 - Business and economic drivers http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/24/future-of-copyright-roundtable-2-business-and-economic-drivers/ Protecting your rights in the digital age Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:51:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Suw http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/24/future-of-copyright-roundtable-2-business-and-economic-drivers/#comment-7722 Suw Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:26:32 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/24/future-of-copyright-roundtable-2-business-and-economic-drivers/#comment-7722 As I said, these were verbatim notes, so very much 'as seen'. Or more acurately, 'as heard'. As for attribution, that's very difficult with a room of 20 people all talking pretty fast, taking turns, and interrupting each other. It was a very lively discussion and taking notes was very hard. In an ideal world, I would have edited them all up into a nice report, but sadly time was and is at a premium. You seem to be assuming that a 'computer nerd' made the point about authorship, but in actual fact the strongest critics of the concept of authorship came from artists. As I said, these were verbatim notes, so very much ‘as seen’. Or more acurately, ‘as heard’. As for attribution, that’s very difficult with a room of 20 people all talking pretty fast, taking turns, and interrupting each other. It was a very lively discussion and taking notes was very hard.

In an ideal world, I would have edited them all up into a nice report, but sadly time was and is at a premium.

You seem to be assuming that a ‘computer nerd’ made the point about authorship, but in actual fact the strongest critics of the concept of authorship came from artists.

]]> By: P Miller http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/24/future-of-copyright-roundtable-2-business-and-economic-drivers/#comment-7716 P Miller Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:08:47 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/24/future-of-copyright-roundtable-2-business-and-economic-drivers/#comment-7716 It's hard to make any sense of this garbled braindump. A little time editing it and attributing comments would have been well spent. <blockquote>There’s a mystification, this idea that the artists is the author of the works they produce, but we’re always looking at co-production.</blockquote> How convenient! When computer nerds adopt the rhetoric of lit.nerds (eg, structuralism), all it demonstrates is how they fail to value creativity. It’s hard to make any sense of this garbled braindump. A little time editing it and attributing comments would have been well spent.

There’s a mystification, this idea that the artists is the author of the works they produce, but we’re always looking at co-production.

How convenient!

When computer nerds adopt the rhetoric of lit.nerds (eg, structuralism), all it demonstrates is how they fail to value creativity.

]]> By: Mark Perkins http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/24/future-of-copyright-roundtable-2-business-and-economic-drivers/#comment-6055 Mark Perkins Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:05:54 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/24/future-of-copyright-roundtable-2-business-and-economic-drivers/#comment-6055 The view that publishers/ book sellers were initially in favor of the Statute of Anne is very wrong, it was the in the century that followed that they started to (ab)use it. "Usually people start off with 1710 an the Statute of Anne, which was the first time there was a statute giving proprietary rights for the printing of books. It was largely promoted by the business interests - book sellers." While people usually start with the Statute of Anne, this is fundamentally wrong. This history of IP rights goes back to Royal Patents (both in UK and Continental Europe) for printing books, which then expanded to include state control of what was published. In the UK this evolved into a Royal Patent for the Stationers Company which was a state granted monopoly to a private company (nothing to do with authors). Both in the UK and post revolutionary France copyright law was introduced to oppose this centralised monopoly and state censorship. The view that publishers/ book sellers were initially in favor of the Statute of Anne is very wrong, it was the in the century that followed that they started to (ab)use it.

“Usually people start off with 1710 an the Statute of Anne, which was the first time there was a statute giving proprietary rights for the printing of books. It was largely promoted by the business interests - book sellers.”

While people usually start with the Statute of Anne, this is fundamentally wrong. This history of IP rights goes back to Royal Patents (both in UK and Continental Europe) for printing books, which then expanded to include state control of what was published. In the UK this evolved into a Royal Patent for the Stationers Company which was a state granted monopoly to a private company (nothing to do with authors). Both in the UK and post revolutionary France copyright law was introduced to oppose this centralised monopoly and state censorship.

]]>