Copyright was never about the protection of artists or authors, it was designed for publishers to gain and keep control of knowledge, ideas and entertainment. For well over 500 years, several industries have tried the same tricks and rhetoric to keep control of the flow of knowledge, ideas and entairtainment.
"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship."
― George Bernard Shaw
Catholic Church's prohibition on Copying Books
During the middle ages, when you wanted a book copied, you would go to a scribe at a monastery, and they would copy it for you, by hand. No copy would be perfect; every scribe would fix spelling and grammatical errors while making the copy, as well as introduce some new ones.
Also, since all scribes were employed (controlled) by the Catholic Church, there was quite some limitation to what books would be reproduced. Not only was the monetary cost of a single book astronomical (one copy of The Bible required 170 calfskins or 300 sheepskins), but there was also a limit to what teachings would be reproduced by a person of the clergy.
Nothing contradicting the Vatican was even remotely conceivable. In 1350,
Black Death was sweeping through Europe with high casualty rates. By 1450, the monasteries were still not repopulated, and the major cost of having a book copied was the services of copying industry. In comparison, the astronomical costs of the raw materials were a minor expense in ordering a book.
When the printing press arrived in 1453, scribe-craft became a profession in danger of becoming obsolete. The Catholic Church tried to ban the printing press with increasingly harsh punishments, even including the death penalty for using a printing press to copy books like the Bible.
The Catholic Church, which had previously controlled all information (and particularly held a cornered market on the scarcity of information), went on a rampage. They could no longer control what information would be reproduced, could no longer control what people knew, and lobbied kings across Europe for a ban on this technology which wrestled control of the populace from them.
On January 13, 1535, in France, a law was enacted at the request of the Catholic Church, a law which forced the closure of all bookshops and stipulated death penalty by hanging for anybody using a printing press.
This law was utterly ineffective. Pirate print shops lined the country’s borders like a pearl necklace and pirate literature poured into France through contraband distribution channels built by ordinary people hungry for more things to read.
Many arguments were used for justification by the Catholic Church including, “How will the monks get paid?" Still, even the death penalty couldn’t stop the copying. And, of course, it wasn’t about the payment of monks, but about control over ideas, knowledge and culture.
The Catholic Church eventually failed in this endeavor, but not before much blood had been spilled in trying to prevent the accurate, cheap and quick distribution of ideas, knowledge and culture. This paved the way for Renaissance and the Protestant movement.
Advent of Copyright
After ascending to England's throne,
Queen Mary I persecuted protestants relentlessly, publicly executing several hundred, earning her the nickname Bloody Mary.
Watching how France had failed miserably in banning the printing press, even under threat of hanging, she realized another solution was needed to stop distribution of heretic materials. She devised a monopoly where the
London printing guild would get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It was a very lucrative monopoly for the guild, who would be working hard to maintain the monopoly and the favor of the Queen’s censors. This merger of corporate and governmental powers turned out to be effective in suppressing free speech and political-religious dissent.
On May 4, 1557, Queen Mary I awarded the printing monopoly, naming it "copyright". It was widely successful as a censorship instrument. The printing guild (Stationers) worked as a private censorship bureau,
burning unlicensed books, impounding or destroying monopoly-infringing printing presses, and denying politically unsuitable material the light of day. It was a win-win for the repressive Queen and for the Stationers with a lucrative monopoly on their hands. This alliance between the printing industry and British government worked well to suppress dissent.
The copyright monopoly was instituted as a censorship mechanism by Mary I in 1557 to prevent people from discussing or disseminating Protestant material. After Mary’s death in 1558, her successor, Elizabeth I, was just as happy to keep the monopoly, but this time to prevent people from discussing or disseminating Catholic material. Neither the profitable Printing guild nor the censoring Crown had any desire to abolish it.
During the 1600s, Parliament gradually tried to wrestle control of the censorship from the Crown.In 1641, Parliament
abolished the
court where copyright cases had been tried, the infamous
Star Chamber. In effect, this turned violation of the copyright monopoly into a non-convictable crime, much like jaywalking in Sweden today: while it was still technically a crime, and techically illegal, you could not be tried for it and there was no punishment.
As a result,
creativity in Britain soared into the stratosphere. Unfortunately, this wasn’t what Parliament had had in mind at all.
In 1643, the copyright censorship monopoly was reinstituted with a vengeance. It included demands for pre-registrations of author, printer and publisher with the London Company of Stationers, a requirement for
publication license before publishing anything, the right for the Stationers to impound, burn and destroy unlicensed equipment and books, and arrests and harsh punishments for anybody violating the copyright censorship.
In 1688, during something called the
Glorious Revolution, the Parliament’s composition changed radically to mostly people who had previously been at the business end of censorship and weren’t all too keen for that to continue. Therefore, The British Parliament let the copyright monopoly expire in 1695, and the Stationers lost a very lucrative monopoly.
After the Stationers Monopoly ended in 1695, there was no copyright, none, for the whole of 15 years. Creativity soared again, and historians claim that many of the documents that eventually led to the founding of the United States of America were written in this time.
Unfortunately, the London Company of Stationers were not happy at all with the change of status quo, where they had lost their lucrative monopoly. They gathered their families on the stairs of Parliament and begged to get it back for those 15 years.
It is noteworthy that authors did not ask for the copyright monopoly: the printers and distributors did. There was never an argument along the lines that nothing would be written without copyright; the argument was that nothing would be printed without copyright. This is something else entirely.
Parliament, having just abolished censorship, was keen on not reinstituting a central point of control with a possible abuse potential. The Stationers’ responded by suggesting that writers should “own” their works. In doing so, they killed three birds with one stone.
- Parliament would be assured that there was no central point of control which could be used to censor.
- the publishers would retain a monopoly for all intents and purposes, as the writers would have nobody to sell their works to but the publishing industry.
- the monopoly would be legally classified as Anglo-Saxon Common Law rather than the weaker Case Law, and therefore given much stronger legal protection.
They publishing lobby got as they wanted, and the new copyright monopoly was re-enacted in 1709, taking effect on April 10, 1710. This was the copyright lobby’s first major victory. What we see at this point in history is copyright in its unspun form: a monopoly with it's heritage from censorship where artists and authors were not even considered, but where it was always for the publishers’s profit.
The Stationers continued to impound, destroy and burn others’ printing presses for a long time, despite not having the right any longer. This Abuse of power lasted until the pivotal
Entick vs. Carrington case in 1765, when yet another of these raids for "unlicensed"(unwanted) authors had taken place. In the verdict of this court case in 1765, it was firmly established that no right may be denied to any citizen if not expressly forbidden by law, and that no authority may take itself any right not explicitly given by law.
Printing Press tries to prohibit Lending Books
Books were still quite expensive in UK, mostly because of the copyright monopoly. Book collections were only seen in rich men’s homes, and some started to benevolently lend books to the common people.
The publishers went mad about this, and lobbied Parliament to outlaw the reading of a book without first paying for their own copy. They tried to outlaw the public library before the library had even been invented. “Reading without paying first? That’s stealing from the authors! Taking the bread right out of their childrens’ mouths!”
But Parliament took a different stance, seeing the positive impact of reading on society. The problem perceived by Parliament was not the self-described eternal plight of the copyright monopolists, but the problem that rich men in society dictated who would read and who wouldn’t. It seemed beneficial to society to level the playing field: to create public libraries, accessible to poor and rich alike.
copyright monopolists now strong in their almost religious belief that they had a right to dictate how people could read, tried to ban the lending of books. You couldn’t allow people to read without paying for their own copy, they argued. When politicians considered public libraries, the monopolist publishers went absolutely ballistic: "You can’t let anybody read any book for free! Not a single book will be sold ever again! Nobody will be able to live off their writing! No author will write a single book ever again if you pass this law!"
Parliament in the 1800s was much wiser than today, and saw the copyright monopolists’ tantrum for what it was. Parliament took a strong stance that public access to knowledge and culture had a larger benefit to society than a monopolist being paid every time a book was opened, and so in 1849, the
law instituting public libraries in the UK was passed. The first public library opened in 1850.
And as we know, either not a single book has been written ever since, OR the copyright monopolists’ rant about nothing being created without a strong monopoly was as false then as it is when repeated today.
Germany had no copyright monopoly during this time. Several historians argue that this led to the rapid proliferation of knowledge that enabled Germany to take the industrial lead over the United Kingdom — knowledge could be spread cheaply and efficiently. So in a way, Germany’s leapfrogging of the United Kingdom proved British Parliament right: the national interest of access to culture and knowledge does supersede the monopoly interest of the publishers.
In the late 1800s, the publishers’ ever-strengthening copyright monopoly had lopsided the creators’ chances of making any revenue off of their works. Basically, all the money went to publishers and distributors, and creators were left starving, due to the copyright monopoly.
By the late 1800s, the publishers’ ever-strengthening copyright monopoly had lopsided the creators’ chances of making any revenue off of their works. Basically, all the money went to publishers and distributors, and creators were left starving, due to the copyright monopoly. The
Berne Convention was signed in 1886. It said that countries should respect the copyrights of other countries, and an agency — BIRPI — was set up as watchdog. This agency has mutated, grown and swelled and is today WIPO, which still oversees the Berne Convention, which has also swelled, mutated and been hijacked twice.
At this point, there are four aspects of the copyright monopoly
- One, the commercial monopoly to fixations of a work. This is the original monopoly granted to London’s printing guild in exchange for censorship.
- Two, the commercial monopoly to performances of a work. If somebody performs a work publicly on a for-profit stage, the monopoly holder has a right to demand money.
- Three, the droit moral to be acknowledged as creator. The right for an author or artist to be acknowledged as creator of his or her work, acting as protection against counterfeiting and against plagiarism.
- Four, the droit moral to veto an improper performance of the work. If an artist feels that a performance slights the work or the name of the artist, they have the right to deny that performance the light of day.
Intelectual Property in the 20th Century
After World War 2, it was clear to politicians that the United States would no longer be able to maintain its economic dominance by producing anything industrially valuable or viable.The president of Pfizer, Edmund Pratt, had a furious op-ed piece in a New York Times on July 9, 1982 titled “Stealing from the Mind”. It fumed about how third world countries were stealing from them. (By this, he referred to making medicine from their own raw materials with their own factories using their own knowledge in their own time for their own people, who were frequently dying from horrible but curable third-world conditions). Many committees were formed and tasked with coming up with the answer to one crucial question: How can the US maintain its global dominance if (or when) it is not producing anything competitively valuable?
Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations, headed by Edmund Pratt came up with the answer:
the solution to "not producing anything of value" in international trade was to redefine “producing”, “anything”, and “value” in an international political context, and to do so by bullying.
It was so daring and provocative that nobody was really sure whether to try it out: the US would try linking its trade negotiations and foreign policy. Any country who didn’t sign lopsided “free trade” deals that heavily redefined value would be branded in a myriad of bad ways, the most notable being the
“Special 301 watchlist”. This list is supposed to be a list of nations not respecting copyright enough. A majority of the world’s population is on it, among them Canada.
The entire US Intclectual Property Monopoly Industry tried to join World Intelectual Property Organization, for legitimacy and hostship for a new trade agreement. However, WIPO saw right through their scheme and more or less kicked them right out the door. WIPO was not created to give any country that kind of advantage over the rest of the world. They were outraged at the shameless attempt to hijack the copyright and patent monopolies.
So the US monopoly industry consortium joined the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and started it's underhanded deals. A major process was initiated whereby about half of the participating countries in GATT were tricked, coerced or bullied into agreeing with a new agreement under GATT, an agreement which would lock in the Berne Convention and strengthen the US industry considerably on top of that by redefining “producing”, “thing” and “value”. This agreement was called
TRIPs. Upon ratification of the TRIPs agreement, the GATT body was renamed WTO, the World Trade Organization.
TRIPs has been under considerable fire for how it is constructed to enrich the rich, at the expense of the poor, and when they can’t pay with money, they pay with their health and sometimes their lives. It forbids third world countries from making medicine in their own factories from their own raw materials with their own knowledge for their own people. After several near-revolts, some concessions were made in TRIPs to “allow” for this.
After US won the Cold War, the United States and Russia started negotiating. former enemies who kept each other at nuclear gunpoint, sitting at the negotiating table 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, through sandstorm and blizzard. The United States could have demanded and gotten anything. To allow Russia admission into the WTO, the United States demanded that the Russia-legal music shop AllofMP3 should be closed. This shop sold copies of MP3 files and was classified as a radio station in Russia, paying appropriate license fees and was fully legal.
So basically, USA asked it's mortal enemy USSR at the negotiation table to close a record store. That’s how much importance there is to these Intelectual Property Monopolies.
Copyright, the new Religion
Powerful people will use their power to keep their power. Today, Copyright defenders are attacking anybody who even questions copyright, with an emotional and aggressive fervor: calling the reformists as pirates, thieves, freetards et cetera. In another time and place, heretics would have been the word of choice. They are deeply uncomfortable by things being questioned that cannot and must not be questioned, and are showing emotional reactions that are identical to that of the Catholic Church when the printing press arrived.
The Catholic Church had instituted excommunication (exile) as penalty for unauthorized reading. They had persuaded France to enact the death penalty for using a printer to produce books. They were really tenacious about preventing the spread of knowledge. In the end, that was also what undid their stranglehold on the populace: everybody learned how to read, and could question their word for themselves.
Just like you can’t understand the joy of reading, until you've experienced it; you can't understand the joy of sharing, until you've experienced it. Everybody should experience what the copyright industry is trying to kill. Sharing is caring, and copyright is the opposite.
When the printing press and libraries arrived, the middlemen proclaimed the death of culture. History repeats itself. If we get rid of the middlemen, or limit their monopolies, artists and culture will flourish.
How shall the artists get paid?
If you are asking yourself this question, know that
90% of the money from a traditional sale goes to the publishing corporation, not the artist. Why should you pay 10x the ammount, the creator of the work gets ? Also, did you ever stop to consider the absolute lunacy of the current copyright laws, where works are copyrighted decades after the author has DIED? It is now infringing on our fundamental rights, and as human biengs, we're not prepared to give up those human rights for a multinational corporation to boost their profit.
In the 21st century, Computer is the copier, and Internet is the publisher. Today, Internet IS Speech, Assembly, Association and the Press. If a corporation can’t sustain a business without having these rights limited, then that corporation deserves to go out of business:
A business that does not adapt & innovate for the needs of it's generation, will go out of business in that generation.
