Capitalists? The original inventors of letters patents were monarchies. But I guess socialists never were very good at history.
But please, explain how one can be called a capitalist for passing anti-capitalist laws when what they're doing and what they allegedly are is in conflict here. Or is this one of those koans like the peaceful arsonists?
And when the monarchies lost power in the 17th century (and copying became easy), copyright went away. The stationers who had the Royally granted monopoly were upset and pushed the government, in the form of Parliament to give them back their monopoly. Eventually they bribed the elected part of government to do just that and then the unelected part of government pushed back, with a 14+14 year limit on the monopoly as well as the publishers having to put the works in a famous library, register the work and such, as they considered that art should eventually benefit everyone as almost all art is built on the shoulders of those who went before. The idea of those unelected was to advance learning by granting a limited monopoly on the understanding that works would enter the public domain after a limited time. The writers of the American Constitution thought it was a good idea and incorporated it into the Constitution for "the sciences and arts", another way to say advanced learning and since the publishers have been pushing to make that limited term as long and broad as possible, often by paying for people to get elected. So current copyright is mainly a result of capitalists using their capital to influence lawmakers.
Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:5, Insightful)
The end result of unfettered capitalism is wealthy organisations eating everything and everyone else.
The power of wealth must be reigned in.
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
Weird that you blame "capitalism" for an unnatural right to imaginary property invented by the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Weird that it was capitalists who used government as a tool to create imaginary property for themselves. Oh wait, no. That's what capitalists do.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Capitalists? The original inventors of letters patents were monarchies. But I guess socialists never were very good at history.
But please, explain how one can be called a capitalist for passing anti-capitalist laws when what they're doing and what they allegedly are is in conflict here. Or is this one of those koans like the peaceful arsonists?
Re:Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:4)
And when the monarchies lost power in the 17th century (and copying became easy), copyright went away. The stationers who had the Royally granted monopoly were upset and pushed the government, in the form of Parliament to give them back their monopoly. Eventually they bribed the elected part of government to do just that and then the unelected part of government pushed back, with a 14+14 year limit on the monopoly as well as the publishers having to put the works in a famous library, register the work and such, as they considered that art should eventually benefit everyone as almost all art is built on the shoulders of those who went before. The idea of those unelected was to advance learning by granting a limited monopoly on the understanding that works would enter the public domain after a limited time.
The writers of the American Constitution thought it was a good idea and incorporated it into the Constitution for "the sciences and arts", another way to say advanced learning and since the publishers have been pushing to make that limited term as long and broad as possible, often by paying for people to get elected.
So current copyright is mainly a result of capitalists using their capital to influence lawmakers.