Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="totoro" data-source="post: 1014931" data-attributes="member: 11939">Actually, the origins of copyright are in the protection of printing houses, not the artists.  Copyright was originally quite similar to  trade franchises (monopolies that were sanctioned by the various kingdoms of Europe in exchange for kick-backs from the trade houses).  It is interesting to note that no historian has ever suggested that these laws in any way encouraged artists to develop art. From an American perspective, copyright seems to be endorsed by our Constitution.  However, the Constitution simply supports protection the "useful arts" (i.e. technological arts).  No specific mention was ever made of copyrights to encourage artistic innovation.  And most recent laws with which I am familiar (such as the Disney effort to extend copyrights for longer periods) do not encourage innovation since artists rarely live to reap the benefits of their art for 100 years.In short, I think you are incorrect that copyrights were intended to protect artists.  While they may not have been designed to protect multinational conglomerations, they were most certainly designed to protect national conglomerations.  Of course, protecting multinational conglomerations is simply a natural evolution since the moneyed countries such as the US can now do so.  That's why we are forcing IP protection down the throats of so many poor countries right now.  They have to dish out money to protect copyrights and patents, none of which belong to any of their own people.Don't kid yourself.  There were never good old days when the government protected artists.  Soon after the great ones (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc.) were out of the picture, it went back to business as usual.</blockquote>

Verification