Oracle thinks you can copyright a programming language, Google disagrees

That's going to be a problem as we approach a world where basic human needs are easily met.

Be that as it may, the invention of the printing press wasn't a watershed moment for writers everywhere. Getting a book published in print even now is quite an undertaking when you consider all the individuals, money, and infrastructure involved. The elimination of that infrastructure and closer coupling of content creators to their channels of distribution (i.e. fewer middlemen between them and publishing) will probably provide a bit more leverage to content creators, but it's still not clear how much, how fast, or what the cost will be to everybody else. It looks like we're still trying sorting that out, especially given the current suits around publishers and Apple.

Because they weren't writers back then as books/reading weren't a market. A writer would have to be a story tellers and you could certainly make money as a story teller.

Also, if you could physically write, you could make comfortable living as a scribe.

Before copyright, people still made a living from music, books, art, etc. It was just a different model, patronage was common, the modern equivalent is probably something like kickstarter. Even under the current system, most artists don't make a living straight away, they have to gain recognition whilst doing something else before it becomes their full time job.

And this business model really isn't as alien as you might think, many industries require deposits, milestone based payment, etc.

However, despite having been corrupted by greedy entities into a parody of it's original purpose, copyright has undeniably been beneficial to western culture over the past 100 years.

I believe there will be a grand bargain at some point, where citizens will be asked how long a copyright should last for, and an agreement will be reached. "pirating" will become something that is seen as morally wrong by society (at the moment most people see it as "a bit naughty" at worst).

How long it will take for the corporations to give up on copyrights that last more than a human lifetime is difficult to say. It is surprising to me that americans are willing to put up with a system which means that the only video of martin luther kings i have a dream speech will likely never enter the public domain.

A major factor in that was the difficulty of copying in Dickens' day. His works were often published in serial form. His authorized agents were able to get a copy of each new chapter and have it on a boat to America while unauthorized copiers had to wait for the British publication, and then make copies from that.

By the time the copiers did that, and were able to get their copies to America, the authorized copy was already here, and most people who wanted to buy had already bought an authorized copy.

Even for works not in serial form, the authorized release had a big advantage, at least if the author was well known. Most sales occurred fairly soon after publication, and by the time copiers could buy a copy, and get it typeset (remember--this was all done by hand back then!) there weren't a lot of buyers left.

Stephen Breyer, who later went on to become a Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a famous law review article called "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" where he argued that copyright might be unnecessary because of the market advantage from being first that the author's authorized edition gets. There's more information on this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uneasy_Case_for_Copyright

Subsequent technological advances have pretty much obliterated the basis of that argument. Copying is so fast and easy now that being first gives very little advantage.

I can't agree more! Although I support the idea of paying someone for their hard work, even if it was something of creative artistry. (Time is still money, even if it was spent dreaming of characters in a play, or colors on a canvas) I do NOT agree that we have now set some sort of "bar" for artists/actors/musicians HAVING to become filthy rich for choosing those careers and we can NEVER progress beyond that point.

The makers of horse shoes, sued Henry Ford for putting them out of business. We may laugh at this, but isn't this the same thing we see going on today?

Could you explain why they are cartels? I don't disagree (I say, for the benefit of my comments history); just looking for info.