Hacker News Reader

Comment by rikroots | Hacker News Reader

Agreed. While copyright timescales are currently over-extended, copyright was introduced for a very practical reason: "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned"[1].

Personally, I Copyleft my poetry, and make it available to others to use, even for commercial purposes, from 15 years after the poem's publication. I see no reason to keep them locked in a cage long after I'm done with them.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright

View on HN

If that was the reason, it should be completely abolished as the exact opposite was achieved.

See for example this article [1]

> unlike neighboring England and France, Germany experienced an unparalleled explosion of knowledge in the 19th century.

> it was none other than copyright law, which was established early in Great Britain, in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom.

>Germany, on the other hand, didn't bother with the concept of copyright for a long time. Prussia, then by far Germany's biggest state, introduced a copyright law in 1837, but Germany's continued division into small states meant that it was hardly possible to enforce the law throughout the empire.

For a more contemporary view look at what became of China by ignoring copyright.

[1]: https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-...

> in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom

How do you account for the industrial revolution under this framing, or the global dominance of the British Empire?

Its really hard to argue that 1710 onwards marked the downfall of Britain, given everything that happened in history after that.

How did the industrial revolution relate to copyright? Seems related to patents instead.

In the context of copyright we are talking about books in that century. Shakespeare predates copyright. Though, we are not only talking fiction, but also non-fiction. It's no coincidence that British inventors of that time were on to wealthy side, for the poor people couldn't afford to buy a whole lot of books. And neither did they write them.

The industrial revolution and the British empire are both extremely clear proof that Britain was in no way 'crippled'. Particularly not in the world of knowledge, given the countless inventions involved.

If the creation of copyright was so harmful to the nation, why was there no harm?

It's not enough to invent (and patent) something. You also need to document it in various ways - so people know the invented thing exists, what it's for, how to use it, how to fix it, etc.

> poor people couldn't afford to buy a whole lot of books. And neither did they write them.

Thus the rise of circulating libraries in the 18th century, and the public (lending) library system in the 19th century. Especially after the establishment of mandatory education for children.

Knowledge diffusion was definitely crippled in the UK after 1710, and significantly restricted innovation.

Most of the things that were invented after 1710 were pretty trivial. Things like the spinning jenny, the steam engine, water powered weaving, wrought iron, steam locomotion, the electric telegraph, the lightbulb, waterproof fabric, the hydraulic press, the telephone. Imagine what else could have been achieved if copyright didn't incentivise authors and publishers to disseminate knowledge by allowing them to sell books, magazines and news sheets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com