[LINK] itNews: Copyright-Owners Oppose ALRC

[Kim Holburn]

On 2013/Aug/07, at 5:33 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> The whole thing with copyright as it was conceived in the 19th Century

No, it was conceived in the 1400s, soon after the invention of the printing press. It was conceived by the Church to control what was printed.  The alleged excuse was to stop monks in scriptoria being put out of work.  The penalty for breaking copyright law was death.

In Britain the first copyright law was to allow the crown to control what was printed (Licensing Act 1662) through the printers guild which had exclusive right to copy.  The first British Act was the statute of Anne 1710 which gave rights to copy from authors to certified printers.  The original had been just for printers but under protest authors were allowed some rights.

> was that the author/writer was to get a reward for their work,

It was always about government control, not authors rights.

> and be protected from breeches of same for a short period, whilst still allowing scope for creativity and innovation by others subsequently. 'Fair use' was integral to same,

I'm pretty sure "fair use" was something from US law, not British.

> as was 'attribution' and the like. Additionally, it was never envisaged that writers and authors would 'sell' their copyright per se ... the original idea was that copyright could be licensed by publishers, producers and the like from the author in return for regular payments of royalties. In other words ... the author would retain the copyright.

I don't believe so.  Authors rights were only under sufferance.

Kim
-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request