Read Online Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin;David K. Levine - Free Book Online
Authors: Michele Boldrin;David K. Levine
Ads: Link
best-known example of such practice. There is no evidence, from the
United Kingdom or from other European countries, such as the Republic of
Venice, which adopted similar laws, that they provided any particular boost
to either literary creation or the spread of literacy.
The Statute of Anne, adopted in England by 1710, is considered the first
piece of legislation that, in the modern spirit, separates the censorship function from that of the personal ownership of the literary product, allocating
to authors, or to the lawful buyers of their manuscripts, an exclusive right of
publication that lasted for fourteen years. Notice the number: fourteen, not
as it is today, the life of author plus seventy-five; William Shakespeare had
found incentives for writing his opus even without those fourteen years,
and yet no Shakespeare appeared after 1710.
It took almost a century of controversial ups and downs for the copyright
legislation to be fully accepted in England, and to spread to the rest of
Europe.27 Around the time of the French Revolution, and under the label
of propriete litteraire, the idea that the works of art, literature, and music
belonged to their authors who could sell or reproduce them at will, without
royal authorization, became popular. The fight for propriete litterairewas not
a fight for monopoly but, instead, a request to abolish a particularly hideous
royal monopoly: that over ideas and their expression. The institutional
arrangements surrounding eighteenth-century French publishing in the
absence of copyright is also of some interest. Books were copied frequently
and quickly. There were no royalties and authors were paid in advance. Many
small firms were organized just to publish a single book. In short, books
were published, authors were paid, and all without the benefit of copyright.
We have already mentioned, early in this chapter, the very particular form
in which literary copyright was introduced in the United States in 1790 and
how the absence of copyright protection for foreign writers favored the
diffusion of literacy in the country. In Germany, it was the monopolyfriendly Otto von Bismarck who, in 1870, introduced a uniform copyright
legislation, modeled along the British lines; Goethe and Schiller, Kant and
Hegel, did not profit from it. It is only in 1886 that the Berne Conference
and the signing of the first international copyright treaty began to bring a
degree of uniformity to copyright throughout the Western world.
Literature and a market for literary works emerged and thrived for centuries in the complete absence of copyright. Most of what is considered
"great" literature and is taught and studied in universities around the world
comes from authors who never received a penny of copyright royalties.
Apparently the commercial quality of the many works produced without
copyright has been sufficiently great that Disney, the greatest champion
of intellectual monopoly for itself, has made enormous use of the public
domain. Such great Disney productions as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,
Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, and Little Hiawatha are, of course, all taken from
the public domain. Quite sensibly, from its monopolistic viewpoint, Disney
is reluctant to put anything back in the public domain. However, the economic argument that these great works would not have been produced without an intellectual monopoly is greatly weakened by the fact that they were.
How New Is Napster?
It is tempting to think that everything under the sun is new. For example,
the Napster phenomenon is surely new and cries out for new laws and regulation; surely, the music industry cannot survive the advent of widespread
copying. Or can it?
At the turn of nineteenth century, the music industry was different from
the one we are familiar with today. No CDs, no mass concerts, and no
radio or television. The core source of revenue was the sale of printed sheet
music, which was carried out
United Kingdom or from other European countries, such as the Republic of
Venice, which adopted similar laws, that they provided any particular boost
to either literary creation or the spread of literacy.
The Statute of Anne, adopted in England by 1710, is considered the first
piece of legislation that, in the modern spirit, separates the censorship function from that of the personal ownership of the literary product, allocating
to authors, or to the lawful buyers of their manuscripts, an exclusive right of
publication that lasted for fourteen years. Notice the number: fourteen, not
as it is today, the life of author plus seventy-five; William Shakespeare had
found incentives for writing his opus even without those fourteen years,
and yet no Shakespeare appeared after 1710.
It took almost a century of controversial ups and downs for the copyright
legislation to be fully accepted in England, and to spread to the rest of
Europe.27 Around the time of the French Revolution, and under the label
of propriete litteraire, the idea that the works of art, literature, and music
belonged to their authors who could sell or reproduce them at will, without
royal authorization, became popular. The fight for propriete litterairewas not
a fight for monopoly but, instead, a request to abolish a particularly hideous
royal monopoly: that over ideas and their expression. The institutional
arrangements surrounding eighteenth-century French publishing in the
absence of copyright is also of some interest. Books were copied frequently
and quickly. There were no royalties and authors were paid in advance. Many
small firms were organized just to publish a single book. In short, books
were published, authors were paid, and all without the benefit of copyright.
We have already mentioned, early in this chapter, the very particular form
in which literary copyright was introduced in the United States in 1790 and
how the absence of copyright protection for foreign writers favored the
diffusion of literacy in the country. In Germany, it was the monopolyfriendly Otto von Bismarck who, in 1870, introduced a uniform copyright
legislation, modeled along the British lines; Goethe and Schiller, Kant and
Hegel, did not profit from it. It is only in 1886 that the Berne Conference
and the signing of the first international copyright treaty began to bring a
degree of uniformity to copyright throughout the Western world.
Literature and a market for literary works emerged and thrived for centuries in the complete absence of copyright. Most of what is considered
"great" literature and is taught and studied in universities around the world
comes from authors who never received a penny of copyright royalties.
Apparently the commercial quality of the many works produced without
copyright has been sufficiently great that Disney, the greatest champion
of intellectual monopoly for itself, has made enormous use of the public
domain. Such great Disney productions as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,
Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, and Little Hiawatha are, of course, all taken from
the public domain. Quite sensibly, from its monopolistic viewpoint, Disney
is reluctant to put anything back in the public domain. However, the economic argument that these great works would not have been produced without an intellectual monopoly is greatly weakened by the fact that they were.
How New Is Napster?
It is tempting to think that everything under the sun is new. For example,
the Napster phenomenon is surely new and cries out for new laws and regulation; surely, the music industry cannot survive the advent of widespread
copying. Or can it?
At the turn of nineteenth century, the music industry was different from
the one we are familiar with today. No CDs, no mass concerts, and no
radio or television. The core source of revenue was the sale of printed sheet
music, which was carried out
Similar Books
