tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post113052711798250020..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: The Contributions of Cultural Historians to CopyrightWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1131925423644156232005-11-13T18:43:00.000-05:002005-11-13T18:43:00.000-05:00I have not read widely about copyright law, but an...I have not read widely about copyright law, but another nonlawyer book about copyright is Kembrew McLeod's <A HREF="http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=FreedomExpression.html&tipe=text/html" REL="nofollow">Freedom of Expression </A>. Remarkable more for its discussion of the practical realities of copyright upon itself than the law itself, the book raises lots of artistic questions I haven't seen before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1130790472896373042005-10-31T15:27:00.000-05:002005-10-31T15:27:00.000-05:00The experiences in other countries, like Venice (a...The experiences in other countries, like Venice (as a Republic) and France clearly separated out censorship functions and grants of rights, so we can't say there was ever a relationshp in those countries. In England, we can agree that the Stationers Company was used to enforce censorship at one point and that they didn't get everything they wanted when the Statute of Anne was passed, but the leap Patterson makes is that these two are somehow causally related: because the Stationers once enforced censorship and because the Statute of Anne came about (because of a conflict between the Stationers and royal patentees, not authors as authors), ergo "modern" copyright is a stepchild of censorship. I don't see that supported historically.<BR/><BR/>I agree there are Romantic justifications made by authors, particularly in the early 19th century, like Woodsworth, but these seemed to be for a longer term of protection. Even MIlton didn't "gainsay" Stationers' the right in their "copies," although I agree Defoe's brat remark is a good one.<BR/><BR/> My initial point was modest, only that it is dangerous to formulate general theories of copyright from diverse and probably political and economically situated origins.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1130778009119672112005-10-31T12:00:00.000-05:002005-10-31T12:00:00.000-05:00I too enjoyed Michael Carroll's paper, and I am in...I too enjoyed Michael Carroll's paper, and I am indebted to that work for bringing the case of <I>Pyle v. Faulkner</I> to my attention. On the other hand, my first impression is one of disunity between the first part of the paper and the second: the link between the 18th-century cases and his recommendations for the present day might be made a little clearer.<BR/><BR/>Patterson's view of copyright as the stepchild of the licensing act was not completely wrong. The act of the 8th year of Queen Anne was partly designed as a sop to the stationers' company, since it let some of their old privileges continue for 21 more years.<BR/><BR/>Nor is it obviously wrong to see the influence of romantic authorship even at the origins of modern copyright. The fully-developed romantic concept of "originality" was still in the future in Queen Anne's day, but it was beginning to take form, as Daniel Defoe's "brat of his brain" apothegm shows. A notion that was popular with 19th-century maximalists, that an author's work was inherently his property because it was marked by his '"proper" writing-style, which could not be mistaken for anyone else's, is already hinted at in the statement in the report of <I>Bach v. Longman</I> "that it was possible to know the musical compositions of any master or composer of musick, who had composed any quantity thereof." And apart from any possible influence, or lack of influence, on copyright's origins, the romantic idea of authorship has arguably had an influence on subsequent generations' understanding of copyright laws, and on extensions of those laws' scope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1130772875880507162005-10-31T10:34:00.000-05:002005-10-31T10:34:00.000-05:00Anonymous: A point well taken about Hesse and over...Anonymous: A point well taken about Hesse and overall in your excellent comment. I guess I was too taken in by her willingness to take on Foucault.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1130770265547818702005-10-31T09:51:00.000-05:002005-10-31T09:51:00.000-05:00I lost my confidence in Hesse in the opening parag...I lost my confidence in Hesse in the opening paragraph of her Daedaulus article: "The concept of intellectual property -- the idea that an idea can be owned - is a child of the European Enlightenment. It was only when people began to believe that knowledge came from the human mind working upon the senses - rather than through divine revelation, assisted by the study of ancient texts - that it became possible to imagine humans as creators, and hence owners, of new ideas rather than as mere transmitters of eternal verities."<BR/><BR/>The Aristotelian tradition that dominated the high middle ages taught explicitly that knowledge was from the senses. Aquinas for example believed that all our natural knowledge preceeded exclusively from sensory information about the world. The resulting Christian scholasticism characteristic of the preenlightenment period emphasized not only the sensory origin of human knowledge but also the independent role of human knowledge as a supplement to divine revelation.<BR/><BR/>As to their belief in the study of ancient texts, Hesse might learn something from studying more of the ones she wants to comment on. <BR/><BR/>It is indeed very difficult to make grand historical pronouncements without falling into such errors. As your excellent post points out, historians are always needing to avoid facts to uphold their theories.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your blog.<BR/><BR/>PensansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com