I’m not familiar enough with some of the background here.
Per Wordsworth, Talfourd said (and Wordsworth agreed) that English common law had acknowledged perpetual heritable and transferable copyright.
What period of history is that talking about? Before the Licensing of the Press Act 1662? Before the Statute of Anne (1710)? Before the Copyright Act 1814? And is it talking about the sort of thing now called moral rights, or authors’ rights?
Because from what I’ve ever read, it didn’t sound like there was really anything in the way of copyright, no intellectual property law. If you had a manuscript, you could do what you wanted with it, including copying it.
Of course, the printing press upset that balance, by making mass duplication practical, and so ultimately something had to be done. I’m sure there was more depth to the arguments than I can perceive now, but in desiring to go back to perpetual heritable and transferable copyright, it feels like Wordsworth was hankering for an era that was no longer realistic, due to technological development.
We’ve seen a reflection of this issue in the last thirty years, as the cost of mass duplication of digital artefacts has again plummeted, this time to essentially nil.
The genie is out of the bottle.
I’d be curious to know how mainstream among authors Wordsworth’s feeling of perpetual heritable and transferable copyright being a right was.
I wonder how he’d react if he saw what copyright has become. Maybe where it’s ended up isn’t quite what he had in mind. I don’t know. I know nothing of his character or nature.
I do know that I would like the copyright system to be burned to the ground, and go back to something closer to the Statute of Anne. I like this scheme: ten years of free protection, then costing $10 × 1.5ⁿ⁻¹ for each subsequent year—$10, $15, $22.5… you ramp up to a million dollars per year by year 40, so that if it’s actually lucrative you can keep it a bit longer, but otherwise it lapses. Because in practice, copyright is the instrument helping very few people after even ten years.
> In maintaining the claim of authors to this extension, I will not intrude on the time of the House with any discussion on the question of law; whether perpetual copyright had existence by our common law; or of the philosophical question whether the claim to this extent is founded in natural justice. On the first point, it is sufficient for me to repeat what cannot be contradicted, that the existence of the legal right was recognised by a large majority of the judges, with Lord Mansfield at their head, after solemn and repeated argument; and that six to five of the judges only determined that the stringent words "and no longer," in the statute of Anne took that right away.
> Before the Act of Anne, as had been admitted on high legal authority, the copyright was in perpetuity; and what was the effect upon the interests of authors. Allusion had been made to the descendants of Milton; but hon. Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten, that Milton wrote at a period when the copyright was perpetual, yet, with all this protection, he was only able to procure 8l. or 10l. for his "Paradise Lost."
By the sound of it, without reading much further, it was by no means unanimous that copyright was perpetual before the Statute of Anne, but that it was the legal consensus; but also, that what that copyright was, was rather flimsy, so that, if I’m reading it correctly, almost half of a panel of judges didn’t acknowledge that the Statute of Anne had taken something away by declaring “and no longer”. Which sounds to me about the same as denying a meaningful copyright existed.
It’s fun reading some of these sorts of things. You tend to see how little humans have changed.
> The hon. Member for Maidstone had said, that Mr. Southey intended, at one period, to write a history of the monastic orders, which would procure a fame equal to that of Gibbon. With respect to the fame, he must be permitted to express his doubts. Mr. Southey, it appeared, had been deterred from undertaking the work, because he could only enjoy the copyright during his life. It was much to be doubted whether Mr. Southey would have ever carried his intention into effect, if copyright had been as he wished. If the authority of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke were to be relied upon, with respect to Mr. Southey, it was very improbable that he would have prosecuted the work. The right hon. Baronet, on one occasion, gave it as his opinion of Mr. Southey, that that Gentleman had so often changed sides, it would be impossible to say what his opinion would be upon any subject at any given time. The right hon. Baronet's opinion upon such a subject was entitled to some weight, as he had himself changed sides. Indeed, literary men were peculiarly fickle, as much so as young girls.
Since the common law is not codified by definition, there's been a tradition of elites in the UK simply proclaiming what the common law is without presenting evidence (precedent) to support their viewpoints.
Per Wordsworth, Talfourd said (and Wordsworth agreed) that English common law had acknowledged perpetual heritable and transferable copyright.
What period of history is that talking about? Before the Licensing of the Press Act 1662? Before the Statute of Anne (1710)? Before the Copyright Act 1814? And is it talking about the sort of thing now called moral rights, or authors’ rights?
Because from what I’ve ever read, it didn’t sound like there was really anything in the way of copyright, no intellectual property law. If you had a manuscript, you could do what you wanted with it, including copying it.
Of course, the printing press upset that balance, by making mass duplication practical, and so ultimately something had to be done. I’m sure there was more depth to the arguments than I can perceive now, but in desiring to go back to perpetual heritable and transferable copyright, it feels like Wordsworth was hankering for an era that was no longer realistic, due to technological development.
We’ve seen a reflection of this issue in the last thirty years, as the cost of mass duplication of digital artefacts has again plummeted, this time to essentially nil.
The genie is out of the bottle.
I’d be curious to know how mainstream among authors Wordsworth’s feeling of perpetual heritable and transferable copyright being a right was.
I wonder how he’d react if he saw what copyright has become. Maybe where it’s ended up isn’t quite what he had in mind. I don’t know. I know nothing of his character or nature.
I do know that I would like the copyright system to be burned to the ground, and go back to something closer to the Statute of Anne. I like this scheme: ten years of free protection, then costing $10 × 1.5ⁿ⁻¹ for each subsequent year—$10, $15, $22.5… you ramp up to a million dollars per year by year 40, so that if it’s actually lucrative you can keep it a bit longer, but otherwise it lapses. Because in practice, copyright is the instrument helping very few people after even ten years.