Lord Kames Explains Why Copyright Is Not Property... In 1773
from the a-look-back dept
Mockingbird writes "I've posted the full text of Lord Kames's opinion in the important Scottish Sessions case of Hinton v. Donaldson from 1773. This was the case that rejected for Scotland, by a vote of 11-to-1, the theory of "common law copyright", that authors (meaning, in practice, publishers) had a perpetual copyright, at common law, of their writings. It was followed a few months later by the English House of Lords's decision in Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the English Lords rejected just as forcefully the claim that authors had perpetual copyright under the common law of England.Of the twelve Sessions Lords who decided the case, ten issued opinions. Lord Kames's is one of the longer ones, and one of the most famous. Kames builds his case on principles of common law, property law, and commercial law, and finds the claim of "common law copyright" to be inconsistent with the principles of all these areas of law:
this claim, far from being founded on property, is inconsistent with it. The privilege an author has by statute, is known to all the world. But I purchase a book not entered in Stationer's hall; does it not become my property? I see a curious machine, the fire engine, for example. I carry it away in my memory, and construct another by it. Is not that machine, the work of my own hand, my property? I buy a curious picture, is there any thing to bar me from giving copies without end? It is a rule in all laws, that the commerce of moveables ought to be free; and yet, according to the pursuer's doctrine, the property of moveables may be subjected to endless limitations and restrictions that hitherto have not been thought of, and would render the commerce of moveables extremely hazardous. At any rate, the author of avery wise or witty saying, uttered even in conversation, has a monopoly of it; and no man is at liberty to repeat it.
Lastly, I shall consider a perpetual monopoly in a commercial view. The act of Queen Anne is contrived with great judgement, not only for the benefit of authors, but for the benefit of learning in general. It excites men of genius to exert their talents for composition; and it multiplies books both of instruction and amusement. And when, upon expiration of the monopoly, the commerce of these books is laid open to all, their cheapness, from a concurrence of many editors, is singularly beneficial to the public. Attend, on the other hand, to the consequences of a perpetual monopoly. Like all other monopolies, it will unavoidably raise the price of good books beyond the reach of ordinary readers. They will be sold like so many valuable pictures..... [the] booksellers, by grasping too much, would lose their trade altogether; and men of genius would be quite discouraged from writing, as no price can be afforded for an unfashionable commodity. In a word, I have no difficulty to maintain that a perpetual monopoly of books would prove more destructive to learning, and even to authors, than a second irruption of Goths and Vandals. "
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, lord kames, property, scotland
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My father was right ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My father was right ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My father was right ...
may be oddly prophetic....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My father was right ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My father was right ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acknolwedgement of a Limited Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acknolwedgement of a Limited Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acknolwedgement of a Limited Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a phrase stated by Lord Kames:
"I buy a curious picture, is there any thing to bar me from giving copies without end?"
There are argument to both sides, but what if people that get copies of that picture, photograph, book, etc starts stating that he painted it, or wrote it? What if he becomes famous because of that lie, and people starts hiring him to draw pictures, take pictures, etc? On the other side, we have the real author, not knowing what to do, saying he wrote/painted the work. Maybe even he doesn't have funds to go public stating that he is the real author! Don't you think there is something wrong with this?
Maybe copyright is not the way to regulate the right of attribution, but I think nobody can disagree with the statement that this needs to be regulated somehow. For the time being, is copyright. Maybe in the future there is another form.
Yes, some people don't care about the right of attribution. But many people do, and we have to respect that.
Just a thought.
MC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright doesn't stop plagiarism. People don't plagiarize because if they get caught they look stupid. Lord Kames even addresses the attribution/ownership idea in the section provided here: "The privilege an author has by statute, is known to all the world".
The idea that someone could steal another's work and get famous by crossing off one name and using his own is laughable, especially in this day and age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright is a way to stop plagiarisim, at least outside the US, with some moral rights. Maybe not the best as it is now thought of, but it is a way. I welcome any other way to stop it, replacing copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To be sure, care would have to be taken or this quickly becomes unworkable. For instance, it should only be necessary to name the immediately prior source, not every source. If Ansel Adams took a picture of the moon over Hernandez, New Mexico, and Joe Dokes recreated the image on 35mm film, and Trace Schmitt wrote a song about spilling beer on his Joe Dokes print of the moon, and MC Foto created a maship of the Schmitt song, the independent director who produces a film containing the mashup should only have to credit MC Foto. But, with appropriate limits, it could be done.
Copyright is really bad at doing this, incidentally. Say you write a book, and assign the copyright to a publisher. The publisher can now publish the book without _any_ attribution, or with attribution to anyone. Nothing in copyright protects your right to attribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, I agree that the issue of copyright as it pertains to free reproduction and distribution should be considered separately from the intellectual fraud of plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The next year, I start seeing commercials for a new movie that appears to be almost exactly like my screenplay. I do some research and find out the "writer" of this movie happens to be represented by the agent I sent my screenplay to. It seems that the agent passed my creation on to one of his other clients. I pull out my original copy and head to the first (and cheapest) lawyer I can find.
Now, tell me, how does current copyright law protect me? I wrote an original screenplay which was taken by someone else and claimed as their own. The only proof I have is a single typed copy. I have no dated digital records, though the other side probably does I don't even have a rejection letter from the agent.
So, you are correct, there needs to be a way to regulate attribution, but current copyright law doesn't do it. In fact, current law is more likely to protect the person who stole my creation, in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In my personal opinion copyright law, or better said, copyright, can help in the following way: if, after you created the work, you go to the local copyright office to register it, they you will have proof.
If you dont register it, then you will need to use the general proof principles of law: indicia, pieces of evidence that lead to a "truth". Possible witnesses, internal documents, etc. But I know is hard.
But of course, I agree that there can be cases that you won't have any proof, but this applies not only to copyright, but to all disiplines. What I mean is that the situation that you clearly described (lack of proofs) is not a deficiency of copyright alone, but it can happen in all situations in a day to day life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This happens ALL THE TIME in Hollywood. But remember, "almost" isn't good enough. It must be exact. You can't copyright themes, only the manifestation of those themes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocked_Up#Alleged_copyright_infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is not to say that it is easy, but it is possible. The deeper issue, here, is that the OP is not actually complaining about attribution, but about payment. Presumably the screenplay author would not be satisfied if the studio said, "Thanks!", produced the movie, listed his name as the author of the screenplay, and paid him nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In that case, then current copyright law actually does more than it should.
You ought, completely apart from copyright, to have been able to sue the agent for breach of agency per their fiduciary duty created when they posted the listing and took in your work for consideration. For this purpose, agency law is sufficient and makes copyright rather superfluous in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe that method has ever been upheld in court. If you know of a precedent setting case where it has, then do tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The hell they can't. Requiring attribution is a sort of tax. And what is the granularity of the attribution? Say I use a Tenniel illustration from Alice In Wonderland in a video. To I have to give Tenniel a credit? How about Carroll? How about the engraver? The guy who digitized it?
And what of the guy who comes after me and uses that portion of my vid in a holodeck work? How is he going to know exactly what came from where? Is every work of art going forward going to be the annotated edition of itself?
Screw that. Just do stuff. Like your grandfather did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You simply let the people use your works. As you don care, it won't damage you. But please dont don't try to "universilize" your opinion, as people many people may care about attribution. And they need to be protected.
I dont say that attribution is required, as you say "Requiring attribution is a sort of tax". Each eprson who creates a work is free to allow others to take credit over the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's good manners, sure. I try to do it myself, unless it becomes a pain in the ass. But copyright carries the force of law, and that's being a bit too insistent for my taste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, I guess those with differing opinions should just keep them to themselves, huh? When you said "...nobody can disagree...", you really meant it. Well here's one for you: go get stuffed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We were discussing about an interest issue, and you were just trying to look for one incoherence I did...
Come on, let's write with respect, I never attacked anyone, so I don't understan why yo do it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you attempt to tell other people what they can and can not say, that's an attack. Expect a response if you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just say no to intellectual property
I for one do not believe in an artificial system of intellectual property at all. To say that someone has any rights over something they have sold is asinine to the extreme.
An artist creates something and he/she sells it, end of story. If everyone copies it that is no big deal, that is how our culture works. The artist then goes and creates something else. It is the best incentive around to keep creating.
We don't have to wait until some mythical future date to abolish IP law. We see the flaws, we see how the resources are being wasted, we see how the concentration of power corrupts corporations, why do we defend a broken system?
An imaginary system that is broken by design and still people want to "reform it". It amazes me how far people will run with a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just say no to intellectual property
People think differently. I believe that the IP system as it is now does not contribute to the mankind, specially patents. But this doesn't mean I don believe in IP.
"An artist creates something and he/she sells it, end of story."
With all due respect, I dont agree. I maybe agree that the person that has obtained the work may sell it, but never saying that he created it, unless the author doesn care, of course. I am an amateur musician. Once I finish a song, I usually show it to some friends, or I go to radio stations and leave it there (in my country is possible, I know in the US is quite difficult). I don't care if the person who received the song at the radio station begins to sell it, but at least I want him to say that I recorded it.
That's my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attribution
There's already a perfectly good law against this - nothing to do with copyright. It's called fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attribution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Attribution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Attribution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Attribution
In any case most actual attribution frauds are the other way around. e.g. fraudster paints picture - claims it's by Picasso etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
prolific copying and distribution of a work makes it known who the author/writer is and makes these plagiarism issues easier to deal with. if there are millions of copies of a picture or book floating around over the years with your name on it, then it's not hard to get people on your side in the argument that a work is yours, especially if you gave it to them. there is tons of drama on the internet about this very thing (do a google search for "dear god, please make everyone die. amen")
if you want to plagiarize a college paper and download one from the net, what's to stop the school or instructor from searching the same net and finding the same paper? getting your stuff out there for people to see hear and read solidifies you as the owner.
in fact, attribution is a huge deal even for the most notorious of pirates. there are countless tales of the famous aXXo getting his feelings hurt over people uploading his movie rips as their own or for putting the aXXo name on low quality rips.
aXXo has a reputation for quality releases that he/she wants to maintain and get credit for and when he/she feels besmirched there is drama and not refusal to work with a given site or tracker.
no one believes that aXXo wrote, directed, or produced the movies he uploads, nor does aXXo want anyone to believe that, but he does want his reputation and standing with the scene protected.
Maybe copyright is not the way to regulate the right of attribution, but I think nobody can disagree with the statement that this needs to be regulated somehow. For the time being, is copyright. Maybe in the future there is another form
it sounds more like a kind of trademark issue to me. you want your identity as a creator protected, and your works, however they are distributed, to be associated with your identity. it would seem that exposure would regulate a lot of that: if everyone has your picture or book, then it would be hard to disprove that you painted or wrote it.
a lot of this is covered in "against intellectual monopoly":
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
levine talks about plagiarism as a kind of identity theft, and how it's reasonable to want consumers and producers alike to protect against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by mc
Or worse still, what if people use those copies as weapons to commit criminal acts? Break the glass of a picture frame, and threaten people with the shards to bring down a plane? Or use the conducting metal of the hardcover lettering to close the contacts on a home-made nuclear bomb?
This is why we need stronger, not weaker, copyright laws: because it’s necessary to fight Terrorism. If you want the world to remain free of creatively-used Terrorist weapons, you must never let anything fall into the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I definitely recommend reading the whole thing
"At the same time, it will be founded upon the strictest examination, that the profit of such a monopoly would not rise much above what is afforded by the statute. There are not many books that have so long a run as fourteen years; and the success of books upon the first publication is so uncertain, that a bookseller will give very little more for a perpetuity, than for the temporary privilege bestowed by the statute. This was foreseen by the legislature; and the privilege was wisely confined to fourteen years; a sufficient encouragement to men of genius without hurting the public interest."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
consider...
Its worth considering the timing of the polarization of intellectual property law. Nobody cared about inventor's and author's rights to limited duration monopolies when it wasn't so easy to copy their work.
Now that its easy to steal a bit of code, some say down with patent. Now that its easy to copy a song, some say down with copyright. But they don't stop to consider that the means by which they are so easily able to appropriate these materials were created by the system they are fighting so hard to destroy.
And indeed, the REASON for intellectual property, is not motivation. People are motivated to great lengths by notoriety and sheer accomplishment. The REASON for intellectual property, is that it afford the inventor or the artist a means for securing his livelihood after his creation, while pursuing further creation.
This is common sense. If I cannot make money from something I create, because you are free to copy or distribute it at will, then I cannot afford to make these creations my exclusive pursuit. Destroying IP disincentivises people from becoming professional artists, and professional inventors.
Men wholly committed to an endeavor will typically achieve more then men whose attention and time are divided between many. This is why professionals are better at things than amateurs.
So when you're bashing intellectual property, remember, the REASON you care to bash it, is because it has allowed men to create the means by which you have overcome it. And remember, that the reason for intellectual property is "To promote the PROGRESS of Science and useful Arts."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: consider...
Um, no. That's exactly the reason intellectual monopolies were instituted. It's supposed to be motivation, not a welfare system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: consider...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: consider...
Not true - the technical means has come about in the first instance through the progress of the pure sciences - in particular mathematics and physics. Pure science has always had a free and open culture of sharing.
The internet and the world wide web are primary examples of free systems that have arisen from this free culture. Tim Berners-Lee himself comes from the free world of high energy physics.
What we are seeing now is the greedy world of the arts and engineering (or to be precise the parasites who have grown up to feed off artists and engineers) being challenged by the free principles of pure science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: consider...
Or whilst sitting on his backside doing nothing as the royalties flow in.
Odd how the great musicians of the past (with a less favourable copyright regime) carried on creating new work (often their best work) well into late middle or old age whilst modern musicians rarely produce anything of value past the age of 35.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, posting an archaic, lengthy tract about why there should be no perpetual copyright in common law suggests that you don't necessarily recognize the difference between the two--which is even more basic than first year law school stuff. (High school civics class, I think? Anyway, it's dead simple.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, ASH, I posted it because I thought it was an interesting quote. That's all.
So, posting an archaic, lengthy tract about why there should be no perpetual copyright in common law suggests that you don't necessarily recognize the difference between the two--which is even more basic than first year law school stuff.
And bitching about it suggests that you don't necessarily recognize how a blog works, which is even more basic than most kindergarten stuff.
See how that works?
Get over yourself. We post what we find interesting. There have been ongoing discussions about copyright as "property." This seemed like an interesting historical look on the subject.
When you run the blog, then you get to decide what I can and cannot post. Until then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All horses are the same colour
According to this logic I can prove that all horses are the same colour!
It is an induction argument that fails on step 1.
So how does anyone become a professional with no back catalogue to earn money from?
That first work is produced as an amateur - but then by your logic it can't possibly be good enough to earn money from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah but...
I read this blog because you're providing opinions that are about promoting continued progress in technology and copyright law. You just lost me with this inane post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah but...
"Alex, it appears your kidney has gone awry, there is a procedure to accurately determine the source of the problem, I cannot perform the procedure because I could not afford the licensing costs for the patented technology used in the procedure. Please check with the 2 hospitals in the country that had the cash to license the technology, or I will dig up some leeches and ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah but...
You mean like; can a doctor use a reference system without violating some assinine patent? Or reprint his own work from a journal?
Which, by 1773 standards would be a no-brainer.
Hrm. Yeah, actually let's go with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose techdirt patents/copyrights the 26 letters of the alphabet (and space to be sure), then everytime anyone says anything about how longer copyright=good, they have to pay techdirt a performance fee..............
patent - (a method for constructing symbolic representations of existing atmospheric vibrations currently reproducable by the larynx of species homo sapiens, in order to store, correlate and preserve such patterns)
Do this, and everyone would see how stupid the current system is...loads of publicity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In truth 'original' is in itself only a convention that should not be given any sort of absolute status. Questions of economic rights ,are questions of groups- questions of power , and power should never be absolute. The answer will always depend upon circumstance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those confused about innovation - remember that ONLY the innovation is compensated. The Beatles sang Buddy Holly songs - but if you want Buddy Holly, instead of their version, they don't have a right to get paid. The value is in the addition only. Lord Kames would have benefit from over 200 years of development in practical development by economists and lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]