First of all, read what I actually write before commenting on it: at no point did I mention anything about the content of copyright laws, not that you even bother to specify which ones, for which country. Let me specify one for you: the Statute of Anne; the first copyright law. Whilst you are very vaguely correct on some things, you gloss over them and put the emphasis in the wrong places; especially neglecting to mention just how short exclusive copyright was. The law itself could only be justified on the basis that it would benefit the public, not the publishers and stationers, which is ultimately the effect it had; the opposite of what most copyright laws do today. They recognised at the time that copyright was not a 'natural' right to be presumed, unlike today where it is presumed 'creators' have an absolute moral right.soulsabr said:
It was never about commercial gain but to ensure that original work and the widest dissemination was possible; a social goal. It never would have been entertained if it had been suggested that authors(or publishers) should have the right to live off the royalties of a few works shielded forever from unauthorised dissemination.
Much of the rest of your post has diddly to do with anything I did say.
