The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For...

Google Tech Talks
August 15, 2006

Karl Fogel

ABSTRACT
Copyright is derived from a 16th-century English censorship law, later turned into a monopoly right to subsidize distribution. This history is somewhat at odds with the modern conception of copyright, and an understanding of it is increasingly important today, as the economics of distribution are changing radically.

This talk will give the audience a mid-level overview of copyright's history, with pointers to further reading, followed by a survey of alternative economic bases for creation and distribution, and a discussion of what these dynamics mean for companies, like Google, that flourish in an environment of frictionless information...

• Category

  Howto & Style

[Bradison99]

What an excellent talk! Anyone who has worked in the Open Source community can relate to what he is saying. I for one, would love to see a world with free exchange of information. Artists will still create art, even if copyrights go away. Movie blockbusters will rely on product placement and advanced sales...every movie will make money or it won't be made. Another problem with the current system is that the consumer has ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE when they purchase a DVD or music CD they dislike.

[MrRhetorikill]

No one deserves profit, you have to make it happen yourself with the proper business model. Take Netflix and Steam for example, these companies successfully compete against FREE. The products they sell can be achieved for free without them, but they have made their system so user friendly, non invasive, and easy that people prefer to PAY rather than receive it free and deal with a little more hassle.

Today's copyright laws defend an outdated dinosaur of a business model that must die

[TreachMarkets]

What is the name of the site he wants us to go to? I can't see the full name

[Viajero1615]

Oh my, I hope it won´t be true that "every movie will make money or it won´t be made", cause that would impoverish our culture!

[firecat6666]

yes, the interests. Where do they lie?

[Melki]

hahaha

[elfinarcher84]

Our own genetic material

[Melki]

One day the public allowed land to be proprietary, after the public allowed intellectual products to be proprietary, I want to ask what's next? Water? Air? Sands on the beach?

[Melki]

the argument for Intellectual property might be to make intellectual assets could be treated like tangible assets. Programers should be able to refuse and prevent their programs from being bought and copied if the price offered were too cheap. I could accept that I'm ok with it. But I hope the law would evolve towards allowing more freedom for the public not less.

[Melki]

but, its not by law. I want to make it by law that if you show things on billboards and on tv, you should allow sharing. But currently by law its not, if you share these materials (that are not PD or Open Sourced) you could go to jail. I'm not suggesting people to break the law please support the law, through the law many of us are friends not enemies... but, lets change the law.