@doctormo @varve in EU moral rights are *marginally* more focused on the artist.

Remember, the first version of copyright law, the Licensing of the Press Act (1662)[1] gave the effective power to the Stationers' Company. That is, publishers.

Copyright was always about publishers. Artists were used as a pretext, and given mainly and almost only the rights that were necessary for them to be able to effectively sell to publishers, in a way enforceable by publishers.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensin

@rysiek @doctormo true enough! If copyright is the right to make and sell copies, but the only ones who have the tools and ability to make copies are publishing companies, that's who benefits. Electronic copies are easy for anyone to make, and yeah, that shakeup isn't nearly over yet. Even physical copies are getting easier with digital typesetting and layout.


I've long been arguing that profitrights are more sensible than copyrights for benefiting creators in a world where it is far easier to keep track of money than duplication machinery.
@rysiek @doctormo

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon @ SUNET

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!