[bryanrasmussen]

what is a right that has existed since time immemorial? Generally rights that have existed "forever" are codified rights and, in the codification, described as being eternal. Hence Jefferson's reference to inalienable rights, which probably came as some surprise to King George III.

on edit: If we had a soundtrack the Clash Know Your Rights would be playing in this comment.

[vidarh]

Except of course that the point is that copyright is generally not described this way.

See my more extensive overview in another response.

The history of copyright law is one where it is regularly described either in the debates around the passing of the laws, or in the laws themselves, as a utilitarian bargain between the public and creators.

E.g. since you mention Jefferson and mention "inalienable", notably copyright is in the US not an inaliable right at all, but a right that the US constitution grants Congress the power to enact "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". It says nothing about being an inalienable or eternal right of citizens.

And before you bring up France, or other European law, I suggest you read the other comment as well.

But to add more than I did in the other comment, e.g. in Norway, the first paragraph of the copyright low ("Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk mv.") gives 3 motivations: 1 a) to grant rights to creators to give incentives for cultural production, 1 b) to limit those rights to ensure a balance between creators rights and public interests, 1 c) to provide rules to make it easy to arrange use of copyrighted works.

There's that argument about incentives and balancing public interests again.

This is the historical norm. It is not present in every copyright law, but they share the same historical nucleus.

[cess11]

Early copyright was a take on property rights, applied to supposed labour of the soul and subsequent ownership of its fruits.

Copyright stems from the 15-1600s, while utilitarianism is a mid-1800s kind of thing. The move from explicitly religious and natural rights motivations to language about "intellect" and hedonism is rather late, and I expect it to be tied to an atheist and utilitarian influence from socialist movements.

[vidarh]

The first modern copyright law dates to 1709, and was most certainly not a "take on property rights". Neither were pre-Statute of Anne monopoly grants.

I can find nothing to suggest a "religious and natural rights" motivation, nor any language about "intellect and hedonism".

Statute of Anne - which specifically gives a utilitarian reason 150 years before your "mid-1800s" estimate also predates socialism by a similar amount of time, and dates to a time were there certainly wasn't any major atheist influence either, so this is utterly ahistorical nonsense.

[cess11]

OK, maybe look at lockean influence previous to the Statute of Anne, then, or, you know, read the text?

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/anne_1710.asp

"I. Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing, or causing to be printed, reprinted, and published, books and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books; may it please your Majesty, that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same;"

This is all about ownership, and protecting the state from naughty texts being printed, which was the actual driving force behind the legislation. There is nothing utilitarian in this.

[cjs_ac]

Copyright originates in the Statute of Anne[0]; its creation was therefore within living memory when the United States declared their independence.

No rights have existed 'forever', and both the rights and the social problems they intend to resolve are often quite recent (assuming you're not the sort of person who's impressed by a building that's 100 years old).

George III was certainly not surprised by Jefferson's claim to rights, given that the rights he claimed were copied (largely verbatim) from the Bill of Rights 1689[1]. The poor treatment of the Thirteen Colonies was due to Lord North's poor governance, the rights and liberties that the Founding Fathers demanded were long-established in Britain, and their complaints against absolute monarchy were complaints against a system of government that had been abolished a century before.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

[bryanrasmussen]

>No rights have existed 'forever'

you should probably reread the text I responded to and then what I wrote, because you seem to think I believe there are rights that are not codified by humans in some way and are on a mission to correct my mistake.

>George III was certainly not surprised by Jefferson's claim to rights, given that the rights he claimed were copied (largely verbatim) from the Bill of Rights 1689

to repeat: Hence Jefferson's reference to inalienable rights, which probably came as some surprise to King George III.

inalienable modifies rights here, if George is surprised by any rights it is inalienable ones.

>Copyright originates in the Statute of Anne[0]; its creation was therefore within living memory when the United States declared their independence.

title of post is "Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement", I was under the impression that it had something to do with how the EU sees copyright and not how the U.S and British common law sees it.

Hence multiple comments referencing EU but I see I must give up and the U.S must have its way, evidently the Europe AI agreement is all about how copyright works in the U.S, prime arbiter of all law around the globe.

[bryanrasmussen]

at any rate rights that are described as being eternal or some other version of that such as inalienable, or in the case of copyright moral and intrinsic, are rights that if the government, that has heretofore described that as inviolate, where to casually violate them then the government would be declaring its own nullification to exist further by its previously stated rules.

Not to say this doesn't happen, I believe we can see it happening in some places in the world right now, but these are classes of laws that cannot "just" be changed at the government's whim, and in the EU copyright law is evidently one of those classes of law, strange as it seems.

[vidarh]

And the relevant rights to exploit the work are almost never described as moral, intrinsic, inalienable or similar, so this is largely moot.