Slashdot Mirror


100 Years of Copyright Hysteria

Nate Anderson pens a fine historical retrospective for Ars Technica: a look at 100 years of Big Content's fearmongering, in their own words. There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?"). There was the photocopier after World War II. There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business. He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler — in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone. Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV. Anderson concludes with a quote from copyright expert William Patry in his book Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars: "I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."

1 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. digital copy EQUALS exact copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Before, with recordings, one copy was all that was "original". ANY copy would degrade the quality. Copy a copy and the quality was already POOR. That goes for photocopy, LPs, tape, whatever. The problem today is that's not the case. A copy is no longer a copy, it is a perfect recreation of the source. No generational loss means the 1000th copy (copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...) is a perfect a reproduction as the first. And that is the problem.