Have you ever wondered how copyright actually came into existence? How come authors have an exclusive right over copies? How was this modern privilege invented anyway? And why? Lover hated? You'll find out it's not at all how you imagined it. The laws we take for granted today weren't actually created with the payment or protection of the authors in mind, nor did they aim to encourage the creation of new works. Copyright was primarily designed for censorship, control, and strict regulation. Think about it. Throughout history authors have never risen and revolted to demand rights for their copied works. Way back, much like today in fact, authors mainly relied on a wide variety of funding sources for their work. Musicians went singing from village to village. Writers worked on commissions. Painters and sculptors were funded by wealthy patrons. Others supported themselves through teaching jobs, grants, or stipends, or municipal projects. Along came the first-ever copying machine, the printing press. It forever revolutionized the way people spread information. Here at last was a cheap and quick way to make copies of books, and a very accurate one too. The writers of course were thrilled to have more published books, and a lot more readers. Yet, both the state and the church were absolutely furious. Suddenly, they could no longer control what people knew. Works of descent and criticism were becoming just as circulated as the Bible, and any other government approved documents. So as the menace of printing spread during the 15th century, the church lobbied intensely across Europe to ban this new technology. It was poisoning people's minds and souls, of course. At one point in 1535, the Catholic Church of France even managed to enforce a law which forced the closing down of all bookshops. It also stipulated the penalty of death by hanging for anybody who used the printing press. Of course, this just made bootleg distribution channels bigger because people were just starving for more things to read. Meanwhile, in England, in 1557, Queen Mary I found herself unable to cope with a number of critical works that were being printed. So she came up with a different approach. Rather than trying to censor everything, she started a select exclusive club. Mary gave a royal monopoly to a printing guild, which took ownership over all printing activities in England. The London Company of Stationers, as they were called, basically worked as a private censorship bureau. The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers. Books had to be first approved by the Crowns censor, and the Stationers acted as a for-profit information police force with a right to confiscate and destroy any unauthorized presses or books. The Queen motivated the guilds members financially and commercially. In tow, she managed to make sure that the government got its way. People were allowed their entertainment, because there was obviously a lust for reading, but only as long as nothing politically destabilizing was in circulation. And of course, this monopoly over information rather openly served the booksellers and the government's interest. The authors were even recognized as the works' real writers in the company registered. Coutue, a century and a half later. By now, England's government has gradually relaxed its censorship control. The Stationers' monopoly has been allowed to expire. This, of course, isn't making the Stationers too happy. They were used to their little lucrative deal with the Crown. So they gather their families on the stairs of the Parliament. Tears in their eyes, they begged to have the monopoly reinstated. Of course, they know that Parliament has no interest in bringing back the recently abolished state censorship. So they come up with a new bright idea to support their interests. How about from now on, writers should own their works. The Stationers argued that printing presses and distribution required a lot of money. The writers would always depend on printers to make their works generally available. And the printers had no problem with copyright originating with the author. They knew authors were trapped. Authors had little choice but to sign those rights right back to a publisher for distribution. Why would the authors demand powers that prevented the spreading of their own works? They had no need to seek financial reward through new copies. The only people threatened by the free circulation of works were the Stationers themselves. After all, they were the only ones asking for copyright monopoly. In fact, they didn't care if books were being written or printed with no copyright in place. All they demanded was that their prints no longer be sold without copyright. The publishing lobbyists ultimately got what they wanted. The new monopoly came into force on April 10, 1710, as the first recognisably modern copyright law. The Act, entitled The Statute of An, became a model copyright bill both within the United Kingdom as well as international. Copyright, while clearly artificial, did make a compelling and credible case back then. The technology available at that time had some obvious limitations compared to the digital means authors have a third disposal date. Yet one can't help but notice some lawmaker and distributor behaviors which are as real today as they were three centuries ago. Fear of ongoing. These technologies will destroy all jobs and businesses. The desire for absolute control. We get to decide about new copies. Incessant lobbying. Please government, please, please hear us out. Repression. There will be no creativity without us. And perhaps most critically. The author is the least relevant cog in the mechanism. The author barely even matters. The old rules have less and less bearing in the new world. Maybe the time has come to teach the old dogs and power some new copyright tricks. Copying is a ritual. Copy me.