What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Owns This Sentence?: A History of Copyrights and Wrongs
Copyright is everywhere. Your smartphone incorporates thousands of items of intellectual property. Someone owns the reproduction rights to photographs of your dining table. At this very moment, battles are raging over copyright in the output of artificial intelligence programs. Not only books but wallpaper, computer programs, pop songs, cartoon characters, snapshots, and cuddly toys are now deemed to be intellectual properties—making copyright a labyrinthine construction of laws with colorful and often baffling rationales covering almost all products of human creativity.
It wasn't always so. Copyright has its roots in eighteenth-century London, where it was first established to limit printers' control of books. But a handful of little-noticed changes in the late twentieth century brought about a new enclosure of the cultural commons, concentrating ownership of immaterial goods in very few hands. Copyright's metastasis can't be understood without knowing its backstory, a long tangle of high ideals, low greed, opportunism, and word-mangling that allowed poems and novels (and now, even ringtones and databases) to be treated as if they were no different from farms and houses. Principled arguments against copyright arose from the start and nearly abolished it in the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, countless revisions have made copyright ever stronger.
It wasn't always so. Copyright has its roots in eighteenth-century London, where it was first established to limit printers' control of books. But a handful of little-noticed changes in the late twentieth century brought about a new enclosure of the cultural commons, concentrating ownership of immaterial goods in very few hands. Copyright's metastasis can't be understood without knowing its backstory, a long tangle of high ideals, low greed, opportunism, and word-mangling that allowed poems and novels (and now, even ringtones and databases) to be treated as if they were no different from farms and houses. Principled arguments against copyright arose from the start and nearly abolished it in the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, countless revisions have made copyright ever stronger.
Audible Audio
First published January 23, 2024
132 people are currently reading
4024 people want to read
About the author
David Bellos
76 books103 followersDavid Bellos is the director of the Program in Translation and Intercultural Communication at Princeton University, where he is also a professor of French and comparative literature. He has won many awards for his translations of Georges Perec, Ismail Kadare, and others, including the Man Booker International Translator’s Award. He also received the Prix Goncourt for George Perec: A Life in Words.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
March 26, 2024
Who knew that a book about copyright law could be so engaging and entertaining. The authors take the reader on a journey through the origins of the concept of ownership of an artistic creation from its beginnings in 18th century Europe to allow for printers ownership of their products to the European Berne Convention that spread the right of owners to assert control over property they published, wrote or controlled. The authors decry the more recent developments in copyright law, extending to 75 years and beyond, as a means for dampening and stifling creativity in exchange for monetizing a product far removed from its creator. This cultural, legal, and global history of copyright law - or the idea that intangible items can be owned-is so interesting and demonstrates that copyright law is an agent for inequality and crushing of the artistic and entrepreneurial spirit of creators. I got this book on a trip to City Lights Books in San Francisco- I had not seen it elsewhere.
Read
January 19, 2024Thanks to the proliferation of both social media and AI, the issues surrounding the idea of copyright have never been more pressing -- or more widespread. Which makes this new book that most deadly of adjectives: relevant. Fortunately, it's also really good, full of lively prose and all the history and interpretation the 21st century needs on the subject. My full review is here:
https://openlettersreview.com/posts/w...
https://openlettersreview.com/posts/w...
January 13, 2024
Who do you think copyright laws protect? If you think it's the poor struggling artists, David Bellos is out to change your mind.
This was a more technical and detailed book than I was expecting. It won't be to everyone's taste, but if this topic interests you at all, I think you'll enjoy it. It was enlightening and I certainly will look at the subject differently. I enjoyed the last part of the book, with modern examples, more than the history of copyright with which it began.
Here are some of the things I learned: Most copyrights don't belong to the creators, but to the entertainment industry corporations that purchased them or employed the artists who created them; since the US passed its strictest copyright law in 1976, authors' incomes have been falling; it's really true that copyright collection societies try to collect fees from anyone singing "Happy Birthday to you" in a movie or TV show AND even from girl scouts singing "God Bless America" at an event, because these copyrights can be extended for decades past the death of the author!; these laws are very subjective and difficult to interpret; and, last, I now have a basic understanding of what "creative commons" licenses are.
Would we all be better off if copyrights were eliminated or drastically reduced? Maybe??? I'm not one of those people who think all corporations are evil and don't deserve to make a profit, but some of this did seem ridiculous. I still have some thinking to do.
This was a more technical and detailed book than I was expecting. It won't be to everyone's taste, but if this topic interests you at all, I think you'll enjoy it. It was enlightening and I certainly will look at the subject differently. I enjoyed the last part of the book, with modern examples, more than the history of copyright with which it began.
Here are some of the things I learned: Most copyrights don't belong to the creators, but to the entertainment industry corporations that purchased them or employed the artists who created them; since the US passed its strictest copyright law in 1976, authors' incomes have been falling; it's really true that copyright collection societies try to collect fees from anyone singing "Happy Birthday to you" in a movie or TV show AND even from girl scouts singing "God Bless America" at an event, because these copyrights can be extended for decades past the death of the author!; these laws are very subjective and difficult to interpret; and, last, I now have a basic understanding of what "creative commons" licenses are.
Would we all be better off if copyrights were eliminated or drastically reduced? Maybe??? I'm not one of those people who think all corporations are evil and don't deserve to make a profit, but some of this did seem ridiculous. I still have some thinking to do.
August 7, 2025
This was an interesting book, although every prospective reader should understand that this is indeed a history of copyright, and a substantial part of the book deals with its origins and early instances of disputes that helped shape the laws. More recent developments appear only in the last quarter or so, and while some aspects of the remote history are necessary to understand these and the fact that current copyright law is mostly a crass perversion of initial motivations, you really need to be interested in copyright law holistically to get the most out of the book.
As for the audiobook in particular, Bellos does a sufficiently competent job, but the audio quality is somewhat lacking. There are some weird pauses that could have been edited out, although these can be charming at times as well: One of his most exasperated sighs comes directly before talking about the US Copyright Act of 1976, which definitely elicited a big laugh from me.
As for the audiobook in particular, Bellos does a sufficiently competent job, but the audio quality is somewhat lacking. There are some weird pauses that could have been edited out, although these can be charming at times as well: One of his most exasperated sighs comes directly before talking about the US Copyright Act of 1976, which definitely elicited a big laugh from me.
February 18, 2024
A history of copyright law. I thought I knew it but did not. Review to follow.
dnf
September 20, 2024DNF'ed @ page 72.
I don't know what I was expecting. This is so dry.
I don't know what I was expecting. This is so dry.
January 5, 2025
I didn't think someone could make reading about copyright interesting. This book is a journey through the history and philosophy of copyright. As someone who is interest in learning more about intellectual property this book was thought-provoking and left me better informed and more curious than ever. If you're a creator, a legal enthusiast, or just someone who enjoys learning about how the world works, this book will not disappoint.
October 7, 2023
Who Owns This Sentence? is a book by David Bellos and Alexandre Montagu about the history of copyright and why it is wrong. While the main focus of the book is on book copyright, it does dedicate some chapters to other things such as paintings and music.
I found this book surprisingly easy to understand. While it is largely about laws and rights and such, it is written in such a way that it is not confusing, and I found it easy to follow along. I also liked that it does not just talk about one country, it covers most of Europe and the U.S.A. While the book has an agenda, to show why copyright should not exist, the book does show both sides of the argument instead of only the bad parts, which allows the reader to make up their own mind.
However, this book was not perfect. It can be difficult at times to remember all the different statutes and changes throughout history, I wish it was clearer. I also feel like many of the chapters were not super connected to the previous chapters, only loosely based on chronology.
In conclusion, I liked this book and found it quite interesting. I would recommend this book to anyone curious about the history of copyright who is a beginner to the field of law.
Thank you to W.W. Norton & Company for this ARC on NetGalley.
I found this book surprisingly easy to understand. While it is largely about laws and rights and such, it is written in such a way that it is not confusing, and I found it easy to follow along. I also liked that it does not just talk about one country, it covers most of Europe and the U.S.A. While the book has an agenda, to show why copyright should not exist, the book does show both sides of the argument instead of only the bad parts, which allows the reader to make up their own mind.
However, this book was not perfect. It can be difficult at times to remember all the different statutes and changes throughout history, I wish it was clearer. I also feel like many of the chapters were not super connected to the previous chapters, only loosely based on chronology.
In conclusion, I liked this book and found it quite interesting. I would recommend this book to anyone curious about the history of copyright who is a beginner to the field of law.
Thank you to W.W. Norton & Company for this ARC on NetGalley.
April 14, 2025
This book made copyright law and its history engaging enough for me to power through (and by enough I mean it did a pretty good job!! I already knew I wasn’t interested in IP/patent/copyright law going in). This book’s superpower was the way it drew connecting lines through all the major points and showed how copyright protection has been co-opted by companies and the global north to further their capitalistic agendas.
Only wished the authors went a little deeper on the analysis of implications and consequences, but of course that’s for me to do going forward. Glad for the instruction though - lots of homework to do as I’m pretty worried for the future of humanity’s cultural innovation in the face of generative AI.
Only wished the authors went a little deeper on the analysis of implications and consequences, but of course that’s for me to do going forward. Glad for the instruction though - lots of homework to do as I’m pretty worried for the future of humanity’s cultural innovation in the face of generative AI.
November 25, 2025
Copyright laws: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The man behind the curtain: it was me, corporate greed, all along!
The man behind the curtain: it was me, corporate greed, all along!
August 31, 2025
If you want to know the crazy history of copyright, I highly recommend the cleverly titled Who owns this sentence? A History of Copyrights and Wrong. As the book jacket copy says, it’s:
…a fascinating and original history of an idea that now controls and monetizes almost everything we do.
Who Owns This Sentence? is an often-humorous and always-enlightening cultural, legal, and global history of the idea that intangible things can be owned, and makes a persuasive case for seeing copyright as an engine of inequality in the twenty-first century.
Two picky little things before I go on to praise it. Although quite accessible over all, it’s occasionally just a hair dry, maybe not surprising considering the subject matter. I imagine you have to be interested in books, publishing and copyright to find it your cup of tea. But if you are interested in any of those things, you will be rewarded.
The second picky little thing is that there is something about the prose that makes it unnecessarily opaque. Not always, just every now and then. I sometimes had to read a sentence two or three times before really understanding it… if I managed to understand it even then. Maybe it’s because the mother tongue of one of the authors is French, meaning that he was writing in a second language (in which case I should really be complimenting him on his command of the English language instead of quibbling with his choice of phrasing). Or maybe it’s because copyright is just a complex subject. (Or more likely, as a friend of mine once suggested, I really just need to be two or three IQ points more intelligent).
Anyway, quibbles aside, the book really is a tremendous tour guide through the history of copyright and related subjects. And it’s more than just a history: it also makes a resounding case that we’ve taken the whole idea of copyright too far. Initially this happened accidentally, in a series of unrelated legal rulings influenced by heavy lobbying, helped along by unfortunate choices of wording in legal judgments. But gradually it dawned on people that there was a lot of money to be made in intellectual property. And by lot I mean A LOT.
Copyright used to be about protecting authors and their work. Now it’s about a handful of corporations turning ideas into property and extracting as much money from that property as they possibly can for as long as they can.
The book “Who owns this sentence” will tell you how all that came about.
…a fascinating and original history of an idea that now controls and monetizes almost everything we do.
Who Owns This Sentence? is an often-humorous and always-enlightening cultural, legal, and global history of the idea that intangible things can be owned, and makes a persuasive case for seeing copyright as an engine of inequality in the twenty-first century.
Two picky little things before I go on to praise it. Although quite accessible over all, it’s occasionally just a hair dry, maybe not surprising considering the subject matter. I imagine you have to be interested in books, publishing and copyright to find it your cup of tea. But if you are interested in any of those things, you will be rewarded.
The second picky little thing is that there is something about the prose that makes it unnecessarily opaque. Not always, just every now and then. I sometimes had to read a sentence two or three times before really understanding it… if I managed to understand it even then. Maybe it’s because the mother tongue of one of the authors is French, meaning that he was writing in a second language (in which case I should really be complimenting him on his command of the English language instead of quibbling with his choice of phrasing). Or maybe it’s because copyright is just a complex subject. (Or more likely, as a friend of mine once suggested, I really just need to be two or three IQ points more intelligent).
Anyway, quibbles aside, the book really is a tremendous tour guide through the history of copyright and related subjects. And it’s more than just a history: it also makes a resounding case that we’ve taken the whole idea of copyright too far. Initially this happened accidentally, in a series of unrelated legal rulings influenced by heavy lobbying, helped along by unfortunate choices of wording in legal judgments. But gradually it dawned on people that there was a lot of money to be made in intellectual property. And by lot I mean A LOT.
Copyright used to be about protecting authors and their work. Now it’s about a handful of corporations turning ideas into property and extracting as much money from that property as they possibly can for as long as they can.
The book “Who owns this sentence” will tell you how all that came about.
Read
August 9, 2024DNFed at page 128 (chapter 18).
If I had to give this a rating, it would be like 2 stars. This book was so disappointing; I don't really know anything about copyright, and I was excited to learn something about it, but this was really not it.
The writing was confusing and the entire structure was not well done. This book is written chronologically, so it starts from the first instances in history that set the precedent for modern copyright laws and then follows through to modern times. And the authors try to intertwine this history with a criticism of and argument against copyright, but it is done so poorly and was just so confusing.
The authors introduce very briefly the idea that copyright is bad, but because the narrative is still in the past, they give no further explanation or evidence for "copyright bad." So it just ends up being chapters of history with ominous sentences sprinkled in here and there about how horrible modern copyright law is--but again it was frustrating to read because they throw this sentiment in over and over again, and from my perspective I have no idea what they're talking about. Is copyright bad? How should I know because you chose to start from the very beginning of copyright history and we haven't gotten to the modern day yet where it is apparently horrible. This intertwining of history and criticism could've been done well (and indeed has been done well in countless other nonfiction books) but this book was just disjointed and nonsensical.
I also really didn't connect with the tone of the entire thing. Sometimes the authors would throw in little condescending comments about how nowadays everyone can publish any sort of trashy book they want and it was different in the past when copyright laws protected much fewer publications.
So the narration was irritating at points, the writing was bad, the entire structure was flawed, and I found myself forgetting everything I had read as soon as I closed the book. I would still like to learn more about copyright and how it evolved to where it is today, but this was really not for me.
If I had to give this a rating, it would be like 2 stars. This book was so disappointing; I don't really know anything about copyright, and I was excited to learn something about it, but this was really not it.
The writing was confusing and the entire structure was not well done. This book is written chronologically, so it starts from the first instances in history that set the precedent for modern copyright laws and then follows through to modern times. And the authors try to intertwine this history with a criticism of and argument against copyright, but it is done so poorly and was just so confusing.
The authors introduce very briefly the idea that copyright is bad, but because the narrative is still in the past, they give no further explanation or evidence for "copyright bad." So it just ends up being chapters of history with ominous sentences sprinkled in here and there about how horrible modern copyright law is--but again it was frustrating to read because they throw this sentiment in over and over again, and from my perspective I have no idea what they're talking about. Is copyright bad? How should I know because you chose to start from the very beginning of copyright history and we haven't gotten to the modern day yet where it is apparently horrible. This intertwining of history and criticism could've been done well (and indeed has been done well in countless other nonfiction books) but this book was just disjointed and nonsensical.
I also really didn't connect with the tone of the entire thing. Sometimes the authors would throw in little condescending comments about how nowadays everyone can publish any sort of trashy book they want and it was different in the past when copyright laws protected much fewer publications.
So the narration was irritating at points, the writing was bad, the entire structure was flawed, and I found myself forgetting everything I had read as soon as I closed the book. I would still like to learn more about copyright and how it evolved to where it is today, but this was really not for me.
October 15, 2023
Bellos unravels the history and evolution of copyright. With a keen eye for detail and a touch of humor, he delves into the complex realm of intellectual property and how it now extends into nearly every facet of our daily existence.
This book provides a comprehensive perspective on how copyright has transformed over the years, from its humble beginnings in eighteenth-century London to its current role in monetizing nearly every form of human creativity. Bellos astutely highlights the impact of copyright on our world today, from battles over AI-generated content to the ownership of even the most mundane items. He weaves together the high ideals, opportunism, and often baffling rationales that have shaped the copyright landscape, making a compelling case for copyright as a driver of inequality in the modern era. He firmly believes that copyright should not exist.
This captivating narrative is not just a historical account, but an exploration of an idea that affects us all. It will leave readers with a deep understanding of the intricate web of copyright and its implications. To sum it up, Who Owns This Sentence is a must-read for anyone interested in the cultural, legal, and global aspects of copyright.
Thank you to the publisher WW Norton and #netgalley for the ARC.
This book provides a comprehensive perspective on how copyright has transformed over the years, from its humble beginnings in eighteenth-century London to its current role in monetizing nearly every form of human creativity. Bellos astutely highlights the impact of copyright on our world today, from battles over AI-generated content to the ownership of even the most mundane items. He weaves together the high ideals, opportunism, and often baffling rationales that have shaped the copyright landscape, making a compelling case for copyright as a driver of inequality in the modern era. He firmly believes that copyright should not exist.
This captivating narrative is not just a historical account, but an exploration of an idea that affects us all. It will leave readers with a deep understanding of the intricate web of copyright and its implications. To sum it up, Who Owns This Sentence is a must-read for anyone interested in the cultural, legal, and global aspects of copyright.
Thank you to the publisher WW Norton and #netgalley for the ARC.
June 4, 2024
Who Owns This Sentence’ by David Bellos and Alexandre Montagu is a very well researched and expertly laid out topic on all things copyright, patents and literature law.
I did find this book dry, which was a shame since the first few chapters (as well as the subtitle: A History of Copyrights and Wrongs) very fun and funny! Considering how little I knew about copyright, it was definitely informative, but I also felt it become just a bit duller throughout, until it picked up near the end of the book.
This is a very niche book and a topic that truly is intertwined in our everyday life.
I did find this book dry, which was a shame since the first few chapters (as well as the subtitle: A History of Copyrights and Wrongs) very fun and funny! Considering how little I knew about copyright, it was definitely informative, but I also felt it become just a bit duller throughout, until it picked up near the end of the book.
This is a very niche book and a topic that truly is intertwined in our everyday life.
October 18, 2025
I thought I knew about copyright, until I read this book. As someone who is debating about going to law school, this opened up a whole new perspective on intellectual property rights and laws that come with it.
You’d think that these laws are relatively new in the last century, but learning about the statute of Anne, the Berne Convention, and various English and French laws about ownership of works lays the foundation for newer legislations such as the 1976 Copyright Act.
Artificial Intelligence will be the next frontier of copyright law due to its uncertainty and complexity, but this gave me some options to consider if I wanted to peruse it as a type of law to practice. I recommend this to anyone who has interest in this realm of legal issues.
You’d think that these laws are relatively new in the last century, but learning about the statute of Anne, the Berne Convention, and various English and French laws about ownership of works lays the foundation for newer legislations such as the 1976 Copyright Act.
Artificial Intelligence will be the next frontier of copyright law due to its uncertainty and complexity, but this gave me some options to consider if I wanted to peruse it as a type of law to practice. I recommend this to anyone who has interest in this realm of legal issues.
March 16, 2024
Highly readable, and that says a lot when you look at the topic at hand.
As a Director in a highly regulated creative industry, I deal a lot with legal entities and copyright laws so I thought this would be an interesting read. I was more than intrigued by this history of and conversation of copyright and IP.
The authors made this relatable, digestible and understandable for a variety of readers. Full of just the right amount of information, I feel this book gave me exactly what I was looking for.
As a Director in a highly regulated creative industry, I deal a lot with legal entities and copyright laws so I thought this would be an interesting read. I was more than intrigued by this history of and conversation of copyright and IP.
The authors made this relatable, digestible and understandable for a variety of readers. Full of just the right amount of information, I feel this book gave me exactly what I was looking for.
July 26, 2025
An absolute barn burner. This shit rules. You've never heard anyone identify copyright law as a pillar of inequality in modern global society but it absolutely is. The only way it stays that way is by no one thinking about it on those terms. Read this book! You're definitely smart enough to find it hilarious and eye-opening, unlike the random book-tokkers giving it 2 stars for being "too dry" lol get wrecked
January 17, 2026
I was not expecting this to be so argumentative, although having now finished it I appreciate how strong the authors argue their case. i think it could have been punchier with a different organization, and i wasn’t crazy about the repetition of certain things or how many chapters felt like they were written to be read on their own. Still, i finished feeling impacted, curious, and riled up, and i would read again.
August 6, 2024
A very important topic for anyone who creates! The history was interesting even if truthfully a bit dry. I liked the short chapters which made it so the book didn’t drag. Unfortunately, I don’t recommend the audiobook to those who get easily distracted by background noise: you could definitely hear the author breathe and sometimes swallow.
Want to read
April 15, 2024dawno nie widziałam książki, która zainteresuje właściwie chyba tylko mnie xd
December 8, 2024
Finally when someone gives me shit for piracy I'll be able to regale them with this chronicle of the meaninglessness of copyright law. I've known for quite some time that copyright benefits corporations much more than individual creators, but was still shocked to learn the depth of this as well as all of the ways in which copyright is truly nonsensical.
January 17, 2026
As you can probably guess, a book about the history of copyright law is not exactly a page turner. I learned a lot, but I didn't have a great time doing it
June 8, 2025
ya copyright is a completely broken system lmao. a little sad they didn't talk more about the Copyleft movement, but apart from that it's pretty complete!
Read
December 11, 2024You own what you write. Right? That is a modern idea and when works were originally first printed the idea of identifying an author was not for attribution, but rather to make authors identifiable so that penalties could be imposed for seditious or heretical writings. Beware, the gendarmes are coming! Here, Bellos gives us an entertaining history with many fascinating anecdotes of how the concept of copyright law developed over time and in different countries. I used to work at a university and, let me tell you, the legal consequences of who has ownership of your work product, whether as an author or through the publication of your research, is a quagmire of legalese in employment contracts. I liked that Bellos spends an entire chapter disabusing us of the idea that copyright exists to support the craftsman/author and thus to provide them with the incentive to create and a living wage. Met any penniless authors recently? Yeah, most write because they want to not because they are getting lucrative publishing contracts. Transformative and fair use are even more nebulous concepts, and with the rise of AI, one that will require new laws to protect creators. No writer creates in a vacuum and the line between originality and inspiration is not always clear. Thus why lawyers will be kept busy arguing the merits of both.
January 12, 2025
I knew most the modern history of copyright, namely, the US, above all, continuing to expand the length of protection time and ramming it down the world’s throat, and the 19th century issue of British books not being protected in the US. Many details, I did not know.
The authors fill in all sorts of gaps, starting with the idea that the modern post-mortem length extension of copyright benefits creatives not at all, but rather rich companies, especially those that go around buying up copyright of famous people. The book is not "dry," and why would you expect a book on copyright to be "scintillating," two-star reviewers?
From there, it’s off to looking at the development of copyright actually being for benefit of two groups — publishers and usually royal governments, and not creatives. Next are peeks at how copyright does not generally act as a financial incentive, the failure of copyright to keep up with ever more modern art and publishing forms, the problems with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (an analysis I agree with) and from there, a note that the modern granting of copyright permissions and use smacks awfully close to medieval indulgences.
There’s lots of details to all this, and they’re detailed enough that they’re hidden in spoiler alert.
And, with the spoiler alert's end rephrasing what I said above about indulgences?
Even better, they relate this more directly to modern times near the end of the book:
I wouldn’t argue one bit.
The authors add that foreign sales of US copyright exceed foreign sales of any other US economic sector:
In other words, without intellectual property? The US economy really would be up shit creek and we’d be a failed state.
A “what if” chapter ends the book with some counterfactual history. What if Berne 1886 had not assigned translation copyright to original authors? What if post-mortem rights had been kept at 10 years? The authors note both harms and benefits on translations not being original-copyright. Except for A-list celebs losing, they note no harms on a shorter post-mortem, and add that corporate copyright, as a consequence, also would not have been lengthened. What if corporate copyright had not, in the US, been given its modern root in 1909?
Side note: There’s one other good thing about the writing in this book. When the authors intend to speak in more depth about a certain element later, OR when they want to remind the reader of previous discussion, parentheses have either a down arrow or an up arrow with reference to the relative page number.
The authors fill in all sorts of gaps, starting with the idea that the modern post-mortem length extension of copyright benefits creatives not at all, but rather rich companies, especially those that go around buying up copyright of famous people. The book is not "dry," and why would you expect a book on copyright to be "scintillating," two-star reviewers?
From there, it’s off to looking at the development of copyright actually being for benefit of two groups — publishers and usually royal governments, and not creatives. Next are peeks at how copyright does not generally act as a financial incentive, the failure of copyright to keep up with ever more modern art and publishing forms, the problems with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (an analysis I agree with) and from there, a note that the modern granting of copyright permissions and use smacks awfully close to medieval indulgences.
There’s lots of details to all this, and they’re detailed enough that they’re hidden in spoiler alert.
And, with the spoiler alert's end rephrasing what I said above about indulgences?
Even better, they relate this more directly to modern times near the end of the book:
Copyright is the elephant in the room when it comes to understanding the origins of the wealth gap in modern societies. It is a major engine of inequality in the twenty-first century.
I wouldn’t argue one bit.
The authors add that foreign sales of US copyright exceed foreign sales of any other US economic sector:
An idea that arose three hundred years ago to resolve a problem in the English book trade has metamorphosed within the last half-century into the administrative and financial underpinning of a sprawl of very large businesses that employ almost one in twenty workers in the U.S. and generate between 8 percent and 12 percent of the entire American economy.
In other words, without intellectual property? The US economy really would be up shit creek and we’d be a failed state.
A “what if” chapter ends the book with some counterfactual history. What if Berne 1886 had not assigned translation copyright to original authors? What if post-mortem rights had been kept at 10 years? The authors note both harms and benefits on translations not being original-copyright. Except for A-list celebs losing, they note no harms on a shorter post-mortem, and add that corporate copyright, as a consequence, also would not have been lengthened. What if corporate copyright had not, in the US, been given its modern root in 1909?
Side note: There’s one other good thing about the writing in this book. When the authors intend to speak in more depth about a certain element later, OR when they want to remind the reader of previous discussion, parentheses have either a down arrow or an up arrow with reference to the relative page number.
May 21, 2024
You are probably a scofflaw. Posting group photos on social media without acknowledging the publicity rights of all the people in the photo, incorporating copied and pasted information from the internet into work presentations without obtaining permission from the author, or singing "Happy Birthday" in public without paying royalties to the appropriate performance rights organization are all examples of infringement of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is ubiquitous in modern life, and one of its most pervasive forms is copyright, which, according to the authors of Who Owns This Sentence? A History of Copyrights and Wrongs is too broad, too long, and, most of all, too corporate.
It hasn't always been this way. As the authors explain, questions about who owns the products of the human mind go all the way back to a dispute between Plato and one of his students in the fourth century BCE, but these early disputes were more moral than legal, using someone's work without acknowledgment or permission was considered a breach of honor rather than a legal violation. As recently as the eighteenth century, the belief that human genius and creativity should be enjoyed by everyone without restriction was common. As William Warburton said when commenting on the nascent idea of literary property, "One might as well pretend to exclude others from the benefit of a refreshing breeze."
And it was in the eighteenth century in London that the modern conception of copyright took root. The original concept was to give "the authors of books and their assignees a short-term monopoly on the printing and selling of their works." This initial grant sparked discussions about the scope and duration of copyright. Questions arose about whether the monopoly should end upon the author's death or if his heirs should inherit it. Additionally, debates emerged regarding whether the monopoly applied solely to the original work or extended to derivative works like translations and theatrical adaptations. While most of these questions were answered with a definitive "no," they paved the way for the sort of copyright creep that continues to the current day.
The Statute of Anne, widely regarded as the birth of modern copyright, was enacted in 1710 to address the chaos caused by the expiration of the English Licensing of the Press Act of 1662. The Press Act regulated book publishing by effectively granting the Stationers’ Company a printing monopoly. Its expiry led to a free-for-all in publishing, resulting in a flood of cheap copies of books in the English market, especially those imported from Scotland and Ireland. The Statute of Anne subtitled An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, aimed to incentivize authors to create works beneficial to the public good. However, its immediate impact was to restore the Stationers’ Company’s monopoly. Consequently, the printing companies reaped the most significant benefits rather than the authors.
From there, the authors trace nearly three centuries of copyright legislation and legal battles, culminating in their focus on the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. This landmark act, along with subsequent revisions, is regarded by the authors as one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the Western world over the past half-century. Ostensibly, the Act merely aligned the U.S. with most provisions of the Berne Convention, an international copyright agreement dating back to 1886. However, the practical impact of the 1976 Act was far more significant.
The Act extended the range and term of copyright while lowering the threshold. “Copyright was now extended explicitly to literary works, musical works including their lyrics, dramatic works including their musical accompaniments (such as opera and Broadway musicals), pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works (including photographs), motion pictures and other audio-visual works, and sound recordings.” Or virtually anything, it seems, with even a trace of creative input.
Post mortem rights, the author’s monopoly in the copyright inherited by his descendants was extended to fifty years (later extended to seventy years), and the term for corporate rights was extended to seventy-five years (later extended to ninety-five years). In 1989, the requirement for registration was eliminated, aligning with the Berne Convention and granting automatic copyright protection to everything you write, every photograph you take, and every video you record. This provision instantly transformed millions of U.S. citizens into rights owners. With the advent of digital technology, countless millions of new copyrights are created daily.
However, the 1976 Act presents a paradox: while the number of copyright holders and copyrighted works has skyrocketed, a handful of powerful corporations now control the vast majority of commercially valuable copyrights. This, the authors argue, has transformed modern copyright law into a means of increasing the wealth and privilege of the already wealthy and privileged rather than benefiting struggling artists. Of even greater concern, the authors reckon, the Act limits the general public’s access to books and other creative works.
Their arguments against the modern copyright regime are compelling and are the crux of the book. For example, the extension of post-mortem rights to seventy years has led to a vast amount of orphaned creative works. This occurs when authors pass away, and their heirs are unknown or unresponsive. As a result, publishers, leary of potential copyright litigation, are reluctant to revive what could potentially be a treasure trove of creative content.
However, the solutions offered by the authors are less convincing. They argue against the notion of copyright providing an incentive effect. They claim that authors and artists would be just as motivated to create valuable works even without royalty opportunities. The authors propose that alternative income streams would emerge, and artists would be eager to contribute to the "creative commons," exemplified by open-source software, even without meaningful financial compensation.
This reader was unconvinced. Such wholesale change is just as impractical as it is improbable, and their suggestions ultimately sound like a Marxist scheme to throw out the baby with the bathwater. They are correct in arguing that copyright law is too broad, too long, and too corporate, but incremental changes are much more practical.
Regardless of my take on the authors’ proposed solutions to these problems, the book is still an outstanding and accessible history of copyright and intellectual property. They are excellent guides if you lack a law degree but still want to understand how intellectual property laws came to be and how they work.
It hasn't always been this way. As the authors explain, questions about who owns the products of the human mind go all the way back to a dispute between Plato and one of his students in the fourth century BCE, but these early disputes were more moral than legal, using someone's work without acknowledgment or permission was considered a breach of honor rather than a legal violation. As recently as the eighteenth century, the belief that human genius and creativity should be enjoyed by everyone without restriction was common. As William Warburton said when commenting on the nascent idea of literary property, "One might as well pretend to exclude others from the benefit of a refreshing breeze."
And it was in the eighteenth century in London that the modern conception of copyright took root. The original concept was to give "the authors of books and their assignees a short-term monopoly on the printing and selling of their works." This initial grant sparked discussions about the scope and duration of copyright. Questions arose about whether the monopoly should end upon the author's death or if his heirs should inherit it. Additionally, debates emerged regarding whether the monopoly applied solely to the original work or extended to derivative works like translations and theatrical adaptations. While most of these questions were answered with a definitive "no," they paved the way for the sort of copyright creep that continues to the current day.
The Statute of Anne, widely regarded as the birth of modern copyright, was enacted in 1710 to address the chaos caused by the expiration of the English Licensing of the Press Act of 1662. The Press Act regulated book publishing by effectively granting the Stationers’ Company a printing monopoly. Its expiry led to a free-for-all in publishing, resulting in a flood of cheap copies of books in the English market, especially those imported from Scotland and Ireland. The Statute of Anne subtitled An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, aimed to incentivize authors to create works beneficial to the public good. However, its immediate impact was to restore the Stationers’ Company’s monopoly. Consequently, the printing companies reaped the most significant benefits rather than the authors.
From there, the authors trace nearly three centuries of copyright legislation and legal battles, culminating in their focus on the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. This landmark act, along with subsequent revisions, is regarded by the authors as one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the Western world over the past half-century. Ostensibly, the Act merely aligned the U.S. with most provisions of the Berne Convention, an international copyright agreement dating back to 1886. However, the practical impact of the 1976 Act was far more significant.
The Act extended the range and term of copyright while lowering the threshold. “Copyright was now extended explicitly to literary works, musical works including their lyrics, dramatic works including their musical accompaniments (such as opera and Broadway musicals), pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works (including photographs), motion pictures and other audio-visual works, and sound recordings.” Or virtually anything, it seems, with even a trace of creative input.
Post mortem rights, the author’s monopoly in the copyright inherited by his descendants was extended to fifty years (later extended to seventy years), and the term for corporate rights was extended to seventy-five years (later extended to ninety-five years). In 1989, the requirement for registration was eliminated, aligning with the Berne Convention and granting automatic copyright protection to everything you write, every photograph you take, and every video you record. This provision instantly transformed millions of U.S. citizens into rights owners. With the advent of digital technology, countless millions of new copyrights are created daily.
However, the 1976 Act presents a paradox: while the number of copyright holders and copyrighted works has skyrocketed, a handful of powerful corporations now control the vast majority of commercially valuable copyrights. This, the authors argue, has transformed modern copyright law into a means of increasing the wealth and privilege of the already wealthy and privileged rather than benefiting struggling artists. Of even greater concern, the authors reckon, the Act limits the general public’s access to books and other creative works.
Their arguments against the modern copyright regime are compelling and are the crux of the book. For example, the extension of post-mortem rights to seventy years has led to a vast amount of orphaned creative works. This occurs when authors pass away, and their heirs are unknown or unresponsive. As a result, publishers, leary of potential copyright litigation, are reluctant to revive what could potentially be a treasure trove of creative content.
However, the solutions offered by the authors are less convincing. They argue against the notion of copyright providing an incentive effect. They claim that authors and artists would be just as motivated to create valuable works even without royalty opportunities. The authors propose that alternative income streams would emerge, and artists would be eager to contribute to the "creative commons," exemplified by open-source software, even without meaningful financial compensation.
This reader was unconvinced. Such wholesale change is just as impractical as it is improbable, and their suggestions ultimately sound like a Marxist scheme to throw out the baby with the bathwater. They are correct in arguing that copyright law is too broad, too long, and too corporate, but incremental changes are much more practical.
Regardless of my take on the authors’ proposed solutions to these problems, the book is still an outstanding and accessible history of copyright and intellectual property. They are excellent guides if you lack a law degree but still want to understand how intellectual property laws came to be and how they work.
June 8, 2024
An incredibly interesting book about IP law written like a mystery being uncovered.
April 8, 2024
While it is perhaps unrealistic to expect a book on the history of copyright to be scintillating, this was still dryer than I expected. Some of the court cases were pretty interesting, and I do feel like I learned quite a lot, but not enough to give another star. I was also annoyed by the agenda of the authors, I wish they had just presented the history and let the readers make up their own minds without all the snarky asides.
June 24, 2024
Book #27 of 2024
I kept seeing this book pop up with readers saying the history of copyright was made rich and interesting by the authors. I have to disagree with that sentiment. The first two thirds of this book were agonizingly dull with numerous examples of little copyright legal battles from distant history. There are a few sections on modern copyright, which at least had stakes if not intrigue. Unless you're forced to read this in law school, I do not recommend it.
I kept seeing this book pop up with readers saying the history of copyright was made rich and interesting by the authors. I have to disagree with that sentiment. The first two thirds of this book were agonizingly dull with numerous examples of little copyright legal battles from distant history. There are a few sections on modern copyright, which at least had stakes if not intrigue. Unless you're forced to read this in law school, I do not recommend it.
December 4, 2023
As informative as it is easy to read / not as much legalese as one might expect given the subject. I actually loved this.
(Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book through a Goodreads Giveaway.)
(Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book through a Goodreads Giveaway.)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews