I don't think books were copyrighted back then.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
48 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
285 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's one of the most common biases for historians: anachronicity, it's about looking to people in the past with the goggles from the present (current biases, and/ or values). Furthemore, priests copying books by hand was extremely common before the invention of the printing press.
I wonder if this case is special for its time (the first copyist?) or book (was it protected by any hierarchy?).. Other than that, I agree and fail to see a salient connection to "our" piracy.
I'd rather keep the origins on musical pieces, probably classical music. Which is difficult to get even to this days (too niche, some popular pieces have scanned PDFs tho)
Sure, but I think Venerable Jorge would have 100% approved of copyright laws and violently enforcing them, somehow.