Editing Statute of Anne (section)

===Stationers' Company===
[[Image:The Stationers' Company Mark.png|thumb|250px|The Mark of the [[Stationers' Company]], who held a monopoly on the right to copy from 1556 until 1695]]
This censorship peaked on 4 May 1557, when [[Mary I of England|Mary I]] issued a [[royal charter|royal warrant]] formally incorporating the [[Stationers' Company]]. The old method of censorship had been limited by the [[Second Statute of Repeal]], and with Mary's increasing unpopularity the existing system was unable to cope with the number of critical works being printed. Instead, the royal warrant devolved this power to the company.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=60}} This was done by decreeing that only the company's publishers could print and distribute books. Their Wardens were given the power to enter any printing premises, destroy illegal works and imprison anyone found manufacturing them.{{sfn|Hauhart|1983|p=546}} In this way the government "harnessed the self interest of the publishers to the yoke of royal incentive", guaranteeing that the company would follow the rules due to the economic monopoly it gave their members.{{sfn|Abrams|1985|p=1136}} With the abolition of the [[Star Chamber]] and [[Court of High Commission]] by the [[Long Parliament]], the legal basis for this warrant was removed, but the Long Parliament chose to replace it with the [[Licensing Act 1662]].{{sfn|Abrams|1985|p=1137}} This provided that the company would retain their original powers, and imposed additional restrictions on printing; [[Queen's Messenger|King's Messengers]] were permitted to enter any home or business in search of illegal presses. The legislation required renewal every two years, and was regularly reapproved.{{sfn|Hauhart|1983|p=547}}

This was not "copyright" as is normally understood; although there was a monopoly on the right to copy, this was available to publishers, not authors, and did not exist by default; it only applied to books which had been accepted and published by the company.{{sfn|Streibich|1976|p=60}} A member of the company would register the book, and would then have a perpetual copyright over its printing, copying and publication, which could be leased, transferred to others or given to heirs upon the member's death.{{sfn|Patterson & Joyce|2003|p=914}} The only exception to this was that, if a person tried to make a copy of a copyrighted material and warned the owner of the copyright (i.e. the printer), and the owner did not reprint it within six months, then this person could continue with the printing (provided that the author of the material did not object), giving a "[[wikt:ratable|ratable]]" part of the profits to the owner of the copyright. This did not mean, though, a loss of copyright ownership, but a provision to allow other presses the right to reprint books that were unavailable.{{sfn|Holdsworth|1920|p=844}}{{sfn|Arber|1875|p=43|loc=folio 6, article 5}} Authors themselves were not particularly respected until the 18th century, and were not permitted to be members of the company, playing no role in the development or use of its licences despite the company's sovereign authority to decide what was published.{{sfn|Streibich|1976|p=59}} There is evidence that some authors were recognised by the Company itself to have the right to copy and the right to alter their works; these authors were uniformly the writers of uneconomical books who were underwriting their publication.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=63}}

The company's monopoly, censorship and failure to protect authors made the system highly unpopular; [[John Milton]] wrote ''[[Areopagitica]]'' as a result of his experiences with the company, accusing Parliament of being deceived by "the fraud of some old patentees and monopolisers in the trade of bookselling".{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=133}} He was not the first writer to criticise the system, with [[John Locke]] writing a formal memorandum to the MP Edward Clarke in 1693 while the Licensing Act was being renewed, complaining that the existing system restricted the free exchange of ideas and education while providing an unfair monopoly for Company members.{{sfn|Rose|2003|p=78}} Academic Mark Rose attributes the efforts of Milton to promote the "bourgeois public sphere", along with the [[Glorious Revolution]]'s alterations to the political system and the rise of public [[Coffeehouse|coffee houses]], as the source of growing public unhappiness with the system.{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=136}} At the same time, this was a period in which clearly defined political parties were taking shape, and with the promise of regular elections, an environment where the public were of increasing importance to the political process. The result was a "developing public sphere [which] provided the context that enabled the collapse of traditional press controls".{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=137}}