The swift progress of technology impacts every field, including law,1 creating a growing need for the legal system to adapt to these fast-evolving changes.2 This progress holds both revolutionary potential and significant risks, which require careful balancing.3 Different regulatory approaches can have varying effects on technological innovation, with some promoting progress and others potentially hindering it.4 As a result, while technological advancements impact the legal system, the legal framework reciprocally influences the development of technology.5

In this context, studying historical perspectives is crucial for understanding technology regulation both in the past and today. As Mandel proposed, legal history provides valuable insights into how past societies addressed legal challenges stemming from technological advancements.6 Many of the questions and issues we face today mirror those of the past, emphasizing the significance of historical context in shaping our understanding. These inquiries include, among others, determining appropriate regulatory frameworks for technology7 and evaluating the effectiveness of existing laws in addressing emerging technologies.8 Nonetheless, the rich historical context of law and technological change is not sufficiently reflected in the existing literature, leading to a dearth of historical analysis in the study of law and technology.9 The existing literature provides limited guidance or general principles for regulating disruptive technologies, leaving policymakers without effective frameworks or tools to respond to rapid technological change.10 In this context, historical case studies are poised to help us understand the complexity of technological development.11

This article addresses that gap by examining a specific case that exemplifies the dynamic between law and technological change: the printing press. Using legal history12 and Braudel’s longue durée (long-term historical structures) approach, 13 I analyse the legal responses to the printing press in early modern England, focusing on the period from its introduction in the 1470s to the Statute of Anne in 1710.

Examining the legal history of the printing press in early modern England, I suggest that technology regulation demonstrated four characteristics during this period. First, regulators initially supported new technology but imposed constraints when it threatened their interests. Second, regulation often arose from interactions between different interest groups, with balance depending on whether they pursued individual agendas or formed alliances. Third, when these different interest groups formed alliances, corrective actions necessitated disruptive externalities. Fourth, economic power was the determinant factor in influencing regulation. I argue that these characteristics provide two key insights for the history of technology regulation. First, effective participation in technology regulation required both economic power and a direct stake in the technology, as those lacking these resources are unlikely to influence regulatory outcomes. Second, to prevent complications, such as monopolization and censorship seen in the printing press era, it was crucial to involve a diverse range of interest groups in the regulatory process, ensuring necessary checks and balances.

This study makes several important contributions. First, it addresses a gap in current scholarship regarding the legal history of the printing press’s transformative role. While various studies addressed the printing of law books and the impact of the printing press on lawyers and legal culture in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries,14 my study extends beyond their scope by examining more than these legal-printing aspects and covering a broader historical period (ie from the late fifteenth to the early eighteenth century). In this context, this article provides a novel perspective by examining the legal history of the printing press with an aim to extract lessons applicable to today’s technology regulation. Second, while technology regulation has been extensively studied, much of the existing literature tends to focus on foundational debates, such as the need for regulation and concerns about regulatory capture. In contrast, the early stages of regulation—particularly the development of standards within specific domains—have been less explored.15 This article fills this gap by examining the evolution of regulatory standards related to the printing press, analysed from both a diachronic and chronological perspective. Third, this study contributes to the development of a general theory of law and technological change16 while engaging with ongoing discussions on technology regulation. By situating itself within a broader interdisciplinary framework, it connects intellectual property (IP), law and technology, legal history and law and artificial intelligence (AI), fostering a richer dialogue across these fields. Fourth, the article addresses regulatory challenges that continue to resonate today, including private interests on public regulation,17 the commodification of knowledge18 and the role of economic drivers in legal decision-making.19 Similar dynamics are evident in the governance of emerging digital technologies, including the adoption of divergent approaches by various stakeholders20 and the influence of economic imperatives on regulatory frameworks.21 Fifth, the historical example of the printing press provides valuable insights into contemporary technologies, particularly AI, owing to the parallels outlined in the concluding section. While recognizing the differences between the printing press and AI, this article nonetheless holds considerable potential to inform present-day approaches to AI regulation.

Before proceeding, a few caveats regarding the scope and limitations of this article should be acknowledged. First, while the article draws on the legal history of the printing press to inform present-day regulatory debates, it recognizes that the socio-political and institutional conditions of early modern England differ significantly from today’s digitally networked, globally interdependent world. Contemporary technologies—such as AI—operate at a scale, speed and complexity with no direct historical parallel. As such, this study does not propose prescriptive solutions but instead uses the historical case as a heuristic lens to highlight recurring patterns in the governance of disruptive innovation. Second, the differences between early modern and modern states, societies and contexts are fully recognized; this article does not assume that laws or proclamations from the former were implemented with the same efficiency or consistency as those in the latter—an issue that lies beyond its scope. Nevertheless, the responses and practices of early modern legal authorities still offer valuable insights into contemporary legislative tendencies. Third, given that the article aims to provide a broader analytical account of technology regulation rather than a detailed historical narrative, it primarily relies on secondary sources, emphasizing those that most effectively illustrate key dynamics in the legal regulation of technology, while occasionally referencing primary sources. Fourth, due to the article’s limited scope and the impracticality of offering an exhaustive examination, attention has been focused on developments and overarching trends that are widely discussed in the literature or that offer particularly meaningful insights into the broader patterns under investigation. While necessarily selective, this approach supports the article’s central aim: to identify historical themes and legal responses relevant to contemporary regulatory challenges, rather than to provide a comprehensive account of every actor or event. Although the literature reviewed is more extensive than the works cited here, only the most pertinent sources have been included due to space constraints.

This article is divided into eight parts. Part II introduces the invention of the printing press and the transformative dynamics it initiated. Parts III through VI are organized around four key lessons on technology governance. While these sections are thematically organized, they also follow a chronological and diachronic narrative to trace the historical evolution of technology regulation through a Braudelian lens. As a historiographical method, this long-term perspective emphasizes structural forces over fleeting events, enabling a deeper understanding of enduring patterns and shifts in the regulation of printing technology over time.22 Part III outlines the state’s initial support for the printing press and the subsequent restrictions imposed as it came to view the technology as a threat. Part IV analyses the alliance formed between the state and the emerging interest group of the Stationers’ Company. Part V examines the period of political instability marked by disruptive external events. Part VI discusses the Statute of Anne as the culmination of these disruptions, highlighting the role of economic power in shaping technology regulation. Part VII synthesizes the findings, offering a general account of the legal history of the printing press in England during the period under study. The concluding section draws broader implications for technology regulation and situates the article’s contributions within the existing literature.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf054/8246693