The printing of a book required much more people in the first printing houses than today (now replaced by machines). So it was impractical to say any one person was responsible for the end result – we now often give full credit to the author of a  book we read, and substantial praise to the publisher. Of course, the subject of the books played a huge role: they were bibles, histories, and math books. The content of these books were meant for general knowledge; no creative force (author) behind it. In answering the assignment’s question, I would say that if the European’s conception of knowledge was* something to be shared, as a collective, copyright would change dramatically. That is; if Plato’s legacy remained when he said that knowledge exists outside of and before us, and we “recollect” it as we learn;  the idea of creating a text from one’s own labors would become absurd, and no one should have an individual right to such “creation” (Plato).

*Or, better, “had remained.” A similar conception of writing pervaded the medieval period: rarely did anyone write something new or unique. Instead, most authors rewrote legends. Today, someone would accuse Marie de France of plagiarizing Beroul, but then it was merely the way to write.