New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-05-26
THE Il RIBU n E
The Copyright Question.

The NeW " Grid labors to convict Us of incon-
sistency on the Copyright Question, in that We
have repubi>hcd the works OF English Authors,
while admitting their right to be protected in the
en- oymcnt of the fruits of their abors. l. this
sound logic or good sense Stealing consists in
the appropriation OF anothers property to our own
benefit against his expressed or presumed WILL
Il in travelling through forest cut cane or
gather pum,. do not steal; but if | took the
same stick or fruit from a strangers garden |
should do so. If Bryant Longicllow writes
poem, End | reprint it from the Knickcrbocker or
Democratic giving credit to III. author and work.
/ do not steal because violate no wish of and do
no injury but the contrary to those in whom the
right OF property exists bat if | were to publish
on eiitioH Of Byant's or Longfellow's Poems,
without the consent and to The pecuniary injury Of
the author, should be stealing He who should
tomorrow collect and publish in volume Barry
Cornwall's verses in this country, would very pro-
baby be doing their author service and would
therein do nothing wrong but if that author
chose to publish them here for himself, and de-
sired others not 10 do 80, rival edition would be
a gricyou, moral and pecuniay nroHP Copyright
Law or no law. s. OF Mr.. Dickens works. some
of which we published ON whose metion origi-
n,lly the Editor of the W orld well knows. IfMr.
Dickens had euloyed and claimed Copyright
here, never should have done except by his
express permission; in the absence of any such
law or claim, we did Mr.. Dickens no injury what
ever, and presumed we were doing ne would
-, Loci
IN intlmation from him that hc deemed himself
in any way injured or aggreycd, under the cir
cums,ances actually existing. by soch reprints
ours would have prevented any such publication
on our part.
The World deem, it necessary to say that Mr..
Greeley oInes that to copy work by an Eng
lish author is to steal from that author. The
foregoing exposition will show how very far /.
thi, from stating the truth. The Ed;or has stud
ed Blackstone, and, though we have not, We will
abide by the definition of stealing therein gvcn,a
DISTINGUISHING between the fclonious and innoccn,
taking of tina, to which another has prior right
The World ventures to speak Of our course as
can example of the gross Inconsistencies Of which
all the present advocates Of the International
Copyright Law are guIlty. s. long it was for
their interest to steal, they stole when 1t ceased
TO be for their interest they were very much
shocked shat some people should continue to be
guilty of the same msdemeanor.' The Editor Is
most unfortunate in this assertion. Time was
when he and ourself agreed NEST heartily and
acted together most cordially on this question.
One Of US has since changed ground entirely, but
whether mpelled by interest or some nobler mo-
tive, We shall not undertake 10 say. At any rate
we lave never written line but our own side
Of ih, question; and, although orr name is too
humble to be found the petition of Americas
Author. for an International Copyright, we do not
believe it is within the power of any interest to
sweryc US from our early and .teadtast convictions
ofiusticc and honesty. We could wish we hid
more company in this resolution.