New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-25
AN AUTHORS PROPERTY.

AN AUTHORS PROPERTY.
LETTER FROM Mr.. CHARLES READE.
MONOPOLY AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL A SPECIES
or NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. IN ONES OWN
PRINTED BOOK PROPERTY AND NOT MONOPOLY
EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES COPYRIcHT-Ar-IAw
IN PRINTED BOOKS BEFORE QUEEN ANNEs
REIGN.
TO the Edfsor Of RE Tribune.
Sir: The next intellectual article the insane
sophst opposes to evidence is Vtupcration, or Men
dacity trading upon popular prejudice. lilo stigma
ties Copyright as Monopoly lie repeats This IN
vcctive ten times" it is a monopoly opposed 10 the
great laws of Property" ETC., etc. Now gauge
his logic. He starts from this: The sole
right of printing q mans own composition, fruit
of his labor, is perpetual PROPERTY az
common-law If the proprietor exerts that perpetual
right lawfully to the benefit of himself and the COM
munity and Law installing him for felOn, dyests
him Of it, the good citizen forfeits his property. But
il Law declines to ALLURE its adherence OF forietures,
and does not diyest him of his sacred property the
sacred properfy becomes monopoly the spot Howl
BY bare retention: by non forfeiturci by continue
toni Did ever continuation or non-forfeiture
of property metamOrphose that properly
into monOpolyi SO, then, If my hen
and chickens upon common, ana Law,
having imbbed spite against feathered
property sets the public on to scramble them, lose
my sole property in my hen and my chickens But IL
Law declares they are mine STILL though my oiihu
confidence has made it very easy to pirate them,
then my property in my hen and my chickens becomes
instantly a monopoly-which word means the sole
right to sell any hens or any chickens whatever Is
this lOgcian lnIatic or q liar Tor bothf
MONOPOLY ACT. PROPERTY.
I have 10 theory Of my own abOut monopoly. l
merely apply known truths that idiots repeat like
cuckoos, but cannot apply. Monopoly is defined in
the law books, and justly defined. to be an exclu-
siye right to sell any species of merchandise genus
quoddam mercaturG."
Property is wider right over narrower OBJECT.
II is the sole right of keeping, destroying, leasing,
or seliing not a species of merchandise but only
that individual specimen of merchandise or those In
dydual specimens which happen to be the mans
own by law. One wcll-knOwn historical feature OF
Monopoly is that it the creature, not OF common
law, but of Royal prerOgative: another actual
feature is that it clashes in trade with I'M
doubted property. In this Kingdom there
are no literary monopolies and only
one dramatic monopoly, viz, the exclu-
sivc right of the licensed managers to represent
any play whatever-yours, mine, or theirs Is and
Anachronist Yates misrepresents; and those men OF
the common law he undcnatcs-and they were great
masters of Logic, compared with him-always called
them by their right name, Patents" Under Henry
VIII one Saxton had tho sole right to sell printed
maps and charts and, under Elizabeth, Tails and
Bird to sell music. Both privileges were vetoes on
a species-nature, MonOpOly-name, Patent-root,
PTerogatye.
The owners of Copyright groaned publicly, again
and again. under these nfractions of their property
by Prerogative Patents and, after tho second rcyo-
luton when Provocative was staggering under re-
pcatcd blows, Literary property, or Copyright took
a literary patent or monopoly boldly by the throat,
in Roper agt Sreaer" Streater. Lar Patentee had,
from the Crown the sole right to sell law reports. by
whomsoero mritten. This was Monopoly-an exclu-
sive right to sell species of literary composition.
Roper bought of Judge Crokes executors the copy
right or sole ri ght to reprint Judge Crokes reports.
and line his trunk with them or sell Them which is
Property And this muddlehead, Yates could
look with his moon-calfs eye at Roper agt.
Strcater7 yet call literary property in
mans own printed composition, monopoly,
even when he saw Monopoly and Property cheek by
jowl in court of law,fghting each other as rival
suitors,-and the literary monopoly declaring Its
nature its distinctive title, Patent" and its root
in Prerogatiye and the literary property declaring
it's nature its distinctive title Copyright and its root
in common-aw. SO that, in Roper agt Streater,.,
the Plaintiff gives Yates the lie in the name or
Property and next the Defendant gives him the lie
IN the name of Monopoly and next the Judges give
him the lie in the name Of TIE cpmon,mw, wneh
trdry to NE great ta'cs OF property Pa thef ever
utter at the bar so impudent and double falselood
the exact opposite of the TRUTH rs is here repeated
ten times by advocate and euogist OF thieves Oh
the sacred judyment-seat!
COPYRIGHT NOT MONOPOLY.
In nv very first letter offered the statesmen and
lawyers Yates has gulled with this shallow falacy
a bet of { 80 to ESQ mans copyright in his own
printed book is property and not monopoly yet OF all
the men who are 80 ready to swndle authors ont Of
million pounds at home AMI abroad by means OF
this pettiOggors lie, not one has had the honesty
or the manhood to risk $50 Of his Orn against
$50 Of an authors upon the lie hope the world
will see through this and despite it, do. That
lie of British Petifogger is tho main obstacle to
Justice at home and to International Copyright.
The gentlemen who oppose these letters in the
United States all RELY upon this lie. Bar this leland
they arc done for. That is just the difference be-
tween Justice and injustice. Justice can get along
without lie. Injustice can't
Yates's last legal feather is plucked. Remain
only mis- confusion of Copyright with Patent-right
which shall deal with when come to the legis-
llture-and his tropes ard figures. Ideas" says
he "are free by nature. and, when an author prints
his Manuscript he loses all property in his ideas,
just az he loses his bird, if he lets it y out Of its
cage" He proud Of this smile that he re-
peated it four times, and muddleheads echo 1t to
this day. Well, it is the simile of a luna
tic. No observation, and therefore no discrinl-
ination. Here is confusion of ideas for
YOU! Why, a man does not forfeit his tile to his
ilown bird: ne loses possession de facto bur not
property de jure His title is lnmpaircd and should
he lind the bird in other hands he could claim him,
and he could not be noa-saited jury would at least
hear evidence whether he had bred the bird, and
been its sole proprietor. and a tle-page round its