New-York tribune., 1875-09-04
COPYRIGHT LAW.
A LETTER FROM Mr.. CHARLES READE
A RIGHTEOUS DECISION BY Observation-Disclosures
rlKEs OF MnnEEN LEGIsL ATuREs--INCONsi

LETTER FhOM Mh. tHAhihTo hrhD'''
RIGHTEOUS DECISION BY MAssAcHUsETfs-M!S-
TAKES or MODERN OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
LAws-AUTHoRs ROBBED.
TO the EdftOr OF The Tribune.
SIR: The power of judges is often crippled by
Precedents that revolt their cODsciences and their
sense : but legislature is happier; the justice II
sees. That it can do Now, when Literary property
was first seriously discussed in the States, tho ques-
ton whether Copyright is property, or monopoly,
n natural right, a creature Of Prerogatlve, had
Just been discussed in England. and the Legislature
of Massachusetts read Millar agt. Taylor" and
"Donaldson agt Beckett and decided between the
dwarf sophist Yates and the great lawyer Mansfield
IN very clear terms. beg particular attention TO
this that Justice Yates pointed to the title OF Queen
Anne's statute as an act for the encouragement
of learning by resting the copies copyTgh OF printed
books in the authors purchasers" and said very
fairly, that tie term "vestcd' implied that the
right did not exist before, in the opinion OF Parlia
ment. To this Lord Mansfield replied that the hne
Of an act is no par OF an act and that in the body Of
the act the word to cest is not used but the word
to sccyen and that the preamble would decide the
question, If title could be cited against the
body of an act for the preamble is full and clear in
it's recognition Of the then existing property
In March, 1888 the Legislature of Massachusetts,
gave judgment on this question of Title agt Body and
Preamble, as precisely as if Mansfield and Yates had
referred it to them. They passed their first copyright
act under this title An Act for the purpose Of
secgria1 10 authors the exclusive right and benefit OF
publishing their literary productions, for twentyo
years." Having elected between " vest and
"securc in their title, they passed to the second
point and, to leave no shadow of q doubt as to
their views drew such Preamble as even Mr.
Justice Yates vino affects to misunderstand Queen
Annes preamble, could hardly twist from its mean
ing; and shall be grateful to any American critic
who will do American and English authors so much
Justice rs TO Inspect the comparative preanbles put
together in my last, and compare both with this
preamble which now cite:
Whereas the Improvement OF knowledge, the prog
res Of civiiization the pnhlc veal OF tue commTn ~
and the advancement OF human happiness greatly &c
ihe various arts aud sccnces the principal encour
ageUeut such have To make great ana benci
cal eXerons 0f this nature must depend on the iesa
security OF the fruits Of their study AMI Industry to them
selves and such security Ii one or the natural Tgh
mans olcn than that Winch is produced by s labor Of
MS mind, therefore encourage learned aud ingenious
lie It enacted, etc Mass. Laws. 9I Ed. ls0l.
The other States followed this example and these
sentiments; all avoid tho word "yest" and employ
the word "securc," and ALL or most, of them recog-
nizc the security Of authors property as right
perfectly agreeable to the principles of natural JUS
tce and equity" See the excellent work on Copy
right of G. T. Curtis, an American iurist. =. n.
The very idea Of monopoly is absent from all these
acts; they emanated from men who were lovers OF
liberty and constitutional rights, and had shown
how we'll they could fight for them whereas canting
Camden illustrated his peculiar views of the com
mon law by not uttering word of objec-
ton in the House of Lords to a Parliamen-
tary tax upon the Colonies for tue bene-
it of England; an usurpatiOn it would be as diff
cult TO find in the law of England as it is easy to
find Copyright there
IyJUsTICE or THE PRESENT LAW.
From these sound principles of justice and national
policy the legislature of the United States has fallen
away, and listened this many years to cant and the
shOrt-sigted greed of Venetian oigarchy sticking
like a fungus on the fair trunk of the Republican
tree. But dare say not one member OF Congress
knows how unjust and Tnwise is the present state of
statute law, as regards British and American
authors. 1t is not only injustice we writhe under,
but bitter, and biting and inconsistent partiality.
Even little lawyers. though their mental vision is
too weak to see the essential difference between
Patent-rght and Copyright, have sort of confused
notion that Copyright is tritie moro sacred and
consistent with common law, than the various and
distinct monopolies just and unjust, which the mar
row vocabulary of law huddles together under the
term Patcnt-reht. Yet, in this great and enlight-
enea republic, international Copyright and Stage
right; by statute are refused and international Patent
right established.
The distinction is n masterpiece OF partially, i'm
morality, and Inconsistency. The patent new
substances discovered, imported, is mOnstrous,
unconstitutional restraint of just liberty, and will
BE- abolished whenever legislation Uses to a science.
The patent Of invention is salutary 1t is the exclu
sve right TO carry out and enbOdy by skilled labor
ono or two bare and heshless ideas, but sometimes
of prod.gious value to the world oftener of course
not worth button. The patent Of invention is a
mild monopoly in species or sub-speces OF ideas !;
blt Copyright in bare ideas does not exist. Copy
ri ht can not arise until the bare and eshless ideas
of the author, infinitely more numerous than pa
tentee's have been united with matter and wrought
ont by tine mental and physical labor or the writer
which physioal labor accelerates the death OF his
BODY An authors physical posture, when at work,
IL the same rs printing competitors physical pos
ture-see the famous portrait of Dickens at work
and his ply steal Labor is similar and equally bad for
the body, whereas thinking aud sweating AT ING
same time are healthy. The author does the lntei- i
lectu nal and physical labor not only Oh the arciutect
or the mechanical iRteai0r, but also of the builder
or of the skilled constructor and hls written manu-
script corresponds not UiM the SpecHcGb0n o. pdeR
or The pGn Ot horse bal tch the UTOnGh dtlcc, dnd
tie ball hoase. The printing press adds nothing 70
the authors production: 1t does nor even aItI tnc
vehicles but only improves them. aud that only oi
la,e years, since running hand. The modern manu-
srrint il paper with certain laborous sequence of
words marked on it in ink BY skilled labor; the
book is paper with the same iaborious sequence or
words marked on ii in ink By mere mGchahical labor
taking little time. Let read from the manuscript,
aud from tho book, and both readers deliver the
same compir'e prOdaciOR corresponding with the pt-
tented or paentable article not with the bare spoci
fcatiOn
THE VALUE OF AN AUTHORS WORK.
This object of property, the authors material web
of words has not in itself, the value of patentabc
article Its value lies in its unique power of self
rcproduction by means of the actor or the press.
uohori.o, articles of very modcrltc value are more