New-York tribune., 1879-01-31
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
npovr ov 11TrP.RY PROPERTY.

4 T..
II is rarely that one of the legal publications OF
,bo distinguished house whose name is on the utIc-
mage of this volume possesses the degree of popular
interest which may justly be challenged by tno
present work OF truly exhaustive character 1t IS
= treatise embracing every topic connected withthe
right Of literary property and hence is OF no less
Importance TO the writer's and publishers of books
than to the members of the legal profession Espe
cially to the American public, in which Amos.
cverv member of the community is a reader ana
more or less largely, a buyer of books tue queS-
tons here discussed present an attraction inti-
matay relateAto the interests and pursuits oi u"uS
life. .o,
Tho cxistinr law of copyright is marked by signal
confusion and doubt. 1t has grown up from 'ho
cxigencies of the OCCASION and has often been tho
rroduction of persons with but limited knoWleogo
of fins branch of jurisprudence. The EngNSh s'a'-
utes on the subject, extending over period Oh "
lundrcd and fifty years, are but tissue OF MANY
colorcd patchwork. The fourteen acts now III IoIce
which have been passed at vanous times from LOO
TO 1879. are of so loose and ambiguous character
that often the law be determined only Win inc
greatest difficulty, and sometimes It's meaning
dehcs all legitimate rules Of legal interpretations
In the limited States the legislation has been OF
letter character though not free from defects Wlch
have been blindly copied from the English law
marked by the impeIfcCtions Of the acts. Opinions
not only wrong in principle but without bind
ing force as authorities, have been 1oiIOWeu
rs supposed prccedcuts. If such DECISIONS
which il must be admitted, comprise compar-
atvcly few of the cases. recognized they yet
so numerous and sometimes so plausible, rs TO az
feet the whole body of the law of copyright, ana
place the rights Of authors in perpetual confusion
and uncertainty. In the opinion OF the authoI' IL
Is the duty of tho jUrdcal writer 10 set forth tho
true principles which govern the law. lie cannot
indeed decide upon the construction that should he
given TO statutes Int he may point ont their true
meaning, when wrongly intcrpreted and when this
has been done. the judicial correction of the error
will often be only a question of time. The writer
of a treatise must give the law he finds It. But
he cannot alwavs DO this by simply recording tho
decision of the courts. Jurisprudence Is science
based on principles as well rs precedents The law
sfnally 10 be determined by the former rather than
the latter This is the point of view which MI
Dronc has adopted in the composition OF the present
treatise. He gives in the first place the law as u
has been judicJlly Interpreted, however erroneous
the intcrprctation may be but at the same time,
he permits no decision to pass unnotlced beheving
it to be erroneous giving full exposition Of the
facts. principles and authorities. which hear on the
subject and sustain the true meaning Of the law
In preliminary essay on the Origin and Nature
pfIitcrary Property" Mr.. Dronc discusses what is
perhaps the most important point relating t. copy
right, and one which has attracted wide attention
during the past year. He holds that tho night of an
nuthor TO the exclusive possession of hIs intellectual
productions is not a monopoly created BY legisa-
ton, hut species of property, having Its origin,
like all property, in natural law. lie MAINTAINS
that literary property has the same rights ana con-
1tiOns as all other property. Hence ITS ownership
Is perpetual In opposition to the present doctrine
Of the courts that an authors rights IN his manu-
script are lost by publication unless secured for
term of years by statute, Mr.. DTone contends that
tle principle is equally faaciOus and unjust. II IS
destructive of the essential idea of property. The
ownership of literary property, like that OF all
property can be transferred only with the consent
of the owner 1t is no more lost by publication
than the title to land is forfeited by concession OF
the privilege to hunt cut timber, or dig minerals
within its borders. The purchaser OF book Is en-
titled to Just what he pays for and no more, and as
MI DrOne insists. nothing can be clearer than that
in paying for a copy he does not pay for the copy
right.
The law of England was administered in accord
ance with these principles until about century
ago Prior TO the first copyright statute, which was
passed in the reign of Queen Anne, authors had
rerpctual right of property in their works by the
common law For half century after this act was
passed the Chanccry Courts in applying the law
did not hesitate to acknowledge the principle that
there was property of unlimited duration in printed
books by the common law and independent OF leg
islation. 1T was not uutl 1171 that the House OF
Lords decided against the rights of authors by the
common law, which it was held had been taken
AWAY by the statute of Queen Anne. Mr. Drone en-
deavors 10 show that this conclusion violated tho
recognized rules of statutory construction and was
opposed TO the opinions of many Of the ablest
British iurists Of that day But the judgment OF
the House of Lords has since that time prevailed
in the English courts. and has been followed by
jndges III this country. in constituting the acts OF
Congress-
The history OF international Copyright in Con-
rress traced from the favorable Report OF Henry
CLAW in 1887. to the adverse Report of Mr.. Morrill,
in 1873 Mr. DrOne declares in favor of lnterna-
tional Copyright, but does not enter upon the dis
cussion of the American branch of the subject, as
there is at present DO law relating TO 1t, and ii is
n OucstOn Of public policy, not of jurldical cOnstruc
lon The English international statutes and de-
cisons and the rights of foreign authors under the
Acts Of Congress are fully treated. The latter were
framed only fol the protection OF citizen or resident
authors. But Mr.. DrOnc, after sharp analysis OF
the existing statute contends that It cannot be con-
strued to prevent resident owner from securing
valid copyright for painting, drawing, chrome, or
any work of sculpture which is the production OF
foreign artist. lii the ease of literary work which
is the Joint production of citizen and foreigner
there is nothing to prevent valid copyright from
vcsting in the part written by the former More
over, copyright may be obtained for a translation
abridgment OF dramatizatOn made by citizen or
resident of the work of a foreign author.
In regard to the general subject Of abIldgmcntS,
translatIons, and dramatizations, considered
in reference to piracy Mr. Drono, after
q careful examination OF every decision and