The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-05-25
SOME hRIR BOOKS.


treated in nm Interesting manner. inc very
word copyright had como to BIO suggestive OF
distnste and despalr-distnete for further dis
cuasion and despair OF any profitable result
from H. But We are disposed to reconsider
these views after examining Treatise on the
Lac of Prope,ty ~ Intellectual Productions in
Great Britain and the United States. by EATON
g. DRosE Little. Brown 4 Oo.l, work which
deserves to stand in the fret rank Of legal text
books. The author Ia master OF his subject.
and knows how to make 10 attractive. His style
is clear and logical. and Is distinguished by an
nptness OF illustration not common among law
writer's. while his treatment 10 decided de-
parturo from ordinary methods.
Recognizing tho duty OF the maker Of legal
treatise TO give the law az II is. Mr.. Drono hns
sought to fulnll this obligation by stating what
has been decided by the courts. He thus pre-
sente the law OF copyright and the law OF the
right to play dramatic compositions rs judicial
~ interpreted. But he does not hesitate 20
eriticse and condemn decisions which no
deems in conflict with correct principles In
this way he imparts two-fold value TO his
work. II Is valuable to tho practising lawyer AZ
a statement OF existing law. II Is valuable TO the
legislator and the Judge as a guide to what the
law should be II expounded in the light Of those
principles which sooner or later are recognized
as fundamental And Mr.. Drone well says that
when tho juridical writer has pointed out the
true meaning OF the law and shown wherein II
has been wrongly interpreted. the judicial
hfilrmance Of what is right and the rejection OF
what is wrong will be. in many cases. but
question Of time
Plainly. however this method OF treatment
can be tolerated only at the hands OF thor
oughly able writer Mr.. Joel Prentss Bishop
has applied it to criminal law and procedure
with much success. and Mr.. Drone's use Of il IL
In tha hut thpco
authors are exceptionally clear in their perccp-
tion OF PRINCIPLES. As rule. tho ordinary
legal textbook writer does well, indeed. II no
gives his readers n correct outline OF the law as
he finds II In tho latest reports. without com
ment or criticism Of his own 1t is not every
one that can do oven this.
Tho Introductory essays by Mr.. Drone on
the origin. nature and history OF literary prop
erty leave no doubt rs to his views in regard TO
what the law Of copyright ought TO be. Intel
lectual productions constitute n species Of prop
erty founded in natural law. and entitled TO the
came measure Of protection rs other kinds OF
property Toe ownership thereof Is not do
stroycd by publication. since that mode OF use is
NIL that gives literary works any value. Simple
publication therefore. does not transfer tho
right Of reproduction to others. These are the
propositions on which the author would like TO
see the actual law hasod. Ho believes 1t to be-
the true doctrine that literary property. both
before and after publication. is founded on the
same principles has the same essential attrl-
butes ls the same in every respect rs ordinary
property Hence. he says It necessarily fol-
lows " that It must be governed by the same
fundamental rules. and protected by the same
great safeguards that are thrown around all
property Copyright laws however. without
exception. we believe. deprive authors of prop
erty In their published ideas after a certain
term Of years. Such legislation according TO
MIR. Drone Is iudefcnsible on principle He
thinks a statute which requires writer to sur
render his worksto the world at specified time.
Is like n law which should compel the owner OF
tho Mammoth Cave to admit visitors free on and
after given date.
To illustrate the respective rights Of the au-
thor Of book and the purchaser, Mr. Drone
refers TO the case Of one who buys u ticket to a
place Of public amusement:
The latter enutled 10 all the enjoyment instruction
and Information % be derived from witne sng the per
formAnee lie may perhaps give or sell his ticket to
another who may ENJOY the same advantages in his
stead lie has paid Tor IN the theatre, and he
may claim the rght to use it. Bat wall that
the privilege using ticket carries the right to
multiply IL a thou.andfold that the holder may print
other tickets and sell them for his profit that the
right Of admission any right Of property the
theatre or the play In this case, the ticket holder is
titled to Just what he pays for SO the buyer OF book Is
entitled to just what he pays for and no more; and
nothing be clearer than that in paying Tor copy VI
Tie book he does not pay Tor the copyright
or course the adoption OF all the foregoing
views would lead to the establishment OF I'M
limited copyright But Mr. Drone contends
that by the common law Of England. prior to
the year 17l0 the ownership Of literary prop
erty was recognized as perpetual. In that year
the copyright statute known rs Anne. c. 10.
was enacted by Parliament under the title Of
An net for the encouragement OF learning"
For half a century afterward we ARE told. the
ehancery courts. In administering the law. did
not doubt that by the common law and indepen-
IDENTIFY OF legislation theirs was property OF un-
limited duration In printed books" and SO the
Court Of Kings BoIch held in 1863, tho pre-
vailing opinion being delivered by Lord Mans
leld, who declared that it was impossible to re-
gard the statute OF AnAe as an abolition Of the
common law copyright.
When the question came before the House OF
Lords however. 1--WE years later. II was decided
differently. The Judges Of England were as cd
for their opinions. and only Ave agreed with
Lord Mansfield. while six declared that II there
ever was any common law copyright after pub.
LEGATION 1t had been taken away by the statute OF
Anne. upon which alone all the rights aud rem
edles OF authors now depended. Lord Mans.
feld himself did not deliver any opinion on
this occasion because he was peer but it was
understood that he adhered to his original
views as expressed In the Kings Bench. so that
in fact tho twelve Judges were equally divided
as to the effect Of the copyright statute 1t is u
be noted that Sir william blackstone wai
among those who ON this OCCASION advised the
House OF Lords that property IN ideas was pro-
tected by the common law equally with other
property. Nevertheless. the judgment OF the
House was pronounced In favor OF the doctrine
ali tha Nalt q An,