National Republican., 1883-07-31
International Copyright.

THE REPUBLICAN a few days since gave q
an agreement entered into by treaty between
the French and German governments on the
subject of copyright The London Times
thinks that any proposition for an interna-
tional copyright between Great Britain and
this country must, to have any prospects of
success, be in the nature of compromise.
1t asserts that British publishers and British
authors as a body share common interests.
Whatever may be said to the contrary, these
two classes gain and lose together. 1t claims
that British publishers would rejoice to have
the amplest international copyright conven-
tion which could be drawn, and thinks that
the same feelings pervade American authors.
While it admits that fair number of Ameri-
can publishers would concur with the whole
army of authors of both countries and with
the publishers of England, considerable
portion of tho American publishing trade
would dissent. The Times further says:
The mass of the American reading public be-
leves II profits by the present system, or GER
tuiny can be made by the publishers who supply
it to believe that 1t profits 1t does not actually
profit. Copyright, properly viewed, is for the
benefit of readers rs well as authors. If 1t were
| not authors could not trust in Its permanence
even in their own country. Its title rests on the
| foundation of property and pay for services gen
orally. To the reading public 1t is advantageous
that authors should feel secure of Il reasonable
remuneration for their labor and skill, as it is
| advantageous TO suitors that counsel should re-
cGive fees The abolition of national copyright
would njure the public as much as writer's, and
perhaps more. When two nations speak one lam
guage and think like thoughts, as in Great Britain
and the United States they form for literary pur-
poses one public. Almost all which might bC
pleaded against the repeal of copyright statutes
in each of tho two countries could be advanced
on behalf of the public interest In the estab-
lishment of an international copyright between
them. This is the principle which American
and English authors should keep before then
in arguing with their respective nations. II
time, without assembling their own private
interest IN the result they will convince theiI
readers that readers as well as writers have cor
responding interest. But the process may be some
what lengthy, If this be the main engine upol
which American authors are relying for their ex
tortion ofinernational copyright from their coun
| trymen and representatives without the co-opora
tion OF their publishers Half loaf Is better thai
no bread. 1t would be expedient to accept wha
American publishers are willing to yield in tn
interval before appeals TO pure reason and ulti
mate national advantage have won their battle
To western planter or Northeastern lumberman
or to his family, eager for books and sparing o
dollars, there Is something extraordinarily seduc
tive in q system which gives for few shilling
the entire range of British literature. A judciou
International copyright convention would no
really deprive him of anything which is good II
the present liberty. Piratioal publishers however
can easily lead him to conclude that internatlona
copyright would work him that Injury, Englisl
authors and publishers and American author
will be well advised If they recognize the powe
the less scrupulous grades o. American publisher
have at their command. They had better insis
upon retaining the trade an ally in the struggl
for international copyright, though It have to b
bribed by limitation of the full benefits of copy
right as the price Of its assent
Under the laws of the United States n
copyright is granted to an author unless he b
citi zen of the United States or residen
therein. This has been the subject of grea
complaint by foreign authors. The BIRTHS
parliament as early as 1888 made an offer I,
grant the right of international copyright t
authors in foreign countries whose govern
ments would accord similar rights to Brtis
authors. Treaties embracing these princi
pies have been made by Great Britain with
number of nations, but the United States goN
ernment has taken no action looking to sue
an agreement.