Weekly Chillicothe crisis. (Chillicothe, Livingston Co., Mo.) 1878-19??, 1884-03-06
COpyrighting News.

A proposition t. copyright news
sounds strangely to some, perhaps.
News seems to be such an intangible
thing. 1t is what A tells b, or b tells
c, or what the newspaper tells each Of
them. The time was when men would
have stared at being told that news
could be considered property. Yet
that is just what the progress Of the
age has made it, and in the further
progress of the age measures must be
found to protect it, which Mr. Waiter
son S bill for copyrighting news pro-
poses, in part, to do. Enormous sums
of money are expended in the collec-
ton of news-far greater than most
newspaper readers realize. The pro-
duct of all this labor and expense is
just as clearly property as if it could
be weighed or measured, or cut with a
knife or melted, and therefore just as
clearly entitled to protection against
thieves. The ordinary thief, when he
is caught, goes to the pententiary. The
news thief enjoys complete immunity.
He secures an early copy OF some en-
terprising paper, steals from it news
which has cost it great deal of money
to obtain, and reprints it in his own
paper almost as soon, or perhaps quite
as soon, as the original owner gets it
before the eyes of its readers, or he
telcgraphs it to some distant paper,
being enabled BY the difference in time
to have even greater advantage there,
The plan Of the Wattcrson bill is simply
to prevent such thieying by giving
newspapers a copyright on their news
for a few hours. The length of time is
not of Importance. Twenty-four hours
has been spoken of. Twelve would be
better; even six or eight would doubt
less be sufficient. A limit of twenty
four hours might seem to interfere
with the free copying of matter from
other papers with credit, or might be
supposed to cmbarrass the evening pa
perS, though it need not do so, A copy
right of twelve hours. or of eight, would
serve all practical purposes. News TO
be stolen so as to be Of use must be
stolen at once. Those who have sug-
gcsted that news could be rewritten so
as to destroy its identity, and the thief
thus escape punishment, do not un-
dcrstand the real nature of this gricv-
ance. The news thief does his steal
ing when there is no time to rcwrite
If congress will give the copyright the
papers will look after its practicability.
This is not bill in the interest of
any particular news association All
news association, and all newspapers.
would be protected by it. 1t is not an
attempt to monopolzc information, as
some, out of interested motives. have
absurdly represented. 1t simply pro-
poses that newspapers which have
spent their money for thing shall be
entitled to tho control of it for the very
brief time which will prevent their be-
ing robbed of it. A newspaper which
spends many thousands of dollars for
news annually has surely the same
right to be protected in the use of its
property as the writer of book, the
composer of piece of music, or the
publisher Of a photograph. No one
would be so unreasonable to expect OF
so foolish as to desire long copyright
over news. That would be wildly i'm.
practicable. All that the Watterson
bill asks is that the newspapers shall
not have their news stolen from them
before their very eyes, and published
simultaneously with them by Others
who have borne no part of the expense
of rrttinp it, II is bill which men