New-York tribune., 1884-03-01
INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHE
HENRY c. LEA ANSWERS PROFESSOR
L0UNSBURY.


coPYRIGHr AND PATENT mGHr-TnE QUESTION or
PRICE AND THE READING PUBLIC.
10 the razor Of The Tribune.
SIR: In this mornings TRIBUNE | observe
that Professor Lounsbury of Yale, has undertaken
answer my letter 10 Mr. Randall OF International Copy
right IN manner well adapted by cloud words TO
obscure rather than TO elucldato the subject
Professor LOunsbuTy is at much pains to expond the
vReI-known difference between patent-nght and copy
right-viz that the former coners monopoly OF IDEAS
while the latter only me words dress IN which
the ideas expressedn order prove that copyright
Is not monopoly and thus emancipate # from the
ton with which the extension OF oHOpoes is always
guarded IN prudent legislation This is mere harspl-
ting During all NY business life have been the owner
of valuable copyrights which fancied conferred
the monopoly OF publication and any one had nfnsei
npOn my rights / would certainly have enforced my
claim Dpoly That the monopoly OF copyright
grant from the sovereign power just a. Is file
monopoly Of patenIight, is sufficiently shown by the
identity phrase employed in the Constitutional clause
empowering Congress TO promote the progress Of
science and the useful arts. by securing or limited times
10 authors and inventors the exclusive right % their
spective writings aud discoveries" It is under this
clause thar and patentce alike enjoy their
elusive rights" Whether. without IT, author patcnee
wOnld any rights at common Law is question per
aaps sufficiently interesting historically no prac-
llca beating the present issue. had not time and
space for It's consideration In my letter Mr. Randall,
nave you ana your ttIeI5 HOW Tor itA VlacsSlOh
Call you please copyright exclusive right in place
OF monopoly %; the result is the same and for all prac
teal purposes the expressions arc identical
THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.
confess that do want TO he drawn into dis
eussion as 70 the nature and inyolabiy OF literary
property, for shouli dislike TO assume inappear-
ance position aniagonistic 20 the recognition OF the
rights Of authors It seems quite sufficient
point that In human society all property rights
held subject 70 limitations demanded by the exigencies
supposed OF tie public good. OF this tho law
common carriers, the statutes against Ieeratlng, tho
eminent domain. OF the state real property,
familiar examples and it would be quite easy demon
stIate that peculiarly artificial right that Of the
exclusive multiplication Of copies OF MS by the art lof
printing. and supplying them to the pdbc. is |
which the public reasonably prescribe limitations.
This at all events. the view entertained by the |
fraucrs OF the Constitutions they embodied that in
strument and short OF Constitutional amendment, !
there Is no escape it. In this country at least
10 what extent these limitations shall be contracted
expanded is like all other Of practical
maBshp question Of eTpediency The people at large
VIII not be apt to trouble Themselves about abstract
90 subtle as those which Distinguish between ideas
and the garment words in which ideas are expressed
hieh grant monopoly lpardon me. should have said
exclusive right for the idea, because public
policy demands free dissemination Of ideas. but
which exclusive rights for the dress IN which
one may cotbe another ideas because public
policy Is supposed TO be served by stimulating
write and thus disseminate their and other mems
doas. The people at large however know the differ
enec between dear book and cheap one and what |
tear that the gentlemen interested Mr. Dorsheimers
bill by combining themselves narrowly 10 what they
conceive to De the rights and interests Of authors WILL
ucoessfu provoke a reaction which may prove dises-
rous 10 all concerned IL Is friend 10 10
hc largest extension OF authors rights compatible with
iblc interests that earnestly deprecate what seems TO
ne incOnsidesste legislation
PRICES HERE AND IN ENGLAND
Professor Lounsbury rather taxes me to task for con-
ming to new books my argument AS 10 the effect OF
ae bin ON pT1ees. AS the bil only cover future
publications., there nothing else TO argue about
sn much fairly him OF Misrepresentation