The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-15

indianapolis papers expires at II or y o'clock
according as the hour Of going to press may be,
this bill puts no practical obstruction upon the
Of their contents in Terre Haute
Mr.. Noorhecs-No; the indianapolis morning
papers are struck off about half past or 4 III the
morning The afternoon papers come out about
t o'clock.
Mr.. Watterson-That illustrates it fairly. I
took TelTe Haute as very good example be
cause it is close to city using a large part Of
the Associated Press matter
Representative Singeton-You say a news
paper goes to press at o'clock What time do
they issue!
Mr.. Watterson-An early copy of newspaper
may be bought or stolen five minutes after going
to press
Mr.. Sngleton-Suppose paper at VicksburG
or New Orleans comes out, say at 8 O'Clock
would not the correspondent of that paper be
prevented from telegraphing that news, or would
il not operate to that extent!
Mr., Watterson-Let us take an illustration.
A is publisher of a paper at Nicksburg, and
pays for the Associated Press matter, or for that
of any other association. B publishes a news
paper and does not pay a cent to anybody for his
news Now, should this
Mr.. Singleton (interrupting)-I am not speak
ing of the Justice of the matter Would ii pre-
vent the papers publishing at I or o'clock!
Mr.. Watterson-Very few, if any, daily news
papers are published as late as that. They
usually go to press at Nicksbug at o'clock.
That is 6 or o'clock in New York The differ
burg which proposed to live by piracy to steal
and publish its matter for the mere cost of tele
graphing and type setting 1t is precisely the
point at which this bill is aimed 1t would af
feet no newspaper which didn't propose to obtain
its matter by robbery. 1t could not possibly af
feet newspaper paying for its news
Mr.. SingletOn-Who do you understand, by
the Constitution, is entitled to take out copy
rght2 Is it tho author, or the man who pur
chases from the author!
Mr.. Watterson-At the suggestion of the
chairman of the committee | struck out sec
ton of this bill narrating and specifying the
mode and persons who should take out a copy
right. Mr.. Sherman thought it would put an
additional duty upon the Librarian of Congress
and upon the United States courts which were
specified in the section. l suppose that the pub
Usher who is, or who represents, the owner
of newspaper is the person entitled to pro
lection.
Representative Woodward-As defendant or
plaintiff!
Mr.. Watterson-As plaintiff.
A cOlloquy ensued as to the constitutional
power of Congress to grant copyright to any
person other than an author or inventor. The
law was read and found to give this right to
proprietors i'll express terms.
Librarian Spofford who was present remarked
about two-thirds of the copyrights issued are to
propretors.
A suggestion was made by Senator Hoar that
the measure required an amendment, so as to
designate the person in whose namc this right
should vest.
Mr.. Watterson said any form which would Sc
cure the ends proposed, would be acceptable.
Mr.. Voorhecs-Mr Watterson, do you think
there is sufficient abHse-that it is grave enough
abuse-to call for this legislation!
Mr.. Watterson-Yes, sir l think that the in
creased facilities for newspaper reproduction
give very great temptations for the use of pi-
rated matter. In my opinion, this species of rob
berry is decidedly on the increase
Continuing, Mr. Watterson said: Il cannot
soc why Congress should refuse its recognition
of a new class of property which modern inven-
tions-the telegraph, telephone and railroads
have brought into being"
Senator Hoar asked why the purpose of the
promoters of the bill could not he accomplished
by providing simply that the present copyright
law should extend for eight hours to all daily
and weekly newspapers. without filing u copy of
publication with the librarian of Congress.
Mr. Watterson said the object was to prevent
concurrent publication, and whatever would best
accomplish that would be acceptable.
Representative Nutting called Mr. Watterson S
attention to the assertion frequently made that
the purchaser of a newspaper becomes the abso
lutte owner of it, and asked HIM what he thought
Of it.
He replied the purchaser of a copy of news
paper has morally no more right to reproduce its
contents for concurrent sale than the purchaser
of book has the right to reproduce and sell it.
In both cases the buyer procures n copy for his
own private use, not for multiplication and sale
in competition with the original publication.
The fact that the book is protected by law and
the newspaper is not furnishes room for the
enactment of this bill.
In conclusion Mr.. Watterson said the bill I'M
der consideration did not affect what was called
country newspapers one iota. There was, he
said, no suppo5able condition in which. as
practical question, they could be affected by it.
He had ransacked his Imagination unsuccessfully
for some conceivable way in which infringe
ment of the proposed bill could affect the coun-
try press, nor did it affect the afternoon papers,
This misapprehcnsion in the public mind had
grown out Of the original -uggestion that the
protection should cover period of twenty four
thirty eight hours, which suggestion was in
considerate and untenable.