New-York tribune., 1884-02-25
cor YRIGHTING NEWlS.

A propositiOn to copyright news sounds
strangely to some, perhaps. News seems to be
such an intangible thing. 1t is what y tells Is,
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 cOnsid-
cred property. Yet that is just what the prog
ress of the age has made it, and in the further
progress of the age measures must be found to
protect it, which Mr.. Watterson's bill for copy
rightng news proposes, in part, to do. EnOr-
nous sums of money are expended in the coll
lection of news-far greater than most news
paper readers realize. The product of all this
labor andexpense is just as clearly property as ii
it could be weighed or measured, or cut with
knife or melted, and therefore just as clearly
entitled to protection against thieves. The
ordinary thief, when he is caught, goes to the
penitentiary. The news thief enjoys complete
immunity. He secures an early copy OF some
enterprising paper, steals from it news which
has cost it a 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 telegraphs it to some distant
paper, being enabled by the difference in time
to have even greater advantage theIe. The
plan of the Watterson bill is simply to prevent
such thieving by giving newspapers copyright
on their news for few hours. The length of
time is not of Importance. Twenty -four hours
has been spoken of. Twelve would be bet
ter even six or eight would doubtless be
sufficient. A limit of twenty -four hours might
seem to interfere with the free copying of mat
ter from other papers with credit, or might be
supposed to embarrass the evening papers,
though it need not do SO. a copyright 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 suggested that news could be rewritten so
as to destroy its identity, and the thief thus es-
cape punishment, do not understand tho real
nature of this grievance. The news thief does
his stealing when there is no time to Iewrite.
If Congress will give the copyright the papers
will lool, after its piactcabiliiy.
This is not bill in the interest Of any par
ticular news association. All news associations,
and all newspapers, would beprotected by it
1t is not an attempt to mOnOpOlizc information,
as some out of interested motives, have alb
surdly represented. 1t simply proposes that
newspapers which have spent their money for
thing shall be entitled to the control of it for
the very brief time which will prevent their
being 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 a book the
composer of piece of music, or the publisher
of photograph. No one would be so unrea
sOnable to expect or so foolish as to desire a
long copyright over news. That would be
wildly impractcable. 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 nave borne no part of the ex-
pense of getting it. 1t is bill which men who
practise honest methods in business of any kind
ought to favor. How any honest man who un-
derstands it can object we can't see. Men who
live by stealing the fruits of other peoples en-
terprse and money of course won't like it. But
is Congress to legisate for theml