New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-15
COPYRIGHT INJUSTICE.

An interesting example OF the obliquity OF
vision with which men seem 10 be ainicten I'D
regard TO property rights IN literature Is given
in the pending proposal for amendment OF the
copyright law. 1t is proposed to require au-
thors obtaining copyright protection to supply
al their own cost copies OF their books TO puo-
lie Libraries throughout the country. Al hrst
only few libraries are to be designated as re-
cpents OF such gifts, four or five In all But
there is no reason why the number should not
be indefinitely extended. II the public library
in one city Is 10 be thus favored. why not that N
another city, The chances are that II the princl-
pie is once established the application OF IT VIII
be extended until the author Is compelled 10
give a copy OF his book 10 every city, town
village and public school library in the land or
else forfeit his copyright or II not. II would
be uncommonly interesting for the authors OF
the proposal TO explain why not
Tho system. II Is said, will result In the build
ing M of a number OF National libraries
throughout the country. Yes II every farmer
who wants 10 have his ownership Of his wheat
crop protected were required 10 give bushel 10
some Government depository IN each large city
throughout the country. the system wond re-
suit In the building up OF a number or National
granaries IL every man who wants MS right
TO his wages maintained were required 10 pay
& q week 10 n Government collector IN each
large city OF the Union. the result would De
the accumulation OF a magnificent surplus IN the
National Treasury. II every man who wants 10
secure patent rights on machine he has In
vented were required to give one OF the ma
chimes to every city I'm the land. 10 BE- loaned
out TO the inhabitants for free use, II would be
n mighty nice thing for those who want 10 get
something for nothing. And assuredly there Is
no conceivable argument In favor Of the one
scheme that does not apply with equal force TO
all the others There is no more reason why
the producer OF literature should be thus
mulcted than the producer OF any other com
modify.
The scheme may have been suggested by con
temptation OF the Library OF Congress, which Is
thus enriched with copies OF all new works, and
a desire TO create duplicates OF II In other cit
les and the question may be unthinkngly
asked why the author may not properly be re-
ouired to deposit copies OF his book elsewhere
as well as at Washington. To such question
the answer is obvious The book is dcpositd Al
Washington not for tn, soke OF building UP Q
library, but as a matter Of record, to complete
the act Of securing copyright, exactly as ar
inventor is required to place model or Ms
machine In the l'atent once, or the owner o
real estate to record his title deeds at the of
flee Of the County Clerk or Register Th'
process Of securing copyright Is completed a
Washington for the whole country. and does no
have to be repeated In half a dozen other cit
les. There is no justification. therefore, for re
quirlng one OF its conditions 10 be repeated else
where Nor would the scheme have any suci
result as It's projectors seem TO suppose. |
would build up libraries, but they would not b'
good libraries. The essential nucleus OF ever!
library that Is worth houseroom must consis
OF a mass Of standard and classic works which
are not daily being produced and copyrighted
Libraries secured by the proposed methot
would I've altogether one-sIded. They woult
contain plenty OF current literature, but nj
standard works; a host Of ephemeral novel
and minor poets, but no classics and no ency
clopndas. Such a library would be n delusio
and a snare. The Government would hav
committed an act OF gross injustice and spolla
, ton, and have got no real benefit in return. TIL
, plan Is Il mischieyous one from every point O
view, and should be heard OF only as "horr
bic example, Of freak legislation which neve
can be seriously considered