The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1900-04-23
PERPETUAL COPYRIGHT.

| The select committee Oh the mouse Oh
lords presided over by Lord Monkswell,
to which is referred the two bills to
amend the law relating to copyright,
met to-day for the purpose of taking the
evidence of Samuel Clemens Mark
! Twain. In the course of his evidence
/ Mr.. Clemens said he thought the copy
right laws of England and America
Were now so nearly what they ought to
be that they needed only one CONNER
ciaIly trifling, but morally gigantic,
amendment in order to become perfect.
That amendment would be in the re-
moval of the fortytwo years limit and
the return to perpetual copyright.
One of the reasons in favor of limited
copyright was, he was persuaded, falla-
i-cious 1t was the one which made a dis
tinction between an authors property
and real estate, and pretended that the
two were not created produced, or ac-
quired In the same way, and that this
warranted o different treatment of the
two by law. In his view, the source
from which both proceeded was the
same. BY the usual phrasing a book
was merely combination Of ideas, a
nebulous thing, it was said, on which
to base a property right which should
be permanent; and yet there was no
property of any kind which was not the
result of the application of some mans
intellectual gifts, some mans labor of
brain as well az hand, some mans sue
cessful combination of IDEAS The man
who purchased a landed estate had to
earn the money by the superiorities of
his intellect at the bar, in trade, in
manufactures, or other industries. His
land was what book was, the result Of
his own brain work, combination and
exploiting Of ideas. 1t was his idea that
a copyright limit was not what was
called a sound public policy and that
it conferred no large benefit upon any
body When copyright died it was
not the case that the law gave the book
to the publishers as free gift. 1t
merely gave the authors profit In 1t to
the public. The profits of the publish
ers were retained for themselves. The
forty-two years limit killed a fairly
popular book now and then, which could
have had larger life but for the limit.
Half a dozen publishers jumped for the
book at once. They glutted the market
for six weeks with extra cheap editions.
AS a rule, they all got their fingers burn
ed; the book sank out Of sight, and the
public might have to go without it for
ten years. One could not resurrect any
but a very strong book like that.
Out of every one hundred tons of
books sold, ninety nine were light lit
erature.' Then, to benefit the nation
substantially one would need to furnish
it with ninety-nine tons at as cheap a
rate as possible. The other ton was not
Of consequence. His own books We're
Fight literature-very light. Many UNI
thinking thinkers, he added, think they
think (Laughter.) In his experience,
copyright or the absence of it did not
affect his books here. The cheap edi-
ton very soon followed the high priced
one, and the cheap price was just the
same upon the books which lacked
English copyright as 1t was upon those
which possessed it. These books were
closely packed with printed matter, and
were sold at rs. The destruction of the
could hardly cheaper them
more, certainly not enough to make the
empire lose its sleep for joy over the
Wllluldl. tlLduSuleTs) lie DtlleNGu IL
was public demand more than the pub
Usher or parliamentary legislation
which determined the price of book
A publisher would make any honorable
sacrifice-that had money in it. Per-
manent cheap editions of deathless
books would be assured by perpetual
copyright. He believed there was only
one book in the world which had been
justly and fairly treated since Queen
Anne's time--the English Bible was the
only existing book, so far as he knew,
which possessed that fair and honorable
grace Of perpetual copyright. That had
not deprived the public Of marvellously
cheap editions. Was the value to the
nation of terminable copyright great
enough to make it worth the trouble of
parliament to continue it?
His plea for a return to perpetual
was that terminable copyright
did not take pennies enough out of
an authors heir to make the thing
worth while Practically there was no
advantage in it for any
body. There was no dignity in the TAX
ng of pennies-and no money In it. The
royalty on the books of Britons during
The century which had survived the
limit would probably not
amount to $4,000 a year, and it was
his sum which, by the grace of linn
ted copyright, the richest nation on the
Earth took out of the pockets of the
children of the little handful of illustri-
nus men who in the stretch Of CEN
ury had ~done so great and acknowl-
edged share in building the British
power, broadening the worlds civiliza-
ion, and spreading wide the glory of
he English name. He suggested that,
It the end of any limit parliament |
night fix, an author should be com
oeled to provide an edition of his book
It one-eighth of the published price,
md that il he allowed the book to be |
tut of prlnct for year he should lose |
he copyright. 1t would perhaps be bet |
er to have some authority to fix the |
'rice of the cheap edition than to fix it |
arbitrarily at one-eighth.
BY Lord Farrer-There was no diff |
ulty in taxing the property of literary |
1en. He had been taxed by the govern
nent of this country some years ago |
nd, being curious to know how he had |
scaped so long, he wrote, and received |
n explanation number of documents !
how1ng that nothing had been over
ooked. Uaughter). He looked to see
that his literature was taxed under.
nd he found it was taxed as gas works.
Laughter). That was literally true,
nd it hurt him. (Laughter) London
telegraph.
81. IA |