THE COPYRIGHT BILL.
MR. W A Runes proposition to stop Sergeant TesFOURVS Copy right Bill going into Committee, was defeated by 116 to 64. The at- tempt itself was injudicious ; for, as the principle affirmed, accord- ing to the learned author, is merely that some change should be made in the duration. of copyright, every part of the bill is an affair of detail ; and it would have been both fit and prudent to wait for the third reading, in order to see the shape which it finally assumed. The speech of Mr. Weteeee—devoid of argument, personal in its matter, bad in taste, and occasionally dashed by flippant insolence—was calculated to defeat rather than promote the cause which he professed to advocate. It however contained some very singular facts with regard to the working of the present system of "novelties at high prices," and of the "value in ex- change" of some of our " popular" writers, It seems, moreover, to have greatly amused the House; though we question whether a less coarse minded and vulgar assembly than the "Reformed" Parliament would not have put it down.
The rest of the debate was languishing. Little could be said in reply to a speech which had no argument worthy of the name; and the House seemed to feel the truth—that the debate was got lip fir the sake of self-display, which from necessity had taken the appearance of spite. Mr. WARBURTON made a grave and temperate address, but without any novelty. Mr. TALFOURD made a telling but fallacious reply to a point of IV AKLRY'S. In the spirit and almost in the words of Dr. Jonersole, (though we believe that the Member for Finsbury is quite innocent of plagia- rism.) the mover had said, " let those who write for posterity, look to posterity for their reward." To which the Sergeant replied, "that was exactly what he wished to accomplish,"—though the surgeon spoke of fame, and the lawyer of money. But the true answer to the equivoque is, that the Copyright Bill will benefit the author little if at all. The persons who will reap the benefit are not his family—but his legal representatives. And this brings us to the point to be fought for in Ci mmittee- the duration of the copyright, and the manner in which it should be alienated, or expire, (for the other clauses, though clumsy, and capable of being turned to the purposes of anent ante, will readily be modified, and are not very greatly worse than the exist- mg law). At present, the supporters of the bill arc constantly shifting their ground ; sometimes saying their object is to benefit authors, and sometimes the families of authors. Let one clear- headed man, in the more conversational and less rho. rival Com- mittee, compel the mover to state his purposes distills• ly, and, so far us right and reason are compulsory, to give them effect by reconstruetiog the clauses. We believe that the interest of authors are pretty well secured at present—that the law enable- the actual producer to extract all the pecuniary advantage possib e from his production. But eases of peculiar hardship may no ds ubt occur. A man advanced in years, could only raise a sum for permission to publish single editions, as no one would buy a cof right that dropped with an old life. Last year, for instance, tw, editions of CAMPRELLS* Poems were published, one in London, r ne in Scot- laild,.and adapted to purchasers of very' different pursee. If the copyrights are in the poet's possession, he no doubt roe ved a con- sideration from each bookseller for permission to pubh h ; but he Mild not get the utmost value of his copyright, on LILT unt of its uncertain duration. This, we believe all, except p rhaps the meanest-minded of the Economists, would cheerfully ; iant ; and the only point to ascertain is, the duration necessary tt effect this • It is somewhat singular, that CAMPBELL, almost the fink- author whose works are likely to have much regular demand many years niterh. own death, !snot purada in the lists of " great writers" favourable to time C, pyright 13i11. It is passible enough that he approves,of it ; but indepeudcur., n its largest sense, is the characteristic of genius ; which shrinks from the MI terchange of flatteries, necessary to acquire the vote and interest of clique..
"Ye Kenrieks and Kellys and Woodlltlis so grave, What a commerce wits yours whilst )e yet and ye fp vet ' purpose. The Trade, for books of established reputation with the gloss of novelty yet upon them, consider seven years the utmost limit which enter into the purchaser's calculation when he makes his bargain. But we will not quarrel for a year or two: extend the present right of the author and his assigns to ten or a dozen years after his death—and the actual producer will be able to gain every sliver from his labour that law or nature can secure or permit.
But, when pinned down to inconvenient specificalities, the ad-
vocates of the bill will say, " Oh ! we intend to benefit the rt- wily." Very well, then frame your clauses to effect your inten- tions. Prevent the author from alienating for more than a cer tain number of years after his death ; prevent any one of his family from alienating at all. By the bill as it now stands, the vindictive from spite, the profligate from imprudence, the dis- tressed from necessity, will defeat the professed intentions withote' benefiting themselves one farthing. Their " immortal genius" will enrich some bookseller, who will hold a monopoly of it against the public. But still less should other persons than the author himself be allowed to alienate the property from his de- scendants. It was MILTON'S wife (" she who oppressed his children in his lifetime, and cheated them at his death,"+) that sold the common-law perpetual copyright of Paradise Lost. What would Tom Sneeineer have cared, so far as conduct was concerned, about anybody but himself ? Ile would have sold the copyright of his father's dramas " out and out," and left the grandchildren to penury. And a sale to a bookseller will, unless prevented, in- variably take place if the family are in a condition to require the profits of the copyright. What we propose is applying the strain to the principle of the Sergeant and his advocates, for it indi- cates the difference between copyright and other property ; but it is neither impracticable nor even inconvenient. The profits of editions may be proportionately divided between the bookseller and the holder of the copyright ; or, as is said to have been done in the case of WORDSWORTH lately, the bookseller may pay a suns for liberty to publish. The copyright should cease when the family of the author is extinct within certain defined degrees. An enactment of this kind, which secures what the promoters of this bill only profess to aim at, "justice to authors and remuneration to their families," would apply a touchstone to their sincerity, and the honesty of their motives ; for the cry about encouragement of literature is the sheerest ignorance or the grossest hypocrisy. Men write according to the bent of their nature, the character of their studies and experience, and in some degree the fashion of their age. To suppose that acts of Parliament can operate upon these things, or raise up a genius when its " bounties" fail in encouraging even salted fish, is the delusion of a dupe or the cant of a quack.
We know from the classic ages downwards, the mainspring of the highest intellectual exertions. But if the " Esegi monument= tyre percunius"
be the outburst of great poets, what says labour and genius com- bined? GIBBON has often been alluded to in this discussion : we last week showed the toil which he underwent ; now hear his words for what- " Fame is the motive, it is the reward of our labours; nor can I easily com- prehend how it is possible that we should remain cold and indifferent with re- gard to the attempts which are made to deprive us of the most valn2ble of our posse.,mions, M not copyright) or at kast of our hopes."— ViniliCitibm Passages, &e.
JOUNSON, quoting Priurrivs, nephew
Previous page
