THE COPYRIGHT QUESTION.
Ir on a subject of no very immediate necessity—where a pro- posel change is contrary to the practice of all civilized nations, its public good or evil results vary doubtful, and the priliciple on which it rcs's nat yet satisfactorily resolved—we find persons zealously taking up a side ; imputing "mental or moral S' de- ficiencies to all who, however calmly and dispassionately, demur to their conclusions, and resorting to mere assumptions or to fallacious arts to bolster up their cause ; we generally rate them as wanting in honesty, or in reasoning capacity : and an article in the Globe, professing to discuss our last week's observations o Sergeant TALFOURD'S Copyright Bill, falls under this category. In approaching the subject, we could not avoid seeing, that ,PerPstual copylight, or copyright for a wry extended term, to rnefit--not the author, be it remembered, but those who come after "11—Was contrary to all former practice, and to general opinion. So striking a fact relating to property, which, between subject and Ilebject is guarded with a superstitious reverence even in nations only approaching to civilization, induced us to examine into its probable cause. And we saw, or thought we saw, this broad L!rigirial distinction in principle—that material property can only _ e taken away by force, whereas property in copyright can only had by an exercise of the force of society. The man is ho _ L? cultivates unappropriated ground, or makes an implement of husbandry, or builds, can only be deprived of his property by force — he asks nothing for its full enjoyment but to be let alone. But the purchaser or possessor of a poem can dissemi- nate copies without any natural hindrance, or the use of any force; it seems prima fade a right that he should do so ; and he can only be prevented from doing it by the interference of society " Hence," we concluded, " the right of the community to impose conditions upon the inventor, in return for the artificial property which its act creates, or to which at least it gives effect. And public expediency, without injustice to the individual, seems the question to be determined."
To this attempt to investigate the prineiptes of the ease, with- out going Into all the minutim of positive laws, the debater in the Globe objects- " This writer's idea of the qualities required to constitute solid property will not stand the slightest examination. The most substantial property requires to be secured by as artificial means as the property of the author in his work, or the inventor in his patent. Every owner of propertv equally asks a boon of society, when lie seeks by legal power to prevent individuals ' from exercising their • natural right' to fish in his trout-stream, or shoot his pariridges, or his pigeons, as when he seeks by similar means to prevent them from pirating his work or his patent. Anil how many incorporeal species of property are there, to say the least, as intangible as property in mental productions !"
We suspect our "idea" will stand such" examination" as this writer can give it ; for he has yet to acquire the faculty of perceiving analogies. Who but himself, in a nice question on the original
principle of the right of property, would have referred to " pre- serves" or " pigeon-shooting?". or what sort of advocate is
he who places the justice of copyright on the same footing as the "game-laws ?" We thought it was well known that all jurists (we are not speaking of sporting lawyers or legis- lators) denounced these laws as the edicts of tyranny, giving
a property in that which was ferce nature', and open to all (like a poem ?) who could appropriate though they could not produce them. Let us also hint to the gentleman of the Globe, that even if the game-laws were abolished to-morrow, the law would still protect the "fish in a trout-stream," and the "partridges ;" because
they could not be got at without a trespass on another man's pro-
perty,—that is, a " wrong :cumrnitted with actual or implied force.' That " many incorporeal species of property" are pro- tected, may be true enough ; but have they any natural and in-
herent right to prevent them from being dealt with by the Legis- lature,—abolished or modified at pleasure, without any other rule than that of the general weal P—for this is the point at issue.
The G lobe has said nothing to our remarks on the more practi- cal points of the case,—whether as regards the past effects of the law of copyright; or the probable results of the change ; or our brief allusion to the difference, hitherto drawn by the Legislature between the author and his descendants. He however floats him- self by a quotation from a brother, or perhaps an alter idem, of the Monthly Chronicle ; who thus holds forth- " A people," says the Monthly Chronicle justly and forcibly, his a deep and everlasting interest in the independence of its Men of Letter,: leave them poor, and you make them servile ; make them servile, and they become disho- nest. The time has passed when a jesting patron could say, ' Keep your poet poor ; ' the tnaxim was applied to Dryden. Poverty did not make Dryden a poet, but it made hint a truckler and a slave. Let literature be above the necessity of patrons and of pensions. Do not drive, as in instances alike mournful and illustrious you have too often done, that genius which can equally pervert as enforce the truth, into battering its divine birthright for the mess of pottage. Flow many dangerous prejudices, how many rank abuses, how many errors injurious to a whole nation, have sprung from the bought advocacy of writers to be hirelings because condemned to be beggar.!"
All which, so far as regards Sergeant TALFOURD'S Bill, is mere rhetorical twaddle. The poverty or riches of authors has nothing to do with the subject. So far as the legislator can secure to them the gains of their productions, they are secured. They are granted a term positive, for a period longer than any one takes into consideration when purchasing copyright : if the writer survives that time, time property is secured to him for his life, were he to live as long as the antediluvians. Turning from the favourers of the Bill, to its opponents, we may recommend those who are not mere partisans, or led away by biglesounding phrases, to peruse the shrewd, discriminating. thoughtful letter addressed to us by an " Edinburgh Publisher." Though not in his terms secure against the objections of a very refined logician, he puts the true question—the monopoly—in a striking view ; and throws out the only proper means, however difficult in practice, of doing justice to all parties. Ile sets the case of the London Publishers in a stronger light than they did them- selves, by markinis the distinction between retaining a right, though in common with others, and being deprived of it altogether when its possession had been calculated upon. The argument as to the assistance which time author has derived from other books, from society, and from his observations on nature, is ingenious and subtile, but not solid, except so far as the absence of long copy- right is directly concerned; for every man is indebted to his age and country for much of what be is able to acquire, and the re- spective quantities of self and circumstances are too nice for dis- tinct appreciation.
Previous page
