Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 November 1880 — INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT. [ARTICLE]

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.

BY PROF. A. C. PAYNE.

This subject is attracting a great deal of attention just now among the reading and writing world, not omitting the publishing, who, if possible, are more deeply interested than either. It is a growing question, and, large as are its present proportions, it promises further and more serious development. The result sought to be obtained by this law is the power of securing to himself by an author, iik this country for example, the pecuniary profits arising out of his productions in foreign countries as well as at home. And trice versa, of course. And, as matters now stand, notwithstanding strenuous opposition from many quarters, the tide of opinion seems to be settling toward tho affirmative, and, if something else of great importance does not retard or detract attention, this law may be looked upon as soon to be accomplished reality. Let us glance into the matter a little and sift its arguments pro and con. But to do this systematically, I shall lay down the following propositions, following them by what I conceive to be their correct demonstration, viz.: A free and perfect interchange of thought and experience among themselves is essential to the welfare and intellectual advancement of mankind. Proposition first. (This is almost an axiom.) In primeval times mankind were enveloped in complete intellectual darkness and degradation. But in time, by the survival of the fittest, and more favorable surroundings, a few became intellectually superior to the great mass about them, becoming, as it were, preceptors—lights at whose blaze the rest alighted their darkened- tapers, and whose light, transmitted from father to son, in the lapse of time illuminated the world. Now, suppose that these. superior intellects had confined.' their light to themselves, or the masses had been debarred from approaching it, what would have been the result, and where the boasted enlightenment of to-day ? The answer is obvious to every thinking mind. The Egyptian priests adopted this practice, and for ages, while they were comparatively well informed in the sciences of astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics, the great horde of the people were totally illiterate, off of whose credulity and superstition the favored few waxed fat. Suppose, too, that the prophets and seers of old and the apostles of later days had kept their great revelation of light to themselves or to their own race and country, what would have been the moral state of tho world even now ? Demonstration one.

The diffusion and interchange of ideas and experiences is j>rincipally effected through the medium of written and printed language. Proposition second. This proposition there are few but who will concede. Suppose that word of mouth or tradition had been our only means of exchanging and preserving knowledge. How puny would have been its benefits ! Even as it was with parchments and stylus, how little diffused was the lore of those days. Written upon bulky and inconvenient material at great labor and expen-e, few books were to be obtained and those only at fabulous prices. Confined, as they necessarily had to be, to a favored few in temple, palace, or convent, all the rest of the earth were enveloped in midnight darkness. Even the word of God was trans-' mitted to them only by word of mouth, and obviously distorted to suit the purposes of the relators. What wonder, in view of these facts, that for nearly a thousand years all the known world was relapsed into primeval ignorance, and murder, rapine, lust, superstition, and misery only marked what we style truly the Dark Ages, Only with the advent of the printing press was knowledge at all diffused. With its appearance dates the beginning of our millenium of enlightenment. Seeing the inevitable result of a diffusion of Bibles and general knowledge as the annihilation of their supremacy, .most bitterly did priest and King oppose its progress, demolishing its forms and putting its disciples to the rack, and poisoning the minds of the masses w'ith superstitious horror for it as the preparation of the devil, and its invention as an emissary of that dark monarch. But truth and right are mighty, and printing presses continued to bo and to act, and volumes of history, biography, philosophy and theology were scattered among the illiterate masses, and we behold a comparatively enlightened world. I say comparatively enlightened, for, with ail our boasted education, our present knowledge is but as a drop to tho ocean, an instant to eternity. Had there always been the present medium oi diffusion of light, crippled though it be, how would our present knowledge have compared with what • would have been ? Demonstration two.

Copyright is a restriction and barrier to the dissemination and interchange of thought and experience among mankind in the form of literature. Proposition third. Those at all conversant with the nature and workings of the Copyright law cannot take candid issue with this assertion. By its virtue the diffusion of literature is so restricted as to make possible the confining of it, virtually, to one country, or the placing of it beyond the reach of the great masses by an extortionate purchase price; It necessarily makes scarce books and costly books, by a royalty to be paid to the author or original publisher by all other publishing firms, and an optionary estimate of its purchase price necessarily follows. The great mass of the people, ground down by unjust laws and usages, and scarcely able to sustain life, have no money for dear books. And this crying want our second-hand book shelves and our circulating library does not appease, and consequently myriads go down through ignorance to lives of superstition and crime. What is wanted is cheap books and plenty of them. To supply this want was the one fond lifelong dream of Knight, the meditation of Chambers, and the hapless experiment of Constable. But owing to the great illiteracy-of their days, although Knight's Penny Magazine and Chambers' Journal for a time flourished marvelously, these dreams and exneriments were never substantially realized. A step in this direction to-day has been taken by the issue in London of Dick’s cheap classics, and, thanks to a . want of this international copyright, in this country by the issue of our cheap-pamphlet libraries, and in New York by a new firm issuing more substantial works for a comparatively nominal price. That such a want is a reality, and the endeavors to appease it are appreciated, the avidity with which these works are bought up proves beyond a doubt. With all the modern facilities for printing, these pub-

fishers can scarcely keep apace with the demand. In nearly every household all over the length and breadth of our broad land these works have an abiding place and are read and have a vast influence where before, when protected by copyright and issued by millionaire publishers at unreasonable prices, not a book was to be seen. People read who never read before, and their ranks are increasing rapidly. Now most of these cheap works are reprint of foreign literature, made possible by the lack of an international copyright law, which makes them accessible to any printing firm, and old standard works of our own country whose copyrights have expired. Should an international copyright law become established, upon the instant, a greater part of these cheap works would have to cease to be, their publishing falling into the hands of grasping firms, who would issue them at exorbitant prices, denying them to any other firms to be published, except by the paying of a large royalty, making it impossible for them to be printed at a less price than their own. That publishers and authors would scruple not to carry out this law to its fullest extent, none who knows anything of human nature and the fierce opposition and persecution to these “ cheap ” publishing firms will for an instant doubt. It would make a monopoly possible of the food for the sustenance and development of the soul, as our merchants and dealers make such a combination in our corporal food ! Demonstration three. Now, from these facts I oppose an international copyright law. Instead of making such a law, abolish our home copyright laws. While conducing to the welfare of the individual or the few, the rights of the great masses are ignored. It is inherent in nature that the few must be governed by the desires of the many ; the few are the rich publishing houses and authors, the many the great reading masses whose wants must be supplied That authors and publishers have rights which the masses are equally bound to respect I don’t seek to deny. That they suffer certain wrongs which deserve to be righted is equally self-evi-dent. But to the proposed plan of righting these wrongs and securing these rights by an international copyright law I object. Give to an author a copyright law by which the fruits of his labors, than which none are more arduous, equally with the inventor of more material wares, may be enjoyed by himself. That patent-right laws are just and beneficial alike to both inventor and public is patent to all, rewarding, as it does, the inventor for his labors and insuring to the public more useful inventions in the futiwe by encouraging his exertions. Equally just and beneficial would be a copyright law for the author as an inventor of yet more important and lasting works. Moreover, let not the law stop with securing to inventors and authors the control of their labors for ten or a dozen years, but let it be for their life and descend to their children and children’s children through all posterity. How unjust would we regard our laws were they such that a man, after toiling and depriving himself to buy up a little home for himself, should bo able to retain it for only a few years, and should forfeit it to his children at his death I As arduous are the labors of an inventor and author, yet this very law is their protection to-day. Give instead a wiser, more just and natural law; as emanating from themselves, the creaatidn of the exertion of their own brain, equally with the home secured by the manual toils of the laboring man, is it wholly and everlastingly theirs and their descendants’. Yet that the rights of the masses may not be infringed upon, restrict the control of their inventions to a reasonable and legitimate use. Let them have only such a royalty as may be just, consequently placing it within the reach of the humblest purchaser, yet give them this royalty always. As it is, knowing that their inventions are to be under their control for but a short time, and that what is to be made out of them by them must be made quickly, they resort to an extortionate purchase price as the means to secure this. In consequence, for years the great mass of the people are deprived of their just-ly-entitled use of an author’s or inventor’s works, while the author or inventor themselves do not really reap the full and just benefits of their labors. This was illustrated in the sewing-machine which at first was beyond the reach of those who really needed it by reason of its purchase price, but who could have enjoyed it all these long years without injustice to the inventor had our patentright laws been more equitable. This same short copyright, as I have above asserted, is the cause of our high-priced and scarce books of to-day. A medium course by which none are wronged, but all righted, is inherent in the nature of things, and let us apply its principle to our laws, particularly our copyright laws. Only founded upon this principle am I in favor of an international copyright law. Chicago. HL