Chapter M: HEEMSKERK AZN replies to M. Godefroi, and does not see why he should (4)

How and why is it that foreign editions take the place of our own? Because, undoubtedly, of the difference in the price of the two, caused by the monopoly which in one case remains in the hands of one publisher. Is it not notorious, in fact, that even those of the middle classes who have a love for literature never, with rare exceptions, purchase a Copyright book, and that for the very good reason that they cannot afford it? Their only way of getting a sight of a new publication complete is by obtaining it from a circulating library; and particular passages that they wish to have by them, for the purpose of reference or re-perusal, they get possession of, if they get possession at all, by purchasing them extracted in some of the cheap periodicals which subsist on extracts. The effect of this state of things is now manifesting itself in the condition of our literature, which is becoming more and more the literature of circulating libraries—a heavy mass of light reading. How, indeed, can it be expected that an author will take pains when he knows that all his pains will be of no use; that his history or his travels will only come into the hands of those who will be compelled to rush through them at a certain rate, and return them by a certain hour. “He who runs may read,” under the present system, and none but those who do run.

This system has come up under the twenty-eight years’ monopoly. Is it likely to be improved under a law which will secure a monopoly for sixty years certain, and perhaps a hundred? We do not think it is. The advocates of the Bill indeed triumphantly refer us to the recent cheap editions of Copyright authors, as proofs of the—we hardly know what; for what do they prove in their favour? The greater part of the works alluded to—the poems of Southey, the novels and poems of Walter Scott, are works of which the Copyright is on the verge of expiring.

The following extract is also from the same volume:

The strangest misapprehensions seem indeed to prevail generally as to this question; one of the strangest is, that the only parties interested are the authors and the booksellers, and that if the Bill be thrown out, the former will suffer, that the latter may be enriched by the fruit of their labours. The third party, whose interests are not the least among those concerned—the public—is generally quite lost sight of. Thus it has been said, in reference to the often-quoted case of Wordsworth, that the question is, whether the heirs of the poet shall enjoy the profit of his works, or the heirs of Mr. Tegg (the bookseller who is so active in opposition to the Bill). But it is no such thing. Under the present law, at Mr. Wordsworth’s death, and the consequent expiration of the Copyright in his works, they would become the property, not of this or of that man’s heirs, but of “all England,” of the public at large. If Mr. Tegg, or his heirs, reap any profit, it will only be by the exercise of their callings, and Mr. Wordsworth’s heirs will have just the same privilege. The notion that the title of the cause now pending is only “Author _v._ Bookseller,” has been worked upon to such an extent, that it would almost seem that the advocates of the Bill see the importance of mystifying the public on the subject, and preventing the names of the real defendants from being seen.

II.

CHAPTER FROM M. RENOUARD’S “TRAITÉ DES DROITS D’AUTEURS.”

_La garantie d’un droit exclusif de copie sur la reproduction de l’ouvrage est le meilleur mode de salaire de la société envers l’auteur._

Long-temps on a cru que les écrivains et les artistes devaient être payés par des pensions et des faveurs. C’étaient en quelque façon l’Etat et les princes qui acquittaient ainsi la dette du public, et en même temps que l’on ne se faisait nul scrupule d’accepter ces faveurs, on était facilement disposé à rougir du paiement à tirer du public par la vente de son droit de copie sur ses propres ouvrages (1). Une partie des idées a bien changé. Aucun préjugé défavorable ne s’attache à flétrir la vente qu’un auteur fait de ses œuvres. Tout au contraire, une réaction s’est opérée. L’industrie s’est mêlée à la littérature, et a trop souvent pris sa place. Les pensions et les faveurs n’ont pas cessé; mais elles ont été reléguées à un rang accessoire et secondaire. Les littérateurs n’ont plus comme autrefois une existence à part, qu’ils tiennent des princes et des grands, dont la libéralité leur faisait de paisibles loisirs, et auxquels, en échange, ils donnaient des louanges et quelquefois de la gloire. Les lettres mènent à la fortune, jettent dans les affaires et les honneurs.

L’observateur moraliste aurait à dire sur cette revolution mêlée de biens et de maux. Dans l’ordre actuel, comme dans la vie littéraire ancienne, les passions grandes ou mesquines, les instincts généreux ou cupides, le calcul et le désintéressement ont leur action et leur rôle. Mais, somme toute, les idées sont mieux à leur place. Vivre du tribut volontaire que le public s’impose ne rabaisse aucune position, ne messied à aucun génie.

D’insurmontables difficultés s’élèvent contre tout mode de paiement, qui procéderait par voie de pensions, de traitement fixe, ou même, sauf quelques exceptions très rares, par prix d’achat, une fois payé, achat qui prendrait la forme d’expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique, si l’auteur n’était pas laissé maître de s’y refuser. Avec de telles formes de salaire, la justice distributive serait impossible; et il n’est pas de trésor qui pût suffire aux insatiables prétentions, aux faveurs capricieuses, aux concussions faciles auxquelles on ouvrirait une large porte. Qui donc si, par exemple, on adoptait le procédé d’expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique, déclarerait cette utilité et apprécierait les travaux? qui calmerait les rivalités? qui ferait justice de la médiocrité? qui inventerait des récompenses dignes du génie, sans soulever l’envie? qui irait au devant du mérite fier ou modeste? Attribueriez-vous au gouvernement l’estimation des ouvrages à acheter dans l’intérêt public? et ne voyez-vous pas à quels périlleux soupçons, à quelles intrigues subalternes, à quelles corruptions habiles, à quels profits honteux vous exposez l’administration, sans parler de toutes les erreurs auxquelles elle ne saurait échapper? Ferez-vous évaluer les ouvrages des écrivains par leurs pairs; et, si désintéressée, si modeste, si impartiale que soit toute la littérature, oserez-vous ne vous en rapporter qu’à elle seule dans sa propre cause? Trouverez-vous dans des magistrats, dans des jurés, les habitudes d’esprit et la spécialité de lumières indispensables pour une si hasardeuse décision? Pour moi, je n’aperçois de toutes parts qu’inconvéniens, qu’impossibilité. Il n’est qu’un seule juste appréciateur du salaire dû aux écrivains et aux artistes: le public. Il n’est qu’une seule appréciation juste: celle que le public, sans la formuler, mesure sur l’utilité et le plaisir qu’il tire d’un ouvrage. Un seul mode de paiement me paraît juste et possible: c’est celui qui attribue à l’auteur, sur chaque édition ou sur chaque exemplaire de son ouvrage, un droit de copie.

Ce moyen est celui que l’expérience a fait reconnaître comme le plus simple; c’est aussi le plus équitable; car, en général l’évaluation la plus judicieusement approximative de l’utilité d’un livre consiste dans le succès qu’il obtient.

Il résulte de l’adoption de ce moyen que le salaire de l’auteur se trouve très subdivisé, et que le prix de chaque exemplaire s’augmente de la part qu’il supporte dans la valeur générale assignée à l’objet de la copie.

Sans doute, ce renchérissement est un inconvénient; car les livres à bon marché sont des propagateurs d’idées plus rapides, plus puissans, plus actifs que ceux dont le prix est élevé. Mais il n’y a pas de paiement pour les auteurs, si l’on n’a, par une voie quelconque, recours au public pour le fournir. Renchérir un livre, parce qu’il faut acquitter le droit de copie, c’est établir une sorte d’impôt. Or, un impôt, quoique offrant toujours en lui-même des inconvéniens pour le public, se légitime par sa destination, lorsqu’il rend, en dépenses générales, en sécurité individuelle, en garanties efficaces, plus que ce qu’il ôte à chaque contribuable. C’est acheter trop cher l’abaissement du prix d’un livre que de ne pas payer l’auteur, que de le sacrifier à ses travaux, que de le décourager et de le jeter dans l’avilissement par la misère. Le livre coûtera un peu plus, mais il verra le jour, mais on ne l’aura pas étouffé avant sa naissance; mais surtout on n’aura pas été injuste envers celui à qui on le doit. Dire que l’on aimerait mieux passer un pont, un canal, sans rien payer, que d’en rembourser les frais par un péage; que l’on aimerait à être gardé par une armée, sans payer les soldats; jugé par les tribunaux, sans payer de juges; instruit ou récréé par un auteur, sans payer son travail; par un libraire, sans payer les frais de vente; par un imprimeur, sans payer les frais de fabrication; par un laboureur, sans payer sa culture et son blé, ce serait la prétention étrange de tout prendre dans la société sans y rien mettre, et d’exploiter nos semblables, comme s’ils n’étaient pas égaux à nous; ce serait le renversement de toute idée sociale.

Cet impôt au profit de l’auteur sur son ouvrage peut se percevoir de deux manières. L’une consiste à interdire à tout autre qu’à l’auteur ou à ses ayant-cause, la faculté de fabriquer l’ouvrage et de le vendre; l’autre serait de laisser à chacun pleine liberté de fabriquer et de vendre l’ouvrage, mais à la charge de payer une certaine rétribution à l’auteur. Le premier système établit un privilège, le second une redevance.

Le second système peut de prime abord séduire. Beaucoup de personnes qui ne renonceraient qu’avec peine à voir dans le droit de copie un objet de propriété, auraient volontiers recours aux redevances, pour conserver par une sorte de suzeraineté qui pourrait indéfiniment s’étendre, quelque image d’une propriété indéfiniment transmissible. Là se place à l’aise l’ordre d’idées qui, faisant deux parts de la partie spirituelle et de la partie lucrative de chaque ouvrage, livre au public la jouissance de la première, et ne retient parmi les biens vénaux et exploitables que la seconde.

Ne nous occupons pas encore des objections qu’il y aurait à faire, soit à la très longue durée, soit à la perpétuité d’une redevance. Ces argumens s’appliqueraient également à la trop grande extension que l’on essaierait de donner à, la durée des privilèges. Examinons les inconvéniens inhérens au mode de redevance considéré en lui-même.

Ce qui le rend inadmissible, c’est l’impossibilité d’une fixation régulière, et l’excessive difficulté de la perception.

Peut-être, à force de soins, surmonterait-on les obstacles à la perception; mais, quant à la fixation de la redevance, le règlement en est impossible.

Cette fixation ne peut dépendre ni de la volonté arbitraire de l’auteur, ni de l’évaluation que jugerait à propos de faire toute personne qui voudrait user du droit de copie. S’en rapporter à l’appréciation du débiteur de la redevance est une absurdité manifeste; mais il serait absurde, au même degré, de s’en remettre au prix que demanderait l’auteur. Que serait ce, en effet, autre chose que de lui conférer le privilège d’exploitation? Il vaudrait mieux mille fois lui attribuer franchement le monopole sur son ouvrage que d’arriver au même résultat par cette voie détournée.

Demandera-t-on à la loi de déterminer une redevance fixe? mais quoi de plus injuste qu’une mesure fixe, rendue commune à des objets essentiellement inégaux? Prendrait-on pour base le nombre des exemplaires, l’étendue du volume, son prix de vente? mais il est des ouvrages dont cent ou cinq cents, ou mille exemplaires suffiront à jamais à la consommation, tandis que d’autres se débitent par dix et cent mille: mais l’étendue du volume varie avec tous les caprices de la fabrication: mais le prix est plus variable encore. Sans parler des hausses et des baisses dont personne n’est maître, sans parler de l’extrême facilité des fictions dans les prix, et de l’impossibilité de les constater, ne sait-on pas que l’on fabrique des Télémaque à vingt sous, et d’autres, qui ne seront pas trop chers, à cent ou deux cents francs? Avec le texte qui ne varie point, il faut parler du papier, des caractères d’impression, des soins typographiques, des ornemens accessoires de gravure ou autres, objets tous variables à l’infini. Si votre redevance a pour base une valeur proportionelle, chaque Télémaque de deux cents francs produira, pour le seul droit de copie, plus que ne vaudra, dans l’autre édition, chaque exemplaire tout fabriqué; et cependant ce sera toujours le même texte qui n’aura pas plus de valeur intrinsèque dans un cas que dans l’autre.

Resterait un dernier mode de fixation; il consisterait, en cas de désaccord entre le débiteur de la redevance et l’auteur, dans un règlement par experts, variable suivant les circonstances. Mais qui ne voit tous les frais, tous les délais, tous les procès auxquels chaque affaire donnerait lieu, pour n’être, la plupart du temps, que très capricieusement décidée?

Le raisonnement juge cette question comme l’expérience l’a tranchée. L’exclusion de tout autre système acceptable conduit, par la logique, à l’adoption de privilèges destinés à garantir le monopole d’exploitation, soit à l’auteur seulement, soit à l’auteur et à ses ayant-cause. Toutes les législations actuellement en vigueur en adoptant ces privilèges ont voulu qu’ils fussent temporaires. Les motifs pratiques de cette opinion ont été indiqués par la haute intelligence de Napoléon dans une discussion du conseil d’état (1).

Privilèges, monopoles; ces mots sonnent mal: les mots de propriété littéraire recommandent bien mieux une opinion. Si je disais que cette différence dans les mots n’a pas été sans influence sur le succès divers des deux systèmes, les lecteurs sérieux trouveraient cette remarque bien futile; elle est futile en effet; mais elle est vraie, et des personnes, tenues pour graves, s’imaginent qu’elles argumentent parce qu’elles s’écrient: Quoi! vous attaquez la propriété au nom du privilège et du monopole! Je n’aurais point entendu ce propos que j’y aurais cru d’avance. Que d’opinions se déterminent par des mots!

J’ai defini la propriété. Quant à la définition du privilège, tout le monde la connaît: c’est une loi privée, _privata lex_. Ai-je besoin d’ajouter, d’une part, qu’il existe des privilèges parfaitement légitimes; et, d’autre part, que souscrire au dogme de la propriété littéraire, c’est décider, d’un mot, que le monopole des productions de l’intelligence sera concentré, à perpétuité, entre un petit nombre de privilégiés.

EXTRACTS ON INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.

I refer to the following extracts, wishing they accorded more with the views I myself espouse. It is about twenty years since Mr. Cobden told me he was opposed to Copyright. Whether the philanthropist, statesman, and patriot changed his opinion, I do not know, but I trust my propositions are such as many profound admirers of his will find consistent with his policy and principles:—

EXTRACT FROM THE COBDEN CLUB PRIZE ESSAY, BY DR. LEAVITT, OF NEW YORK. 1869.

When the people of these two nations shall all read freely the
same books, and when the audience of both English and American
authors shall be the whole English-speaking public throughout
the world, the petty jealousies, the trivial misapprehensions,
the unhappy distrusts, which dishonour the intelligence of the
age, will be known no more....

The proposed International Copyright has an important bearing
in this connexion. The object of this copyright is to give to
the authors of books, or their assigns, the exclusive right of
publication in both countries, in order to keep up the price
in both. That this enhancement of the price in one country
of books produced in the other will have a tendency to limit
the mutual circulation of current literature, will not be
questioned.

Whether the proper encouragement of authors requires this to
be done, is the point which the two Governments should first
settle. Copyright does not exist, except as created by law,
for it begins only when the steps are taken which the law
prescribes, and it continues only so long as the law extends
it. There is, therefore, no natural right involved. A man’s
thoughts are his own only so long as he keeps them to himself.
When he has uttered them they become the thoughts of all who
receive them, and who thenceforth use them at pleasure. The
title to a thought by original invention is no better than
the title to an asteroid by original discovery. The clothing
of a man’s thoughts in language no more entitles him to their
exclusive publication, after they are gone forth to the public,
than a man’s careful study of the clothing of his person
entitles him to forbid the imitation of his garb and gait as he
walks the streets. The law creates Copyright on the assumption
that the public good will be promoted by the encouragement thus
granted to authors to publish their works....

The pecuniary return realised from their publications is
neither the only nor the chief encouragement by which authors
of merit are induced to publish their works. The good they
may do to mankind, the reputation they may acquire, and the
satisfaction of seeing their thoughts widely diffused and
received, and made a part of the mental wealth of their country
and age, outweigh a thousandfold, to an enlarged and generous
mind, the value of the material silver and gold yielded by
their Copyright. And it cannot be doubted that these higher
returns are directly increased by freedom of publication
unrestricted by Copyright; because cheapness of price, and
variety in the forms of publication, are prime elements in the
widest circulation of books....

It is impossible to exaggerate the value of this international
exchange of ideas through the medium of books, as a means of
that general assimilation of thought and life which is the
highest guaranty of political and commercial intercourse and
permanent friendship between the two countries. While each
nation, for the most part, buries its own literary trash,
and each retains the exclusive circulation of books adapted
specially to its own use, the whole volume of the best thoughts
of one country have now their widest diffusion, through their
freedom of publication in the other.

The present is a favourable time for the consideration of this important question. The following extract from the editorial columns of the _Bookseller_, of May 1, is confirmatory and encouraging:—

An English author has no rights whatever in the United States;
this should be thoroughly and clearly understood. He may
make any arrangement he may think proper with regard to the
publication of his works, but can acquire no Copyright in
any way. He may wish Brown and Co. to be his sole and only
publishers, but cannot prevent Jones and Co. bringing out rival
editions; consequently, he can derive little or no profit from
his works. By sending out early sheets, so as to give Brown a
few days’ advantage over Jones, he may get a small payment, but
the sum may be very small. Moreover, should Messrs. Jones have
noted his coming greatness, and have been the first to announce
his first book, albeit quite unknown to him, they will claim to
be his publishers; and although, he may wish to give Brown the
preference, they will feel themselves aggrieved and insist upon
helping to make him famous. Should he go to America, and first
publish his book there, he will find himself in a still worse
position; he is like the notorious “Man without a Country”—he
has positively no rights at all; he has none in America, and
has none here. It was long supposed that an American author
was in a similar position; but it is not so. By a fluke he
has secured rights which he never dreamed of, and by means of
_our_ Copyright-Law, may obtain privileges denied him by his
_own_. His plan is simply this: having prepared two copies
of his MS., he places one in the hands of his Boston or New
York publisher, with directions to publish on a certain day;
the other he forwards to a London house, with directions to
publish at the same time. Just before the day of publication,
which is possibly at that time of the year when Saratoga is
an abode more agreeable than the Fifth Avenue, he proceeds to
the Canadian side of the Falls. Here he spends a few hours,
and then returns, without encountering more inconvenience than
saving his hotel expenses by buying a suit of clothes, on
which he pays no duty on his return. Thereupon he finds that
by so simple a process he has obtained Copyright in the United
States, in the dominion of Canada, in Australia, India, France,
Germany, and Great Britain! We can imagine the lively twinkle
of his eye as he crosses the Suspension-bridge, to think what
cute people the Britishers are to have secured all these
privileges for him.

We believe, therefore, that American authors are not very
anxious about the matter. By taking a little trouble, they can
secure all they wish.

English authors have not been fairly treated. They are at great
disadvantage, and must be satisfied for the present to work
for fame, or but for little more. Fortunately for them, the
American publishers, seeing that they do what they are legally
entitled to do, are quarrelling amongst themselves, and are
crying out for protection.

[Here is introduced the case of an American publishing-house
stated by themselves, which concludes thus:—

... “A review of these facts naturally suggests the reflection
that the interests of the book-trade in this country, no
less than the protection of authors in their just rights,
require further legislation at the hands of Congress. It is
high time for the passage of a well-considered International
Copyright-Law, such as will wipe away from our country the
reproach of what are known as ‘pirated editions.’”]

We quite agree with this. Some legislation is called for. But
now comes a third party, the public, which has its rights as
well as the others. We shall very likely incur some odium
for admitting that the million have any rights whatever to
the productions of men of letters, and may be told that
emanations of the brain are as much the private property of
their authors as the guineas are of the man of business. So
they are, so long as they keep them, to themselves; but when
they have communicated them to the world they are no longer
their exclusive property. It is right that they should have
a modified protection, and we think it must be admitted that
English authors are amply protected in their own country. We
think, however, that the American public will not be disposed
to give them the same amount of protection there, nor is it
well that they should have it. They are, however, entitled to
some protection, and we hope the day is not far distant when
English authors will reap some solid advantages wherever the
English language is spoken. We are disposed to think that seven
years would generally be long enough for the purpose; although
so short a time would be hard upon such men as Grote, Motley,
Merivale, Webster, and others, whose lives have been spent
upon their works. We take it for granted that the law, when
modified, will be the same on both sides, and that Dickens and
Longfellow will receive equal treatment. We are too selfish to
give up our cheap editions of Longfellow, and American citizens
are not what we take them to be, if they would, for a whole
generation, debar themselves from popular editions of Dickens.

(From _The Bookseller_, June 1, 1869.)

COPYRIGHT IN CANADA.—Letter by the _Times’_
correspondent:—“Under the English Law, English Copyrights
reprinted in the United States are imported into Canada,
subject to the same duty as other imported articles; but these
Copyrights cannot be reprinted in Canada, the consequence being
that the Canadian public is almost entirely dependent on the
United States for reprints. The English author is seriously
injured, inasmuch as not one-tenth part of the reprints which
find their way to Canada are entered at the Custom-house or
pay duty.”... Mr. Rose replies:—“The undersigned is ready to
admit that the principle involved is theoretically at variance
with the general policy of the mother-country, in so far as
the object of that policy is to secure to authors an absolute
monopoly in works of literature for a term of years; but it
must be remembered that the necessity for this exceptional
legislation arises out of a previous partial departure from
this theoretical policy, which in its practical operation is
shown to afford a premium to the industrial interests of a
foreign country, &c. If it could be shown that the concessions
asked for would result in any way to the practical disadvantage
of the author, or lessen the protection which it is intended
to secure to literary labour, there might be some reason for
withholding them. If the rate of duty, whether import or
excise, were inadequate, it would be an equally reasonable
argument against the extension of the law; and in that case
the rate could be augmented. But the undersigned fails to see
any reason why, so long as the importation from abroad is
permitted, the publication in Canada at an equal rate of duty
should be withheld.”

(Extract from the _Atlantic Monthly_, October, 1867.)

... This work, we repeat, cost the author 24,000 dollars to
produce. Messrs. Harpers sell it at 15 dollars a copy; the
usual allowance to the author is 10 per cent. of the retail
price, and as a rule, it ought not to be more.

(Extract from the _American Booksellers’ Guide_, June 1, 1869.)

At a public meeting recently held in Montreal, respecting the
Copyright-Law, it was resolved to apply to Parliament for an
amendment permitting Canadian publishers to print British
Copyright works upon the payment of 12½ per cent. to British
authors.... The payment by the publisher of 5 or 10 per cent.,
or of a fixed sum, for a Copyright of a book, whether by an
American or British author, does not necessarily increase the
price of the book.

(Extracts from an Article in the _Athenæum_, July 17, 1869.)

This great question is of especial interest at the present
time, in consequence of opinions and demands put forward by
Canada with relation to Copyright property in the United
Kingdom. It appears that for some time past a correspondence
has been carried on between the Canadian Government and the
Imperial authorities upon the subject of “Copyright-Law in
Canada.” This “Correspondence” (having been laid before the
Canadian Parliament) has been printed and published. It
commences with a resolution of the Canadian Senate (passed
15th of May, 1868) that the Governor-General should be prayed
“to impress upon Her Majesty’s Government the _justice and
expediency_ of extending the _privileges_ of the Imperial
Copyright Act, 1847, so that whenever reasonable provision and
protection shall, in Her Majesty’s opinion, be secured to the
authors, _Colonial reprints_ of British Copyright works shall
be placed on the same footing as foreign reprints in Canada, by
which means British authors will be more effectually protected
in their rights, _and a material benefit will be conferred on
the printing industry of the Dominion_.”...

All the North-American colonies soon availed themselves of this
Act of 1847, and Orders in Council were founded upon them; the
rights of British authors being deemed sufficiently protected
by an _ad valorem_ import duty of 20 per cent. upon the value
of the “foreign reprints,” that, being about _one-tenth_ of the
price of the works as published in England!

There appears to have been no debate in either House upon
this Act of 1847, and it seems to have escaped all public
notice on the part of British authors and publishers during
its progress in Parliament. From the time Her Majesty’s Orders
in Council enabled the colonies to avail themselves of that
Act, it has operated as a stimulus and considerable premium
to the “legalised robbery” of British Copyright property in
the United States, and has, practically, given printers and
publishers there a monopoly in “foreign reprints” of English
books. The Act of 1847 is, therefore, a partial confiscation of
those Copyrights which have been acquired in England under Earl
Stanhope’s Act of 1842, because the colonies have, for the last
twenty years, been almost exclusively supplied with English
books by United States reprints of those books....

In 1867 the “dominion of Canada” was created by the Imperial
Act of that year, which united all Her Majesty’s North
American Colonies. It was then found that printing had become
much cheaper in Canada than it was in the United States; and
amongst the earliest Acts of the first session of the Canadian
Parliament two statutes were passed—one, “An Act respecting
Copyrights;” and the other, “An Act to impose a Duty upon
Foreign Reprints of British Copyright Works.” Under the first
of these Acts, no work of “any person resident in Great Britain
or Ireland” is to be entitled to the protection of that Act
unless “the same _shall be printed and published in Canada_.”
And under the second of the above Acts it is sought to keep
alive the injustice of allowing “_foreign reprints_” to be
imported into Canada as a basis for that resolution of the
Canadian Parliament to which we have called attention.

Such are the facts which preceded the Canadian
“Correspondence.” It commences with the resolution which, in
effect, advocates “the _justice and expediency_” of enabling
Her Majesty’s Canadian subjects at their discretion (and
without the permission of the owners) to confiscate the
property of authors of British Copyright works upon the terms
of the publisher paying such authors a royalty of 12½ per
cent. upon the price of the Canadian reprints, that being
about _one-tenth_ of the publication price of the work in
England! It appears the “justice and expediency” of adopting
this Canadian resolution has been pressed very strongly upon
the authorities at the Colonial-office, and likewise at the
Board of Trade, by the Hon. J. Rose, the Canadian “Minister
of Finance.” He frankly admits that the policy of the Act of
1847 (so far as respects the protection of British authors)
has long been an utter failure; that the amount of duties
received for their benefit “is a mere trifle;” and that “it is
next to impracticable to enforce the law.” These statements
are confirmed by a letter, dated June 11, 1868, from Mr. John
Lovell (a Montreal publisher) to Mr. Rose, and which appears
in the Correspondence. Mr. Lovell says: “At present only a
few hundred copies pay duty, and many thousands pass into the
country without registration, and pay nothing at all; thus
having the effect of seriously injuring the publishers of
Great Britain, to the consequent advantage of those of the
United States. I may add that, on looking over the Custom-house
entries to-day, I have found that not a single entry of an
American reprint of an English Copyright (except the Reviews
and one or two magazines) has been made since the third day of
April last, though it is notorious that an edition of 1,000
of a popular work, coming under that description, has been
received and sold within the last few days by one bookseller in
this city.”

In support of the Canadian resolution, the Hon. J. Rose
likewise urges the greater cheapness now of printing in
Canada than in the United States. Upon this point he is also
confirmed by Mr. Lovell, who says: “It is undeniable that
Canadian printers would be enabled to comply with the requisite
conditions (that is, of paying a royalty of 12½ per cent. to
the author), and produce books, thanks to the local advantages,
at a much cheaper rate than they can be produced in the States,
_and so bring about a large export business_.”...

This application on the part of the Canadians is answered
at considerable length by the Board of Trade; the substance
of that answer being “that the question raised is far too
important, and involves too many considerations of imperial
policy, to render it possible to comply with that application.
My Lords, however, fully admit that the anomalous position of
Canadian publishers with respect to their rivals in the United
States of America is a matter which calls for careful inquiry;
but they feel that such an inquiry cannot be satisfactorily
undertaken without, at the same time, taking into consideration
various other questions connected with the imperial laws of
Copyright and the policy of International Copyright Treaties,
and they are, therefore, of opinion that the subject should
be treated as a whole, and that an endeavour should be made
to place the general law of Copyright, especially that part
of it which concerns the whole continent of North America,
on a more satisfactory footing. The grievance of which the
Canadian publishers complain has arisen out of the arrangement
sanctioned by Her Majesty’s Government in 1847, under which
United States reprints of English works entitled to Copyright
in the United Kingdom were admitted into Canada on payment of
an import duty, instead of being, as in the United Kingdom,
absolutely prohibited as illegal.”...

A circular by Mr. Purday contains the following:—

A fact transpired only a few days since of an order being
sent for some of the musical works published in Bond-street,
on which it was stated that they _must be “American printed
copies”_.... It is said that the Americans have the means of
disposing of 30,000 or 40,000 copies of any popular book or
song they choose to reproduce. This, of course, is a fine
premium for supplanting the English publisher in the sale of
his own Copyright works in his own colonies.

FROM A MANUSCRIPT STATEMENT BY MR. PURDAY.

The Act of 1 and 2 Vict., c. 69, was passed into a law under the title of “An Act for securing to Authors in certain cases the benefit of International Copyright,” the date of which was July 31, 1838. The 14th section is in these words: “And be it enacted, that the author of any book to be, after the passing of this Act, _first published out of Her Majesty’s dominions_, or his assigns, _shall have no Copyright therein within Her Majesty’s dominions_, otherwise than such (if any) as he may become entitled to under this Act.” Section 9 says that no protection of Copyright shall be given to a foreign author, unless such protection shall be reciprocated to an English author by the country to which the foreign author belongs. Now, nothing can be clearer than that the Act of 5 and 6 Vict., c. 45, never contemplated giving protection to a foreign author; but, on the contrary, that it was passed solely for the benefit of English authors.... At last the whole matter was brought before the House of Lords, where it was decreed that a foreign author was not an author within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament, and could neither claim any Copyright himself nor assign any to an English subject, unless he was resident in the British dominions at the time he sold his work, and published it there before there was any publication abroad. This, after eleven years of litigation by various parties, among whom my brother was the most persistent defendant, he being perfectly convinced that if the subject came to be thoroughly investigated, no such claims as were set up by the monopolists could be maintained either at common law or in equity. The House of Lords, however, were not called upon to decide what was meant by the term _residence_. This, therefore, gave rise to an attempt on the part of an English bookseller to contrive a scheme which, to the not very creditable honour of English jurisprudence, as it appears to my humble understanding, succeeded. The scheme was this: An American authoress of little repute wrote a novel, one copy of the manuscript of which, it is said, was handed over, for a consideration, to this English bookseller, to publish in England; the work was got ready on this side of the Atlantic as well as on the other side, and, after agreeing as to the date of entry at Stationers’ Hall, and the publication of the same in London, the lady was desired to go over the Victoria-bridge into Canada, one of the British dominions, and remain there a few hours or days, while the publication took place in London; then she was to go back again for the protection of the same work, as a Copyright, in her own country. Meanwhile, another English publisher, hearing that such an artifice was about to be attempted, procured an American copy of the said work, and republished it in a cheap form. The consequence was, that an application for an injunction was applied for by the first party, which was granted, and appealed against to the Lords Justices, who gave it as their opinion that the word “author” in the Act of Parliament was to be interpreted in its widest sense, and that there was no limitation to that word in the Act of Parliament; therefore, it was maintained that _any_ author could have a Copyright in England who complied with the requisitions of the Act, and this defective scheme was confirmed by Lord Chancellor Cairns, who remarked that none of the former decisions had stated that it was other than necessary to be in the British dominions during the time of the publication of the work. This device may have facilitated the desire for an international law upon a righteous foundation, now so loudly advocated in America.

In the judgment given in the House of Lords, in the case of Boosey’s assumption to the exclusive right of printing the opera of Bellini, the subject of residence in England was debated, and Lord St. Leonards used these remarkable words: “Now the American Legislature have no such difficulty. They have expressly enacted that Copyright there shall be confined to natives, or persons resident within the United States. Those are the express words of their statute.” And we may remark, farther, that unless an alien author has resided at least twelve months in America, and has made a declaration in these words, “I do declare on oath that it is _bonâ fide_ my intention to become a citizen of the United States,” &c., he cannot obtain the privilege of Copyright in anything he may publish there. This conflict of opinion must necessarily end, therefore, in a new Act of Parliament, which has been long needed to settle this and other much-vexed questions of Copyright.

LETTER FROM THE SAME.

24, Great Marlborough-street, June 15, 1869.

Dear Sir,—I think your suggestion of the payment of a royalty upon the publication of an author’s work, if made mutual in both America and Great Britain, would go far to reconcile the two nations to abandon the present unfair reprisals; more especially if it were left to the option of any publisher to reproduce such works in the form most suited to his particular trade. Some publishers choose to publish in one form, and some in another, more or less expensive, according to the taste or want of their customers. It is true, there might be some difficulty in arranging the percentage per copy upon such a scheme; but that might be regulated according to the price and style of getting up of the work, which should always be determined upon before the work is issued.

The question of Copyright in music is one which presents features appertaining to itself exclusively. One feature which it shares along with the other fine arts is this great fact: that music is a universal language, and addresses itself equally to all nations. Its range, therefore, is far wider than literature. It needs no translation.

The taste for music is more widely diffused than that for painting and sculpture, from which it differs in a way that causes very considerable embarrassment when the question of Copyright comes to be particularly dealt with. Like paintings and statues, music may be reproduced in a permanent form; but, unlike them, the chief value of its Copyright privilege is reproduction in sounds, and, therefore, in a form unsubstantial and transient. He, therefore, who would deal satisfactorily with this branch of the wide question of Copyright has to provide for a demand, and overcome difficulties, such as do not belong to literary and artistic Copyright. But, still further, music—say that of an opera—may be separated into parts without serious diminution of its revenue-bearing value. Once more, there is the _libretto_; it belongs to the range of literature. Questions, therefore, arise, and must be provided for, with respect to the affinity of that part with the music, its reproduction in the form of translation, and its being, as it occasionally is, the work and property of an author other than the composer of the music.

There is still so much uncertainty, approaching to confusion, as to what really is the law, especially with regard to international Copyright, in this branch, that thorough revision and immediate international negotiations are absolutely necessary.

The laws of Copyright should be divested of all ambiguity and superfluous legal verbiage. In fact, they should be made so plain that “he that runs may read,” and understand them. The payment of a royalty on foreign works is not a new thing here. Chappell pays 1s. a copy, besides a considerable sum for the Copyright, of the last work of Rossini—viz., the “Messe Solennelle,” for the exclusive selling of the work, and for the right of performing it here. Any other information I can give you I shall be happy to afford.

I am, dear Sir, yours obediently,