NEW COPYRIGHT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 966, 5 November 1910, Page 9

NEW COPYRIGHT.

From inquiries made at a number of publishing houses in London, it would appear, that the terms of tie new Copyright Bill, which was introduced and read for a first time last July, are causing considerable discussion. : The chief matter of public interest is the proposal for the extension of the term of copyright. By the; present law this term of copyright extends for 42 years, or for life and seven years, .whichever of 'the two be the longer period. The bow Bill proposes* that .copyright shall last for life and for a period of fifty years after deathi The opinion that this proposal would place a clog upon the publication of the best literature is advocated, very forcibly by Mr.'J. M. Dent, the well-known publisher, a.nd in' an. interview the other day he pointed out very "clearly the public aspect of the case. . "I should regard tlie new Bill, if it passes in its present form," said Mr. Dent, "as a distinctly retrograde step. It is only the best things in literature that are affected by the Law of; Copyright, and that any additional 1 clog should bo put upon their free and full publication is entirely contrary to the prevailing democratic spirit in England. At the present time one of our greatest ideals is to cheapen education, and to place good literature in the hands of even tlie humblest workers. lam very, much afraid that if the term of copyright be given such an extension as that proposed, many good books are likely to .be withheld from the public ■longer, than they 'are, at present. As was the case with Buskin's.'books, until lately; the prices may too long remain. , prohibitive. for the working classes."

"Does the new Bill," asked the interviewer, "not provide for cases where books may be unduly withheld in the manner you describe?"

"Yes,", said Mr. Dent, "nominally it does.lbiit to put in operation the clause* touching this matter a law suit, with all the concurrent trouble and expense, would almost always bo necessary This rather puts a barrier upon what 011 paper .may appear a more or less feasible .proposition." "Has not the point of view of tho author aud his family to be considered as well as that, of the public in this question?' ■ .

"Undoubtedly," : said Mr. Dent, "it has; but that is a very different matter from giving him something that is as near being a perpetuity as we may venture upon. The man who patonts an invention, which is as much a part of-his mind as the book of an autlior, only gains protection for a comparative-1 ly short time, _ because his personal claims must yield to the public interest-. The position of the author is somewhat akin. 1 should bo qnito willing that wo-should adopt a system , somewhat similar to that of the American, by which, after the lapse of the statutory period of copyright, a qualified extension might be given under certain conditions. Tho necessitous state of an author's descendants might be one of these. I would oven go so far as to agree with Mr. Charles Wh'ibley that a small , royalty might bo imposed 011 every reprint, and out of this an author's fund established to give help to'needy authors or their descendants. The author or the publisher, deserves to bo paid well, but not too well."

An English writer discusses copyn'Tho two interests', which determine the duration of copyright are evidently those of tho public on the one hand, and on the other those of the author and his descendants. If the public alone were considered there would be no copyright; if the author alone, copyright would be perpetual. The duration accordingly varies as' tho tendency is to conciliate one or tho other or the two conflicting interests, and most will sgrce that there has been a very liberal

swing of tho pendulum towards tho side of tho authors and their posterity in tho Bill which extends tho period of copyright: for fifty years after an author's decease. The more handful of writers at work to-day after whose works half a century hence people will be asking are probably, like most other people, not greatly interested in descendants of'their own of a generation remoter than the second from themselves.

Mr. J. Cuthbert Hadden, however, is all for having copyright made perpetual, and counts it to* himself for righteousness that for years back lie has publicly advocated that view. It is, of course, the remoter descendants of the author whom ho wishes to benefit. "I have never been able," ho writes 1 , "to understand why I should not be able to 'will', my'literary copyrights to my' descendants, as I may 'will' tho liouso I have bought or the, books on my shelves," and ho adds: "How can you defend the system by which the .publishers draw thousands of pounds from 'Robinson Crusoe' whilo a direct descendant of Defoe is living oil' tho poor rate?" 'Now, apart from tho question whether the perpetuity of copyright would not make the springs of knowledge and taste more difficult of access than is desirable for the good of the public, another arises as to whether even bv that means tho interests of the author's posterity would bo effectually safeguarded. It seems rather that unless copyright were made an unsaleable possession, and thus property in literature wero saddled with the inconveniences that accompany entailed estate, it ■would be unlikely to descend from generation to generation for very long. Very soon it would come into the possession of an heir of the sort who prefers a lump , sum of money to an uncertain and varying income, and who would accordingly sell .his rights, or, alternatively, there would bo a group of co-heirs who woidd sell the indivisible copyright and divide the proceeds. In either case the heirloom would go. out of tho family.In Macaulay's day—and the above is .one of Macaulay's arguments—it was not the "direct descendant of Defoe," but' Milton's granddaughter, who furnished the striking instance of the injustice of a short period of copyright. Talfourd pictured her extreme distress, and. told how'Garrick organised a performance for her benefit, and argued how much more reasonable it was that she should bo living in comfort on tho income from "Paradise Lost" than deriving eleemosynary aid from tho public.' This'-instance made Macaulay prick lip his .ears, and he remombered his swinging-:.blow. "Why," said Macaulay, "at that time the duration of copyright was - longer than even lie (Halfourd) at present-proposes to make lit. The monopoly lasted, not sixty years, but for ever. At the time at which'. Milton's granddaughter asked ch'drity Milton's' works were the exclusive property of the bookseller." What Defoe- li'is copyrights one does not know,-but-if, as seems' extremely probable, ho parted with them himself, his remote' descendant can have no grievance against tho law that limits .the duration of copyright.