SCIENCE. 



201 



SCIENCE: 



A Weekly Record of Scientific 

 Progress. 



JOHN MICHELS, Editor. 



Published at 



229 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 



P. O. Box 3838. 



SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1880. 



The recent discussions on the proposed interna- 

 tional copyright have served to display the prejudices 

 and animosities of those engaged in the controversy, 

 rather than a true exposition of the actual principles 

 involved. 



It is not difficult to discover that under the plea of 

 maintaining the rights of authors, leading publishing 

 houses on both sides of the Atlantic are manoeuvring 

 for a " literary treaty " which shall result in their own 

 benefit only. 



How little the author has at stake as a result of all 

 this agitation may be gathered from a statement by 

 one who writes on the subject, perhaps not in the in- 

 terest, but undoubtedly under the patronage, of one of 

 the largest New York publishing houses. 



He says : " If the author's interest in a book is rep- 

 resented by 10 per cent, the publisher's interest is 

 represented by 90 per cent." It is not, therefore, sur- 

 prising to find these champions of author's rights 

 feebly contending for the protection of the works of 

 literary men, but strongly united to secure a mono- 

 poly of the business interests involved. 



The American publishers who previously were unwill- 

 ing to concede to foreign authors even their " ten per 

 cent, interest," give at length a tardy consent to a 

 copyright treaty, provided their " 90 per cent, inter- 

 est " is made secure, and their possession of the mon- 

 opoly rendered impregnable by law. 



The New York Herald, on the 4th of October last, 

 stated this case as it now stands with admirable judg- 

 ment, and we are glad to find the powerful influence 

 of this journal taking ground which is in perfect ac- 

 cord with the view we maintain on this important 

 matter. The Herald says : 



"The corner-stone of the proposed treaty is that protec 

 tion in this country be given to British authors on condi- 

 tion that they republish here within three months after pub- 



lication in Great Britain, and on the further condition that 

 the work be issued here by an American publisher. On 

 like terms British copyright is to be extended to American 

 authors. 



"That this scheme would work to the profit of the larg- 

 est publishing houses in this Country, if not of American 

 publishers generally, there is little reason to doubt. It 

 would be a protective measure in their interest. It would 

 create a monopoly in their favor. It would compel foreign 

 authors to come to them or pay the penalty of piracy. It 

 would have no material advantages for the great reading 

 public in either country, and so far from being favor- 

 able to either British or American authors it would 

 work against the best interests of both. It would drive 

 both, in order to get foreign protection, to deal with pub- 

 lishers three thousand miles away, and to bear the expense, 

 loss of time, labor, and inconvenience of republication. 

 Still more burdensome and unjust would be the condition 

 requiring the author to republish in the foreign country 

 within a short time after publication at home or lose all his 

 foreign rights and claims to protection." 



No impartial reader can peruse the above extract 

 without admitting the justice of the writer's conclu- 

 sions ; he rips off the thin disguise which covers this 

 ridiculous treaty, and reveals the true purpose of 

 those engineering the movement. 



The intemperate language employed by the organ 

 of some publishing houses on this question should be 

 noted. The Editor of Popular Science Mofithly as- 

 sails Wilkie Collins (who advocates the only right 

 principle of international protection to literary prop- 

 erty) with uncalled for severity ; he is called " a com- 

 mon-place scold," and his temperate and forcible arti- 

 cle on the subject is termed "a blast, which did not 

 amount to much," and as " a perverse and unhelpful 

 utterance." Was it in good taste for the same writer 

 to tell Mathew Arnold that "he was devoid of 

 sense?" But the conclusion of this article de- 

 mands more than a passing notice, as it conveys a 

 threat, expressed in language which is very 

 significant considering the house from whence the 

 publication emanates, and may be taken in the light of 

 an ultimatum from the publishing interests to their lite- 

 rary patrons. 



It may be remembered that Wilkie Collins simply 

 asks that an author may possess " by law (on condi- 

 tions with which it is reasonable to comply) the same 

 right of control over his property in his book, in a 

 foreign country, which the law gives him in his own 

 country." This is what the New York Herald advo- 

 cates, and we would concede to authors of all coun- 

 tries. 



The Popular Science Monthly states that " if Mr. 

 Collins [and of course all other authors] has any idea 

 of getting it, he " had better possess his soul in great 

 patience," for he will assuredly have to wait a long time 

 before he gets what he wants." 



