Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 14.djvu/186

174 A. Pardon me, I have been very careful to say that I think that an author has a right to the form in which he embodies his ideas.

Q. That is what I said; I supposed him to embody his ideas in a book. Then you will admit that, if there is a copyright law which limits that right, the only justification for that limitation would be public policy, or public convenience, or something of that sort. Let us take it from that point of view: how can you reconcile that view of the principle of a copyright law with the existing law?

A. I do not reconcile it; I ventured to say just now that I think that the present law is bad in principle.

Q. Then you admit that the present law is not based on your principle?

A. Certainly not.

Have you thought upon the subject whether it would not be for the advantage of authors that the copyright should be extended for a period longer than exists at present; that it should even be made the perpetual property of the family of the author?

A. My impression is, that it would be for the advantage of the author if copyright were made perpetual.

Q. You said just now that the legislation had not given any privilege to the author by giving him copyright; surely it gives him a protection to his property which would not otherwise exist; do you not think so?

A. Quite so. But I ventured to say that that was not a boon but simply a piece of justice, and that he ought to have the protection.

Q. But do you not think that the Legislature would not give the protection unless it was for the benefit of the public that authors should be encouraged?

A. Assuming that it is advantageous that they should be encouraged, a certain benefit is given to the public.

Q. The copyright is given to the author that he should be free to publish his works?

A. I look upon a book in the same way as I look upon any other kind of property. There are people who discuss the expediency of the protection of any property at all; but it appears to me that upon every ground upon which it is expedient to protect any sort of property it is expedient to protect book property.

Q. I am not at all disputing that, but I wish to arrive at this view, that you give this protection to the author to enable him to have property in what is a peculiar property; there must be a peculiar protection given to a property of peculiar nature, and, having once given him that protection, do you not think that the book itself, or the chattel which he produces, should then go into the ordinary rules of supply and demand; that is to say, that when you have done that, and have reserved to him his property in his book, the public ought to be able to obtain