PRIMARY SOURCES
ON COPYRIGHT
(1450-1900)
Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Controversy on reproduction of foreign works (1856-1857)
Source: Nieuwsblad voor den boekhandel, vol. 23 (1856), pp. 263-264, 276 & vol. 24 (1857), pp. 9-10, 14, 18, 79, 88, 93-94, 100-102, 105-106, 113-114; http://tijdschriften.kb.nl/
Citation:
Controversy on reproduction of foreign works (1856-1857), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
4 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
(263)
[...]
Submitted Letters. -- Notices etc.
Reproduction
[...]
Which grounds could be given for the defence of copying of works published abroad?
Messrs. BINGER may perchance, together with others, deem the copying as permissible, yes, beneficial, yes, even as a service rendered to literature. But do they, and like-minded, consider in no way any right of writers, nor do they recognize property rights of an author on his work? If not, -- they do not belong in this century, they are a century behind in their views.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 2
(264)
[...]
Perchance one will argue that in this country, in the last century, a lot of copying was done, and that therefore this is also permissible now, and cannot now, no more than then, be condemned. Admitted that it did occur at that time, never did it do honour to the Book trade of the Netherlands, even if many ideas where thereby spread further; -- on the contrary, many loud complaints were aired about it. But what should especially be kept in mind, is this: the views on literary property, about copyright, were still so little developed that no one saw evil in that which everyone, who partakes of the present civilization, must see; an evil, not covered by the scope of the law, but nonetheless an evil, yes, theft. -- no more than one in the last century in this country thought about what literary property actually was, and at the time one only wished to protect any work by privileges (i.e. a privilege above others), -- no more did one think in 1796 to make the property rights only fruitful for several years for the author, and then, for the public interest, declare it to be in the public domain. -- Like the works of an author should be valued in respect of the time of their compilation, as much in respect of the more or less criminal nature according to the ideas prevailing in those times.
Or will one argue that the reprinting of foreign writers is not a crime, because the law has not prohibited it? Poor excuse! What is prohibited by law, would only be punishable, not that which is not prohibited by law? You know, that SOLON, when asked why he included no punishment on parricide in his laws, answered to consider this unnecessary because he did not believe that someone would commit that crime. Would the latter therefore be permissible? Or would our legislators perchance have thought the same about us, with regard to foreigners, as SOLON about his fellow citizens? I dare not flatter myself with that! -- But therefore it certainly should not be permissible, because it is not prohibited? The law neither prohibits me to keep a mistress, and I ask you: is it permissible? Thus, this that the law has not prohibited it, cannot be the excuse for copying.
The domestic works are protected against copying by a legal ground, the property rights of the writers, like our people against violence, -- have foreign writers less claim in the moral sense than we do on that protection, because the law does not give it? For a man, who exercises the law out of a sense of duty, and not because of the Law, for the Righteous Heathen, for the Christian, for all is true the commandment: Quod tibi fieri non fish alteri ne feceris, or, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That law exists for all, and it is sad to see how often it is deviated from.
Or would you say: the Americans protect their own works just as we, and copy English and German books, why not follow their example? Why the young people that with eagle wings strives upwards, not apart from what they do and what they practice with happy result? They too will copy our books, if it only provides them advantage and it is useful for them, and why not say: An eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth? It is so, the Americans copy whatever occurs to them, English, French, German; (also from me, they have copied a little work, maybe small in size, but important to them) -- but I ask you, is therewith their action, and therewith our copying justified? Not at all! Their rationale is that there is money to be earned with it, that is why they copy, and where that comes into play, other concerns can derogate.
[...]
Amsterdam, 28 Nov. 1856. FREDERIK MULLER.
Chapter 1 Page 4
(9)
[...]
Submitted Letters. -- Notices etc.
Reproduction
To mister FREDERIK MULLER
Sir!
With interest I have read your heatedly written article (1) on reproduction.
[...]
You see with regret that, at an esteemed firm, the zeal exists to copy works, being published abroad, are saleable here. Why? -- You do not fail to give an answer: because they would thereby endow this country with evil, with that shame, which once clung to Belgium, namely "to be the literary den of robbers". It is true, Belgium has been labelled with that name, and that sobriquet has been repeated ad nauseam. But by whom? By the French writers who have repeated this, and a multitude of other expressions of the same alloy - usually adorned with a mantle of the most exalted morality, and accompanied by a stream of slogans -- so endlessly that one finally completely forgot how all those violent tirades, all that exalted morality actually had no other ground than: self-interest. For the interest of the French writers, the copying has been derogated, not for their phrases; it was abolished by the Belgian government, not because it was "an evil and a disgrace", but as a concession to France, which therefore allowed reciprocal advantages to Belgium.
(1) Nieuwsbl. v. d. Boekh., volume 1856, No. 49.
Chapter 1 Page 5
(10)
It would certainly attest to a peculiar progress of morality, if one now -- thanks to the new-fashioned reasoning -- would forego an advantage, that, as you yourself acknowledge, in the last century in this country was held to be not only permissible, but was even regulated by law. What was then lawful ownership, would now have become theft. Meanwhile, that progress would be possible, if the matter were clear, if we had better reasons to brand the copying of foreign works as "an evil and a disgrace " -- as a robbery, you could still have added in imitation of the French -- rather than the pompous arguments of the stakeholders. Or have we not had the same spectacle in England. There, the same holy indignation, the same complaints, the same warning for the future. France welcomes them, because it had an interest in it, but how long did it last? When also in America writers arose, whose name penetrated in Europe, when also in America work was published, of which the copying promised advantages in England, then no more holy indignation, then no trace anymore of complaints or warnings, then instead of all that: copiers in England as well as in America, as well as in Belgium, which is meanwhile still preferably called a literary den of robbers.
If you want to ward off evil, which is operated out of ignorance of evil, teach us to know it. Is copying theft, then it should be abolished, then even the last trace of it must disappear, then: exclusion from our country of all that is copied here or abroad. That is impossible, you know it, but should you not agree with me that this impossibility to exclude foreign copies is the best proof that copying from a moral point of view may not be condemned. Or would you indeed believe that the copying of HEINE was more permissible in America, because there are 4 to 5 million Germans there, than in Holland, where their number is small, or would you -- if copying is really theft -- believe that you have dealt less treacherously by importing, selling and publicly announcing of American copies, than Messrs. BINGER, by providing a Dutch one? I cannot think so, but then why approve of the one, and condemn the other even with citation of biblical texts?
[...]
Amsterdam, 22 Dec. 1856. J.C. LOMAN, JR.
Translation by: Miluska Kooij
Source: Nieuwsblad voor den boekhandel, vol. 23 (1856), pp. 263-264, 276 & vol. 24 (1857), pp. 9-10, 14, 18, 79, 88, 93-94, 100-102, 105-106, 113-114; http://tijdschriften.kb.nl/
Citation:
Controversy on reproduction of foreign works (1856-1857), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
4 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
(263)
[...]
Submitted Letters. -- Notices etc.
Reproduction
[...]
Which grounds could be given for the defence of copying of works published abroad?
Messrs. BINGER may perchance, together with others, deem the copying as permissible, yes, beneficial, yes, even as a service rendered to literature. But do they, and like-minded, consider in no way any right of writers, nor do they recognize property rights of an author on his work? If not, -- they do not belong in this century, they are a century behind in their views.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 2
(264)
[...]
Perchance one will argue that in this country, in the last century, a lot of copying was done, and that therefore this is also permissible now, and cannot now, no more than then, be condemned. Admitted that it did occur at that time, never did it do honour to the Book trade of the Netherlands, even if many ideas where thereby spread further; -- on the contrary, many loud complaints were aired about it. But what should especially be kept in mind, is this: the views on literary property, about copyright, were still so little developed that no one saw evil in that which everyone, who partakes of the present civilization, must see; an evil, not covered by the scope of the law, but nonetheless an evil, yes, theft. -- no more than one in the last century in this country thought about what literary property actually was, and at the time one only wished to protect any work by privileges (i.e. a privilege above others), -- no more did one think in 1796 to make the property rights only fruitful for several years for the author, and then, for the public interest, declare it to be in the public domain. -- Like the works of an author should be valued in respect of the time of their compilation, as much in respect of the more or less criminal nature according to the ideas prevailing in those times.
Or will one argue that the reprinting of foreign writers is not a crime, because the law has not prohibited it? Poor excuse! What is prohibited by law, would only be punishable, not that which is not prohibited by law? You know, that SOLON, when asked why he included no punishment on parricide in his laws, answered to consider this unnecessary because he did not believe that someone would commit that crime. Would the latter therefore be permissible? Or would our legislators perchance have thought the same about us, with regard to foreigners, as SOLON about his fellow citizens? I dare not flatter myself with that! -- But therefore it certainly should not be permissible, because it is not prohibited? The law neither prohibits me to keep a mistress, and I ask you: is it permissible? Thus, this that the law has not prohibited it, cannot be the excuse for copying.
The domestic works are protected against copying by a legal ground, the property rights of the writers, like our people against violence, -- have foreign writers less claim in the moral sense than we do on that protection, because the law does not give it? For a man, who exercises the law out of a sense of duty, and not because of the Law, for the Righteous Heathen, for the Christian, for all is true the commandment: Quod tibi fieri non fish alteri ne feceris, or, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That law exists for all, and it is sad to see how often it is deviated from.
Or would you say: the Americans protect their own works just as we, and copy English and German books, why not follow their example? Why the young people that with eagle wings strives upwards, not apart from what they do and what they practice with happy result? They too will copy our books, if it only provides them advantage and it is useful for them, and why not say: An eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth? It is so, the Americans copy whatever occurs to them, English, French, German; (also from me, they have copied a little work, maybe small in size, but important to them) -- but I ask you, is therewith their action, and therewith our copying justified? Not at all! Their rationale is that there is money to be earned with it, that is why they copy, and where that comes into play, other concerns can derogate.
[...]
Amsterdam, 28 Nov. 1856. FREDERIK MULLER.
Chapter 1 Page 4
(9)
[...]
Submitted Letters. -- Notices etc.
Reproduction
To mister FREDERIK MULLER
Sir!
With interest I have read your heatedly written article (1) on reproduction.
[...]
You see with regret that, at an esteemed firm, the zeal exists to copy works, being published abroad, are saleable here. Why? -- You do not fail to give an answer: because they would thereby endow this country with evil, with that shame, which once clung to Belgium, namely "to be the literary den of robbers". It is true, Belgium has been labelled with that name, and that sobriquet has been repeated ad nauseam. But by whom? By the French writers who have repeated this, and a multitude of other expressions of the same alloy - usually adorned with a mantle of the most exalted morality, and accompanied by a stream of slogans -- so endlessly that one finally completely forgot how all those violent tirades, all that exalted morality actually had no other ground than: self-interest. For the interest of the French writers, the copying has been derogated, not for their phrases; it was abolished by the Belgian government, not because it was "an evil and a disgrace", but as a concession to France, which therefore allowed reciprocal advantages to Belgium.
(1) Nieuwsbl. v. d. Boekh., volume 1856, No. 49.
Chapter 1 Page 5
(10)
It would certainly attest to a peculiar progress of morality, if one now -- thanks to the new-fashioned reasoning -- would forego an advantage, that, as you yourself acknowledge, in the last century in this country was held to be not only permissible, but was even regulated by law. What was then lawful ownership, would now have become theft. Meanwhile, that progress would be possible, if the matter were clear, if we had better reasons to brand the copying of foreign works as "an evil and a disgrace " -- as a robbery, you could still have added in imitation of the French -- rather than the pompous arguments of the stakeholders. Or have we not had the same spectacle in England. There, the same holy indignation, the same complaints, the same warning for the future. France welcomes them, because it had an interest in it, but how long did it last? When also in America writers arose, whose name penetrated in Europe, when also in America work was published, of which the copying promised advantages in England, then no more holy indignation, then no trace anymore of complaints or warnings, then instead of all that: copiers in England as well as in America, as well as in Belgium, which is meanwhile still preferably called a literary den of robbers.
If you want to ward off evil, which is operated out of ignorance of evil, teach us to know it. Is copying theft, then it should be abolished, then even the last trace of it must disappear, then: exclusion from our country of all that is copied here or abroad. That is impossible, you know it, but should you not agree with me that this impossibility to exclude foreign copies is the best proof that copying from a moral point of view may not be condemned. Or would you indeed believe that the copying of HEINE was more permissible in America, because there are 4 to 5 million Germans there, than in Holland, where their number is small, or would you -- if copying is really theft -- believe that you have dealt less treacherously by importing, selling and publicly announcing of American copies, than Messrs. BINGER, by providing a Dutch one? I cannot think so, but then why approve of the one, and condemn the other even with citation of biblical texts?
[...]
Amsterdam, 22 Dec. 1856. J.C. LOMAN, JR.
Translation by: Miluska Kooij