We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
267
iOCtAL AND POLITICAL MATTBRB
for a limited time. A publiilter, a manufactuKr was not considered an the only one who should pfofit Irom other people's creation. And especially in respect to the patent laws there are many interests which require protection. Never could it have become possiMe that everybody could trarel by railroad or steamship or posacas an automobile, if one manufacturer had the production monopolized. One should also here regret the poor inventor who seems to be damaged, fiul generally an inventor is forced to sell his patent to a powerful man, because he is unable to produce himaelf. If there were such a thing as 'Human Rights', he should be protected — though the risk of marketing a new invention is a great one, and seldom is an invention from the very beginning perfect enough to become a succeas. Think of all the improvements which were required to make an automobile as perfect as it must be.
Such b not the case in th^ realm of copj^ght. A pubtisherV risk is not ts hrgt and he tuuaDy gambles on several numbers, ont of which might cover all possible losses. The publisher is seldom forced to mdce improvements. Generally the works are finished and ready to be sold. Still, if one had the monopoly, he would not reduce the prices, as Schott's and 8imrock's attitude proved, and therefore hia rights must be limited. He is still thereafter in the position to compete successfully with the pirates, especially if he improves his editions.
It seems to me that this was the intention of the lawmakers. It is regrettable that they had no imagination to foresee at least some of the valuea which nught be added to a work, and that the)r worded this law so poorly that the wrong interpretation was pos«ble — that the law wanted to deprive the creator and serve the pirates.
How it was possible to eittcnd this inisintcrpretation to toyahics, perfonnanoe fees, recording fees, etc, ia entirely unintcll^ble. Admitting that the law* tnakera in whoae hands our destiny was delivered were unthinking and possessed no imagination, one is still surprised that nobody tried to find out for which purposes such a kw should serve, tn whose interest was it^ Is the interest of those t)eople to whom it b advantageous worthy of protection? Or b this law based on the same consideration as the law which protecta the criminal instead of the victim?
49«