To the Editor of Liberty:

The recent discussion on copyright in your paper resulted in an amount of intellectuality being brought to bear on the problem such as one would in vain look for here in any English periodical. But to me, an ordinary reader, it has not brought the peace and quiescence of mind, naturally arising from conviction, that might fairly have been expected as reward for the trouble incurred in reading it. Perpetual property in ideas, as the theoretically true solution, still remains as abhorrent as ever, while no protection at all seems almost as bad.

It struck me that a case might be made out as below, on somewhat different lines from those heretofore taken: on the soundness of which I should like your dictum. The [3] question is: is it really, or only apparently, the illogical Via Media? Though averse, as a rule, to anything partaking of arbitrariness, there seems to me to be no alternative until, by the development of things, justice can be secured without it.

The position is as follows:—

There is an amount of labor involved of necessity in the first embodiment or materialization of an idea, which is absent from mere copies.

Inventors will tell you that the labor and trouble is, in the main, not in the idea, but in the successful working out of details, the choosing of the right materials, the proper proportionment of parts, the little devices, etc., which make all the difference between the thing that will work, and the apparently very similar thing that will not work.

In the same way, an author spends labor in collecting data and statistics, developing and elaborating his subject from different points of view, and surrounding it with all the observations and elucidations which make the book instructive and valuable.

The author or inventor has a claim for the protection of the results of this labor, as embodied in his MS. or model, until exchanged at market value, dependent upon the public estimation of its worth.

The recompense should come, if possible, in the disposal of the MS. or model: once disposed of, anyone else who pleases may reproduce; but until disposed of, to reproduce by copy is obviously a robbery.

True, the public does not ask the inventor to bring forward his wares: in this sense the inventor does so at his own risk; the point is, that it should be recognized as making for happiness that the inventor should receive a fair reward for the labor necessarily involved, by the nature of the case, in the first production, whoever the inventor, and not involved in reproduction; and that until then, reproduction is unjust.

And here is where the difficulty arises: the purchaser is not one, but many, scattered in different parts of the country. Obviously, the first copy or model cannot be equitably disposed of: its market value cannot be accurately and at once determined.

The present system attempts to effect this by making a small charge, known as royalty, over and above cost of production and trade profits, on every copy purchased within a certain period of time. This period decreases in proportion to the wealth and civilization of a country, in so far as there is a greater supply of authors and inventors, and a larger demand for their products, so that the market value is paid them sooner.

As regards the community, the present value of an invention or book is proportional to its fitness for some new desire: it depreciates with time; as, by use, the ideas that called it forth become more and more part of the unconscious education of the people, or are superseded, its value diminishes to zero.

It is idle to talk of an invention depriving one of the liberty to invent the same. Many inventions and books are, of course, created by demand; in which case, several persons may be at work on the same subject; but how often are the results sufficiently alike to constitute infringement, in the event of the priority of one of them?

Where the invention more or less precedes and creates its own demand, the deprivation of liberty argument appears still more futile. One is always at liberty to seek material enrichment by employing in another direction that intellect and labor-energy which may or may not have succeeded in the previous direction, had it thought of and attempted it.

In the case of proved practically-simultaneous and independent invention of essentially the same thing (almost impossible in authorship), protection should be extended to both, each competing against the other, or amalgamating, as they see fit. Where the inventor is too late for satisfactory proof of independence, he must unavoidably suffer: it is impossible to enforce abstract justice.

From intelligent Anarchism, there would undoubtedly evolve a system far less arbitrary and far more self-adjusting than the present one; which naturally overpays some (especially in the rapid development of an industry), and underpays others. The genius who writes before his time (probably of rarer occurrence in the future) must suffer for his genius; the successful writer of ephemeral literature receives the reward of his adaptability, or maybe, instincts to pander.

The only course is to adjust matters in accordance with the circumstances of time and place, so as to effect the minimum of injustice. Perhaps with the growth of free trade principles, and the decay of protective instincts, the system of allowing firms to compete under non-prohibitive royalty may more generally increase.

Finally, it is not the mere idea, of itself, that requires protection, but the essentially novel components, or, ultimately, novel arrangement of the compononents of a special materialization of the idea. Such materialization, considered as a whole, is not the result of a new idea, but of an aggregation of ideas: the aggregation being more of the nature of an organism or growth.

To adduce an example from the rapidly developing electrical industry: it was manifestly absurd of Mr. Lane Fox to attempt to monopolize the conjunctive use merely of dynamo and accumulator for house-lighting: and he did not succeed. In the same way, though not so manifestly, Edison in the United States, and Hoppinson in England, should not have been granted patents for their three-wire system of distribution, which was merely an idea: patents should have been granted them solely and specifically for any novel appliances invented by them for use in their working of the system.

Yours, etc.,

A. E. Porter.

Paddington, London, England, June 18, 1891.

[My friend across the water is able to view with considerable equanimity the suffering of the independent inventor who comes too late to prove his independence; I claim the right to look with equal unconcern upon the suffering of the first inventor who may be deprived of a portion of his reward by competition. It is true, I am anxious to reward both these parties, and ready to aid in any fair means to that end. But I will not impose upon the second inventor, as a condition of his reward, the duty of proving his independence, it being obviously an impudent outrage to put such a burden upon a man who is not even under a justifiable suspicion of crime, and much less under the weight of convincing proof of crime; nor, on the other hand, will I enable the first inventor to get his reward by fencing off a section of truth and creating the fictitious crime of intellectual poaching. I cannot be reconciled, either, to this latter injustice by any comforting assurance to the would-be poacher that he is at liberty to hunt for game elsewhere. It would be equally justifiable to prevent a man from raising wheat on the plea that he can catch fish in the sea. Do all the equity that you can, my comrade, but do it on the ground of equal liberty. Stay within that limit, and I will help you to do equity. But do not overstep it and try to do equity by resorting to monopoly; if you do, I must fight you; for that is State Socialism, and State Socialism is the enemy.—Editor Liberty.]