The Origin of Two American Copyright TheoriesA Case of the Reception of English Law.docx

The Origin of Two American Copyright TheoriesA Case of the Reception of English Law.docx

《The Origin of Two American Copyright TheoriesA Case of the Reception of English Law.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The Origin of Two American Copyright TheoriesA Case of the Reception of English Law.docx（21页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

TheOriginofTwoAmericanCopyrightTheoriesACaseoftheReceptionofEnglishLaw

TheOriginofTwoAmericanCopyrightTheories 

--ACaseoftheReceptionofEnglishLaw--

HideakiShirata

http:

//orion.t.hosei.ac.jp/hideaki/twocopy.htm

1?

@TheOriginalConceptofCopyrightinEngland

TheconceptofcopyrightemergedinEnglandinthesixteenthcenturyfromthebylawsoftheguildthenmonopolisingthecountry'spublishingindustry.TheguildwasgrantedacharterofincorporationbyQueenMaryin1556andreorganiseditselfastheCompanyofStationersofLondon.WithofficialrecognitionoftheCompany'smonopoly,itsbylawsandconceptofcopyrightalsocamegraduallytobeacknowledgedasthoseofanofficialinstitute.Thequasi-rightknownasStationers'Copyrightwasbasedonroyalprerogativeorletterpatentcoveringtheentirepublishingindustryasanestate.Thismonopolywasassignedtoitsmembersasavirtualfreeholdinterest.AlthoughtheStationers'CopyrightwasbasedonaprerogativewhichlaiddownthreebasiccharacteristicsofAnglo-Americancopyright-namelythatregistrationisindispensableforitsprotection,copyrightwasavailablenotonlytotheauthorbutalsotopurchasers,anditremainsvalidforatermthatisamultipleofsevenyears-itgavenoconsiderationwhatsoevertotheauthor'sright [1].

Englandenactedtheworld'sfirstcopyrightlawin1710 [2].Thisstatutehaslongbeenconsideredaturningpointinthehistoryofcopyrightasitclearlyrecognisedtheauthor'sright.Contrarytothislong-standingbelief,however,thispaperwillargue,byathoroughinvestigationofthepurposeandlegislativerecordofthestatute,thatitwasinfactenactedfortheabolitionofstationer'smonopoly [3].

Withrespecttopurpose,thestatutegrantedanextensionoftheexistingmonopolyfor21yearsandanexclusiverightfornewworksforfourteenyearswithanoptiontorenewforthesameperiod.Moreover,thestatuteusedtheauthor'srightonlytojustifytheabolitionofthemonopoly.

Thisargumentcanbesupportedbythefollowingthreepoints.

First,apartdeletedfromtheoriginaldraftofthe1710statuteclearlyemphasisedthatauthorsweretobegivenpriorityoverotherswithrespecttocopyright.Parliamentaryrecordsrevealthatthisparticularpartwasremovedunderpressurefrommonopolisticbooksellers.

Whereas thelibertywhich Printers,Booksellers,andotherPersonshaveoflatefrequentlytaken in [theLibertyof]Printing,Reprinting,andPublishing,orcausingtobePrinted,ReprintedandPublishedBooks,andotherWritings,withouttheConsentofAuthors thereof,inwhomyeundoubtedPropertyofsuchBooksandWritingastheproductoftheirlearningandlabourremainsorofsuchpersonstowhomsuchAuthorsforgoodConsidera（c^）onshavelawfullytransferredtheirRightandtitlethereinisnotonlyarealdiscouragementtolearningingenerll[sic]whichinallCivilizedNationsoughttoreceiveyegreatestCountenanceandEncouragemt[sic]butitisalsoanotoriouslnvasionofyepropertyofyerightful [or]ProprietorsofsuchBooksandWritings,totheirverygreatDetriment,andtoooftentotheRuinofthemandtheirFamilies:

...

That whereanyAuthorshallhereafterComposeorwriteanybookorbooksandshallreservetohimselfyeCopyorCopiesofSuchbookorBooksshareorSharesthereofOranyBooksellerprinterorotherpersonwhohathalreadypurchasedoracquiredorshallhereafterpurchaseoracquireyeCopyorCopiesofanyBookorBooksShareorSharesthereofinOrdertoprintorreprintyesameThatinanyoreitheroftheseCases fromandaftertheThenthDayofApril,Onethousandsevenhandredandten,theAuthorofanyBookorBooksalreadyPrinted... [4]

Second,thereisthesimilaritybetweentheStatuteofMonopolyof1623 [5] andthe1710statute.TheStatuteofMonopolywas,needlesstosay,intendedtoabolishthemonopoliessorampantduringtheElizabethanage.Itallowed21-yearmonopoliesforexistingprivilegesgrantedwithoutspecifictermsand14-yearmonopoliesforforthcominginventions.ThestructureoftheStatuteofMonopolyissimilartothefirstsectionofthe1710statute.

Anactconcerningmonopoliesanddispensationswithpenallawsandtheforfeituresthereof,21Jac.1,c.3.

V....Andifthesameweremadeformorethanoneandtwentyyears,Thatthenthesameforthetermofoneandtwentyyearsonly,tobeaccountedfromthedateofthefirstletterspatentsandgrantsthereofmade,shallbeofsuchforceastheywereorshouldhavebeen,ifthesamehadbeenmadebutfortermofoneandtwentyyearsonly,andasifthisacthadneverbeenhadormade,andnoneother,VI.Providedalso,andbeitdeclaredandenacted,Thatanydeclarationbeforementionedshallnotextendtoanyletterspatentsandgrantsofprivilegeforthetermoffourteenyearsorunder,hereaftertobemade,ofthesoleworkingormakingofanymannerofnewmanufactrueswithinthisrealm,tothetrueandfirstinventorandinventorsofsuchmanufactures,...

AnActfortheEncouragementofLearning,byVestingtheCopiesofPrintedBooksintheAuthorsorPurchasersofsuchCopies,duringtheTimesthereinmentioned,8Anne,c.19.

...[T]heAuthorofanyBookorBooksalreadyPrinted,whohathnotTransferredtoanyothertheCopyorCopiesofsuchBookorBooks,ShareorSharesthereof,ortheBooksellerorBooksellers,PrinterorPrinters,orotherPersonorPersons,whohathorhavePurchasedorAcquiredtheCopyorCopiesofanyBookorBooks,inordertoPrintorReprintthesame,shallhavethesoleRightandLibertyofPrintingsuchBookandBooksfortheTermofOneandtwentyYears,...andnolonger;andthattheAuthorofanyBookorBooksalreadyComposedandnotPrintedandPublished,orthatshallhereafterbeComposed,andhisAssigneeorAssigns,shallhavethesoleLibertyofPrintingandReprintingsuchBookandBooksfortheTermofFourteenYears,toCommencefromtheDayoftheFirstPublishingthesame,andnolonger;...

Third,therearetheclaimsmadebyintellectualsaround1710.TheLicensingActof1662 [6],whichgavelegalauthoritytothemonopolyinthebooktrade,wasrepealedin1695.JohnLockecontributedmuchtowardsitsrepeal,writingtopeersintheHouseofLordsandstronglycondemningtherestrictionsonsciencecausedbytheprovisionsoftheActandthemonopoliesofStationersCompany.（See,AppendixA.）

Althoughthe1710statuteaimedtoabolishmonopolies,monopolisticbooksellersattemptedtoforgeacasewhichwouldnullifyitsschemeandprovideeternalprotectionfortheirbusinesses.Wecanseethatintheactionsbroughtafter1731whenstatutorycopyrightprotectionbegantoexpire.Theyevencolludedtoaccomplishtheirgoal [7].Aseriesoftheseactionsknownasthe``BattleoftheBooksellers''attractedconsiderablepublicattentioninLondon [8].

Suchactivitiesaimedatestablishingcopyrightasaneternalrightweremostapparentin Millarv.Taylor in1769 [9].AsaresultofthedecisionoftheKing'sBenchinthiscase,copyrightwasunderstood,forfiveyearsuntil1774,tobeakindofcommonlawrighteternalinnature.Inthiscase,SirWilliamBlackstoneandLordMansfieldmadeagreatcontributiontopromotingtheplaintiffs'cause.Blackstonehadpreviouslypublished CommentariesontheLawsofEngland [10] in1767inwhichheinterpretedcopyrightasalegalconceptforthefirsttime.CitingLockeannaturallawtheory [11],hedescribedcopyrightasakindofpersonalpropertyincommonlawonthegroundthatanykindofpublishedworkisbasedontheauthor'sbrainwork.Blackstonerevisedthedescriptiontoemphasisethedistinctionbetweenthecommonlawrightandstatutorycopyrightafterthe Millar casewasoverruledin Donaldsonv.Beckett in1774 [12].Thedistinctionwas,however,sotechnicalthatmostreadersfounditdifficulttocomprehend.（See, AppendixB.）

TheplotofthebooksellerswasultimatelydefeatedbythedecisionoftheHouseofLordsinthe Donaldson case,whichestablishedthebasicstructureoftheconceptofAnglo-Americancopyrightinthenineteenthcentury.Thatis,whenanauthorfixedhiscreationonatangiblemedium,heobtainedacommonlawrightthatiseternalinnature.However,hewouldlosethecommonlawrightafterthepublicationofhiscreationbecauseofloseingphysicaloccupancyorcontrolonthecreation.Toavoidthisinconvenience,astatuteestablishedprivilageormonopolythatexcludeothersfromutilizingauthor'sworkforlimitedterm.ThroughouttheBattleoftheBooksellers,ontheotherhand,lawyershadmaintainedthattheprincipleofcopyrightshouldbebasedonLockeannaturallawtheoryandthisassertioncamegraduallytoreceivesomedegreeofpublicrecognition.

2?

@TheReceptionofCopyrightLawinAmerica

ThecolonialgovernmentofMassachusettsenactedin1672alawthatcanberegardedasthefirstcopyrightlawinBritishterritoryontheAmericancontinent.ThereisnoevidencethattheAmericancolonieshadanyothercopyrightstatutesafterthatuntilthe1780s.Thereasonforitsabsencecanbeexplainedbyfollowingthreepoints.First,despitethefactthatworksofAmericanauthorswerepublishedinAmerica,thenumberofworkswaslimitedandalargeproportionoftheAmericanmarketwasdominatedbyBritishauthors.Second,authorsincolonieswerealsoeditorsandpublishers.Therewasasentimentortraderulecalled``courtesycopyright''or``mutualobligation''amongpublishers,whicheffectivelysuppressedpiracy.Third,therewaslittleornoconflictofmarketshareamongpublishersonaccountoftheextensiveandgrowingAmericanmarket.Themarketwasalsostrictlysegmented.Eachpublisheroftensupporteda