Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Fichte: Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting, Berlin (1793)
Source: Berlinische Monatschrift (1793), 443-482
Citation:
Fichte: Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting, Berlin (1793), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | Commentaries: [1]
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
445
not demonstrated, nor attempted to demonstrate, that
no such perpetual ownership by the author is
possible. He has rather just said that no one
has so far demonstrated its existence, and he
has presented a number of proceedings that in his
opinion contravene the generality and thus
inviolability of such a right based
on ownership. Thus we need not follow him
step by step and meet each of his arguments
separately. For if we can simply prove the
existence of such a perpetual ownership of the
text by its author, then what Mr. Reimarus requires
will have been provided and he himself may
undertake to reconcile his examples with the proof.
Furthermore, we will not need to respond to his
demonstration of the utility of reprinting, since
this will no longer be relevant; for whatever is
plainly illegal ought never to occur no matter
how useful it may be.
The difficulty of demonstrating that an
author has perpetual property in his book arose
from the fact that we have nothing comparable to
books and that things that appear to be more
or less similar differ a great deal on many accounts.
No Transcription available.
Source: Berlinische Monatschrift (1793), 443-482
Citation:
Fichte: Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting, Berlin (1793), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | Commentaries: [1]
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
445
not demonstrated, nor attempted to demonstrate, that
no such perpetual ownership by the author is
possible. He has rather just said that no one
has so far demonstrated its existence, and he
has presented a number of proceedings that in his
opinion contravene the generality and thus
inviolability of such a right based
on ownership. Thus we need not follow him
step by step and meet each of his arguments
separately. For if we can simply prove the
existence of such a perpetual ownership of the
text by its author, then what Mr. Reimarus requires
will have been provided and he himself may
undertake to reconcile his examples with the proof.
Furthermore, we will not need to respond to his
demonstration of the utility of reprinting, since
this will no longer be relevant; for whatever is
plainly illegal ought never to occur no matter
how useful it may be.
The difficulty of demonstrating that an
author has perpetual property in his book arose
from the fact that we have nothing comparable to
books and that things that appear to be more
or less similar differ a great deal on many accounts.
No Transcription available.