Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Netherlands Lawyers' Association’s debate on the principle behind author’s rights protection, Leeuwarden (1877)
Source: Handelingen der Nederlandsche Juristen-Vereeniging 1877, I, pp. 33-98, II, pp. 2-72; Koninklijke Bibliotheek, NL 01 HAN, Band 1877
Citation:
Netherlands Lawyers' Association’s debate on the principle behind author’s rights protection, Leeuwarden (1877), 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
20 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
VI.
Subject: "According to which main principle should the state regulate the rights of authors and artists to the product of their labour?"
Consultative reports of Mr. J. Freseman Vietor. (p. 34).
Mr. N. de Ridder (p. 50).
Chapter 1 Page 12
44
[...] And that regime is simple: there is no legal principle that may make the State reserve writers and artists the rights of their work. They cannot assert rights on that basis. Thereby, it is not said that the State must grant them no rights. On the contrary, there is every reason to treat them on the footing of the most favoured labourers. They still produce work closer than bluestone; they bring us the food that does not perish. So, if anything, the development of intellect and taste by good books and products of the fine arts is an urgent demand. Now, -- would this need be met -- the authors, if I limit myself to them, must be able to obtain a reward for their labour. They are able to do so only by copyright, the exclusive right to reap the benefits of the mechanical reproduction of their brainchild. Macauley in his witty speech on this subject (1) has demonstrated that there is no other way. Of course, that monopoly makes books expensive. It is a tax on the readers to give the authors benefit, and indeed a tax of the worst kind, the mentioned author says, because it taxes one of the most innocent and most salutary enjoyments of man, and therefore acts as a premium on the less advisable. For the sake of charity, one must sustain that tax, but it should also not last a day longer than is necessary for that objective. As another writer (2) puts it, all laws concerning property should have this in view: as much protection should be provided as necessary to encourage the individuals to the labour and the expenses requiered for production, and at the same time that protection should
(1) In 1841. See Speeches I, 273 ff., (Tauchnitz-edition 1853).
(2) Edward Dicey, Forthnightly review 1876, January, p. 129.
Chapter 1 Page 13
45
be limited in such a manner that the product -- whatever it may be -- is easily available to the public. Now, where to draw the line is difficult. For material product, there is no objection to absolute property rights. With respect to products of the human mind -- as we saw -- definitively. Now, what will be the duration of the exclusive right of authors? That is the question.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 14
46
[...]
The copyright is necessary to prevent the publication
Chapter 1 Page 15
47
of books being foregone; authors should be encouraged to enrich the world with their writings. To that end, an exclusive right of reproduction for 30 or 40 years is sufficient. We therefore need make no exception for anonymous works, those under a pseudonym and posthumous works.
Therewith, the main principle of the law has been given. [...] Much will be left to the judex facti, always must one keep the objective in mind: to ensure that the author is able to obtain benefits of his work, or rather to prevent that he, on account of fears to the contrary, will not publish his work. [...]
Notwithstanding the arguments of Mr. de Ridders, the greater or lesser importance of the literary product to me still seems to be completely indifferent. Even a single letter, which hardly can claim the name of literary brainchild -- I mention e.g. that recently published by P.A. the Genestet -- is in my opinion subject to copyright. Therein -- keeping in mind my principle -- I see an advantage and no drawbacks. All letter products, as soon as their originality is determined, are equal before the law. Whether the publisher thereby obtains wages and annuity, that depends on the importance, and as a result thereof on the purchase lust of the public. Every other measure is arbitrary.
Chapter 1 Page 16
48
Thus I also consider a performance right for dramatic works, on the grounds of my earlier essay, desirable, and in contrast unadvisable for musical compositions.
For art, by its nature not suited to be reproduced in a mechanical manner, I see no basis for an exclusive right of artists. A painter, a sculptor would receive more money for his work, if he had the right to copy, but there is no fear that they will say goodbye to the fine arts without that monopoly. In addition, the prohibition should not kill self-employment, and the copier of a painting, an engraving exercises independent art. Steel engravings, lithographs, photographs, etc., are mechanically reproduced, therefore, copying by mechanical process, in my opinion, needs to be prohibited for a certain -- short -- term. Again, I do not hold to the claim of "artististic Production", and thus assume copyright for photographs as much as for a single letter. Of course, one is free to take a new, independent shot of the original. The same is true for reproductions of sculptures on a smaller or larger scale.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 18
50
II.
[...]
If I am not mistaken, then the question raised can be answered most effectively in the following manner. Firstly is investigated how the State should consider that exclusive right of "authors and artists", as a natural consequence of established private law or as something new. Secondly, in response to the investigation having taken place, the scope of the right, which may or may not be created, within the legal system should be delimited. Finally must be proceeded to touching upon the outlines of a law for the exercising and protection of the right, ruled by, and precisely laid down in, the main principle.
We will proceed according to the following method. [...]
Chapter 1 Page 33
65
[...]
Whereever it concerns the protection of the interests of the
Chapter 1 Page 34
66
authors, the State can found it on no legal institution.
[...]
An ethical principle should
Chapter 1 Page 35
67
however only be a basis for intervention of the State if the public interest suffers damage by the injuring of that ethical principle. And now: there will be no one who doubts that, if the author does not receive pay, he works not, or at least less; nor, that this damages the intellect of a whole society (1). Therefore: State intervention to protect the public interest through prevention of injury to the interests of authors and their assignees.
[...]
(1) Vietor, at the cited place p. 50, expressed himself of the same view.
Chapter 1 Page 37
69
[...]
The outlines, now that the foundation has been laid, follow quite naturally.
The prohibition of copying, once supported by the demand of social interaction situations, has become a right of the intellectual producer to claim the earnings of his production, and his interests are protected. I italised that interests, because that his financial interest is served by the prohibition of copying, that by this prohibition is established for the author the power, the right to prevent all third parties from mechanically reproducing and distributing the product, all this does not need discussion. But the author has another sort of interest, personal ones such as the if, how, and when of the publication, the loss of sight of which interests has been blamed on the advocates of the ownership theory. However correct this objection may be in principle, it is as much incorrect to found a right solely on the basis of the personality.(1) By means of the prohibition of copying, however, the first as well as the second are avoided, given that this prohibition, founded on our base, does justice to both interests, the capital and the personal. "But to the capital interest, the promotion of which gave the impetus to legal protection of author's rights, and that also in practice is the most important, should be appointed the place of honour in the regulations."
(1) See previous.
Chapter 1 Page 42
74
[...]
In short, we can maintain to have demonstrated that the often complained of contradiction, lying in the proprietary and also fleeting nature of our law, has found sufficient explanation in our contemplation. Therefore, once more: the content of the copyright does not lie in the authority to reproduce, as this is grounded in the natural freedom, but therein that the author can exclude herefrom any third party, whereby the exclusive
Chapter 1 Page 43
75
use of his product is reserved for him, and a certain term after his demise for his assignees.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 64
96
[...]
Now that our contemplations resulting from the question raised have been concluded, we wish to summarize, as much as possible, the principle results obtained in some theorems; theorems which can be considered as principle rules which, in our opinion, the legislator of each nation should defer to.
I. Authors in the field of literature, music, and the visual arts, who wish to earn their wages through the marketing of mechanically reproduced copies, that is, by means of
Chapter 1 Page 65
97
publication, cannot succeed in this on account of the state of the freedom of movement.
II. There is no legal institution that directly or analogicly can serve the court through application, and the legislator by expansion as a means to protect the intended capital interest of the authors referred to.
III. It is evident, however, that the public interest would only benefit from a protection of the individual interests in the aforesaid sense, as much as the claim of economics is that wages should be rewarded only where an individual brainchild is present. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to intervene in the social interaction situations, yet only according to the criterion of production of the mind.
IV. This is achieved by an artificial imitation of paid employment, as they occur for those products in the interaction, for which this attribute, the public nature, so disastrous to the authors, does not exist.
V. This imitation will only be achieved by a purely temporary prohibition of copying, as regards those products which are made in such a way as to provide their creator with his earnings though means of publication. Therefore, a temporarily exclusive market, governed by monopoly.
VI. In principle, in the determination of the extent of this temporality, will be considered that firstly the author will be offered sufficient opportunity to obtain a salary by abovementioned means,
Chapter 1 Page 66
98
midway between natural wages and annuity, but without depriving the economic principle of free competition its free operation for longer than absolutely necessary.
VII. For lack of statistical data, and out of the nature of all legal institutions to regulate by "averages", the term can never be set with complete certainty. However, it can be noted that a monopoly of no less than 40 years causes no serious drawbacks.
VIII. The most equitable regulation for all products among themselves, however, will be this, that use is made by the legislator of the alternative of the English law, though based on the term of art. 3 of our Act of 25 January 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 5).
Chapter 1 Page 134
69
[...]
Question I. "Should the legislator, when regulating the rights of authors and artists to the fruits of their labour, start from the idea:
Chapter 1 Page 135
70
a. "of literary or intellectual property?"
is answered in the negative by 40 votes to 9.
Voted in favour by the gentlemen: B.J. Gratama, P.J. van Swinderen, J. Pols, F.J.J. van Eysinga, Terpstra, P.R. Feith, Tijdeman Sr., O.Q. van Swinderen and E. van Lier; voted against by the gentlemen Ganderheijden, de Vries, Lohman, de Kanter, Pijnappel, Levy, de Pinto, Mouthaan, Katz, Thieme, D.O. Engelen, Servatius, Bloembergen, Asser, Dutry van Haeften, van Hasselt, Hilbingh ten Oever, Borgesius, Eyssell, Vietor, Tijdeman Jr., de Fremery, Albarda, P.A. Bergsma, de Ridder, Beelaerts, van Kleffens, M.S. Pols, Boot, van Boelens van Eysinga, J.C. Bergsma, W.A. Bergsma, Star Busmann, Jansen, C. van Eysinga, Minnema Buma, von Baumhauer, van Humalda van Eysinga, Hofstede and Meijer.
b. "That the worker is entitled to the reward of his labour, and that everyone who without reason enriched himself with another's wages, is obliged to restitution?"
is answered in the negative by 42 votes to 7.
Voted in favour by the gentlemen: Terpstra, Lohman, Tijdeman Sr., E. van Lier, de Fremery, Gratama and F.J.J. van Eysinga; voted against by the gentlemen C. van Eysinga, Minnema Buma, von Baumhauer, van Humalda van Eysinga, Hofstede, Meijer, Hilbingh ten Oever, Borgesius, Eyssell, Vietor, Tijdeman Jr., Albarda, P.A. Bergsma, de Ridder, Beelaerts, P.J. van Swinderen, van Kleffens, M.S. Pols, Boot, J. Pols, J.C. Bergsma, van Boelens van Eysinga, W.A. Bergsma, Star Busmann, Jansen, Ganderheijden, de Vries, de Kanter, Feith, Pijnappel, Levy, de Pinto, Mouthaan, Katz, Thieme, Engelen, Servatius, Bloembergen, Asser, Dutry van Haeften, O.Q. van Swinderen and van Hasselt.
c. "An implied clause, which must be deemed to have been the intention of the parties at the sale of each copy, under which the purchaser becomes the owner of the goods purchased on the condition of not copying,
Chapter 1 Page 136
71
and not to contribute to it being copied by others?"
is answered in the negative by unanimous vote minus that of Mr. B.J. Gratama.
d. "That in the public interest must be given a right to exclusive reproduction by law?"
is answered in the affirmative by 36 votes to 10.
Voted in favour by the gentlemen Ganderheijden, de Vries, de Kanter, Feith, Pijnappel, de Pinto, Mouthaan, Thieme, Engelen, Servatius, Bloembergen, Asser, van Lier, Dutry van Haeften, Hilbingh ten Oever, Borgesius, Eyssell, Vietor, Tijdeman Jr., Albarda, P.A. Bergsma, de Ridder, Gratama, Beelaerts, van Kleffens, M.S. Pols, Boot, J.C. Bergsma, Star Busmann, Jansen, F.J.J. van Eysinga, Minnema Buma, von Baumhauer, van Humalda van Eysinga, Hofstede and Meijer; voted against by the gentlemen C. van Eysinga, Terpstra, Levy, Katz, O.Q. van Swinderen, van Hasselt, de Fremery, P.J. van Swinderen, J. Pols and van Boelens van Eysinga. The gentlemen W.A. Bergsma, Tijdeman Sr. and Lohman abstained from voting.
Question 2: "Should the right, granted to the writer or artist on whatever ground, be concluded within a certain space of time?"
is answered in the affirmative by unanimous vote minus that of Mr. van Lier.
Now comes the vote on the alternative question, proposed by Amendment.
a "Should this space of time be dependent on the duration of the writer's or artist's life?
Is answered in the negative by unanimous vote minus two: that of gentlemen de Kanter and Tijdeman Sr.
b. "Or is a fixed period of a predetermined number of years preferable?"
is answered in the affirmative by 34 votes, while the
Chapter 1 Page 137
72
two just mentioned gentlemen voted against and the gentlemen Levy, Katz, Engelen, van Lier, van Hasselt, M.S. Pols, van Boelens van Eysinga, W.A. Bergsma, C. van Eysinga, von Baumhauer and van Welderen Rengers abstained from voting.
Translation by: Miluska Kooij
Source: Handelingen der Nederlandsche Juristen-Vereeniging 1877, I, pp. 33-98, II, pp. 2-72; Koninklijke Bibliotheek, NL 01 HAN, Band 1877
Citation:
Netherlands Lawyers' Association’s debate on the principle behind author’s rights protection, Leeuwarden (1877), 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
20 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
VI.
Subject: "According to which main principle should the state regulate the rights of authors and artists to the product of their labour?"
Consultative reports of Mr. J. Freseman Vietor. (p. 34).
Mr. N. de Ridder (p. 50).
Chapter 1 Page 12
44
[...] And that regime is simple: there is no legal principle that may make the State reserve writers and artists the rights of their work. They cannot assert rights on that basis. Thereby, it is not said that the State must grant them no rights. On the contrary, there is every reason to treat them on the footing of the most favoured labourers. They still produce work closer than bluestone; they bring us the food that does not perish. So, if anything, the development of intellect and taste by good books and products of the fine arts is an urgent demand. Now, -- would this need be met -- the authors, if I limit myself to them, must be able to obtain a reward for their labour. They are able to do so only by copyright, the exclusive right to reap the benefits of the mechanical reproduction of their brainchild. Macauley in his witty speech on this subject (1) has demonstrated that there is no other way. Of course, that monopoly makes books expensive. It is a tax on the readers to give the authors benefit, and indeed a tax of the worst kind, the mentioned author says, because it taxes one of the most innocent and most salutary enjoyments of man, and therefore acts as a premium on the less advisable. For the sake of charity, one must sustain that tax, but it should also not last a day longer than is necessary for that objective. As another writer (2) puts it, all laws concerning property should have this in view: as much protection should be provided as necessary to encourage the individuals to the labour and the expenses requiered for production, and at the same time that protection should
(1) In 1841. See Speeches I, 273 ff., (Tauchnitz-edition 1853).
(2) Edward Dicey, Forthnightly review 1876, January, p. 129.
Chapter 1 Page 13
45
be limited in such a manner that the product -- whatever it may be -- is easily available to the public. Now, where to draw the line is difficult. For material product, there is no objection to absolute property rights. With respect to products of the human mind -- as we saw -- definitively. Now, what will be the duration of the exclusive right of authors? That is the question.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 14
46
[...]
The copyright is necessary to prevent the publication
Chapter 1 Page 15
47
of books being foregone; authors should be encouraged to enrich the world with their writings. To that end, an exclusive right of reproduction for 30 or 40 years is sufficient. We therefore need make no exception for anonymous works, those under a pseudonym and posthumous works.
Therewith, the main principle of the law has been given. [...] Much will be left to the judex facti, always must one keep the objective in mind: to ensure that the author is able to obtain benefits of his work, or rather to prevent that he, on account of fears to the contrary, will not publish his work. [...]
Notwithstanding the arguments of Mr. de Ridders, the greater or lesser importance of the literary product to me still seems to be completely indifferent. Even a single letter, which hardly can claim the name of literary brainchild -- I mention e.g. that recently published by P.A. the Genestet -- is in my opinion subject to copyright. Therein -- keeping in mind my principle -- I see an advantage and no drawbacks. All letter products, as soon as their originality is determined, are equal before the law. Whether the publisher thereby obtains wages and annuity, that depends on the importance, and as a result thereof on the purchase lust of the public. Every other measure is arbitrary.
Chapter 1 Page 16
48
Thus I also consider a performance right for dramatic works, on the grounds of my earlier essay, desirable, and in contrast unadvisable for musical compositions.
For art, by its nature not suited to be reproduced in a mechanical manner, I see no basis for an exclusive right of artists. A painter, a sculptor would receive more money for his work, if he had the right to copy, but there is no fear that they will say goodbye to the fine arts without that monopoly. In addition, the prohibition should not kill self-employment, and the copier of a painting, an engraving exercises independent art. Steel engravings, lithographs, photographs, etc., are mechanically reproduced, therefore, copying by mechanical process, in my opinion, needs to be prohibited for a certain -- short -- term. Again, I do not hold to the claim of "artististic Production", and thus assume copyright for photographs as much as for a single letter. Of course, one is free to take a new, independent shot of the original. The same is true for reproductions of sculptures on a smaller or larger scale.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 18
50
II.
[...]
If I am not mistaken, then the question raised can be answered most effectively in the following manner. Firstly is investigated how the State should consider that exclusive right of "authors and artists", as a natural consequence of established private law or as something new. Secondly, in response to the investigation having taken place, the scope of the right, which may or may not be created, within the legal system should be delimited. Finally must be proceeded to touching upon the outlines of a law for the exercising and protection of the right, ruled by, and precisely laid down in, the main principle.
We will proceed according to the following method. [...]
Chapter 1 Page 33
65
[...]
Whereever it concerns the protection of the interests of the
Chapter 1 Page 34
66
authors, the State can found it on no legal institution.
[...]
An ethical principle should
Chapter 1 Page 35
67
however only be a basis for intervention of the State if the public interest suffers damage by the injuring of that ethical principle. And now: there will be no one who doubts that, if the author does not receive pay, he works not, or at least less; nor, that this damages the intellect of a whole society (1). Therefore: State intervention to protect the public interest through prevention of injury to the interests of authors and their assignees.
[...]
(1) Vietor, at the cited place p. 50, expressed himself of the same view.
Chapter 1 Page 37
69
[...]
The outlines, now that the foundation has been laid, follow quite naturally.
The prohibition of copying, once supported by the demand of social interaction situations, has become a right of the intellectual producer to claim the earnings of his production, and his interests are protected. I italised that interests, because that his financial interest is served by the prohibition of copying, that by this prohibition is established for the author the power, the right to prevent all third parties from mechanically reproducing and distributing the product, all this does not need discussion. But the author has another sort of interest, personal ones such as the if, how, and when of the publication, the loss of sight of which interests has been blamed on the advocates of the ownership theory. However correct this objection may be in principle, it is as much incorrect to found a right solely on the basis of the personality.(1) By means of the prohibition of copying, however, the first as well as the second are avoided, given that this prohibition, founded on our base, does justice to both interests, the capital and the personal. "But to the capital interest, the promotion of which gave the impetus to legal protection of author's rights, and that also in practice is the most important, should be appointed the place of honour in the regulations."
(1) See previous.
Chapter 1 Page 42
74
[...]
In short, we can maintain to have demonstrated that the often complained of contradiction, lying in the proprietary and also fleeting nature of our law, has found sufficient explanation in our contemplation. Therefore, once more: the content of the copyright does not lie in the authority to reproduce, as this is grounded in the natural freedom, but therein that the author can exclude herefrom any third party, whereby the exclusive
Chapter 1 Page 43
75
use of his product is reserved for him, and a certain term after his demise for his assignees.
[...]
Chapter 1 Page 64
96
[...]
Now that our contemplations resulting from the question raised have been concluded, we wish to summarize, as much as possible, the principle results obtained in some theorems; theorems which can be considered as principle rules which, in our opinion, the legislator of each nation should defer to.
I. Authors in the field of literature, music, and the visual arts, who wish to earn their wages through the marketing of mechanically reproduced copies, that is, by means of
Chapter 1 Page 65
97
publication, cannot succeed in this on account of the state of the freedom of movement.
II. There is no legal institution that directly or analogicly can serve the court through application, and the legislator by expansion as a means to protect the intended capital interest of the authors referred to.
III. It is evident, however, that the public interest would only benefit from a protection of the individual interests in the aforesaid sense, as much as the claim of economics is that wages should be rewarded only where an individual brainchild is present. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to intervene in the social interaction situations, yet only according to the criterion of production of the mind.
IV. This is achieved by an artificial imitation of paid employment, as they occur for those products in the interaction, for which this attribute, the public nature, so disastrous to the authors, does not exist.
V. This imitation will only be achieved by a purely temporary prohibition of copying, as regards those products which are made in such a way as to provide their creator with his earnings though means of publication. Therefore, a temporarily exclusive market, governed by monopoly.
VI. In principle, in the determination of the extent of this temporality, will be considered that firstly the author will be offered sufficient opportunity to obtain a salary by abovementioned means,
Chapter 1 Page 66
98
midway between natural wages and annuity, but without depriving the economic principle of free competition its free operation for longer than absolutely necessary.
VII. For lack of statistical data, and out of the nature of all legal institutions to regulate by "averages", the term can never be set with complete certainty. However, it can be noted that a monopoly of no less than 40 years causes no serious drawbacks.
VIII. The most equitable regulation for all products among themselves, however, will be this, that use is made by the legislator of the alternative of the English law, though based on the term of art. 3 of our Act of 25 January 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 5).
Chapter 1 Page 134
69
[...]
Question I. "Should the legislator, when regulating the rights of authors and artists to the fruits of their labour, start from the idea:
Chapter 1 Page 135
70
a. "of literary or intellectual property?"
is answered in the negative by 40 votes to 9.
Voted in favour by the gentlemen: B.J. Gratama, P.J. van Swinderen, J. Pols, F.J.J. van Eysinga, Terpstra, P.R. Feith, Tijdeman Sr., O.Q. van Swinderen and E. van Lier; voted against by the gentlemen Ganderheijden, de Vries, Lohman, de Kanter, Pijnappel, Levy, de Pinto, Mouthaan, Katz, Thieme, D.O. Engelen, Servatius, Bloembergen, Asser, Dutry van Haeften, van Hasselt, Hilbingh ten Oever, Borgesius, Eyssell, Vietor, Tijdeman Jr., de Fremery, Albarda, P.A. Bergsma, de Ridder, Beelaerts, van Kleffens, M.S. Pols, Boot, van Boelens van Eysinga, J.C. Bergsma, W.A. Bergsma, Star Busmann, Jansen, C. van Eysinga, Minnema Buma, von Baumhauer, van Humalda van Eysinga, Hofstede and Meijer.
b. "That the worker is entitled to the reward of his labour, and that everyone who without reason enriched himself with another's wages, is obliged to restitution?"
is answered in the negative by 42 votes to 7.
Voted in favour by the gentlemen: Terpstra, Lohman, Tijdeman Sr., E. van Lier, de Fremery, Gratama and F.J.J. van Eysinga; voted against by the gentlemen C. van Eysinga, Minnema Buma, von Baumhauer, van Humalda van Eysinga, Hofstede, Meijer, Hilbingh ten Oever, Borgesius, Eyssell, Vietor, Tijdeman Jr., Albarda, P.A. Bergsma, de Ridder, Beelaerts, P.J. van Swinderen, van Kleffens, M.S. Pols, Boot, J. Pols, J.C. Bergsma, van Boelens van Eysinga, W.A. Bergsma, Star Busmann, Jansen, Ganderheijden, de Vries, de Kanter, Feith, Pijnappel, Levy, de Pinto, Mouthaan, Katz, Thieme, Engelen, Servatius, Bloembergen, Asser, Dutry van Haeften, O.Q. van Swinderen and van Hasselt.
c. "An implied clause, which must be deemed to have been the intention of the parties at the sale of each copy, under which the purchaser becomes the owner of the goods purchased on the condition of not copying,
Chapter 1 Page 136
71
and not to contribute to it being copied by others?"
is answered in the negative by unanimous vote minus that of Mr. B.J. Gratama.
d. "That in the public interest must be given a right to exclusive reproduction by law?"
is answered in the affirmative by 36 votes to 10.
Voted in favour by the gentlemen Ganderheijden, de Vries, de Kanter, Feith, Pijnappel, de Pinto, Mouthaan, Thieme, Engelen, Servatius, Bloembergen, Asser, van Lier, Dutry van Haeften, Hilbingh ten Oever, Borgesius, Eyssell, Vietor, Tijdeman Jr., Albarda, P.A. Bergsma, de Ridder, Gratama, Beelaerts, van Kleffens, M.S. Pols, Boot, J.C. Bergsma, Star Busmann, Jansen, F.J.J. van Eysinga, Minnema Buma, von Baumhauer, van Humalda van Eysinga, Hofstede and Meijer; voted against by the gentlemen C. van Eysinga, Terpstra, Levy, Katz, O.Q. van Swinderen, van Hasselt, de Fremery, P.J. van Swinderen, J. Pols and van Boelens van Eysinga. The gentlemen W.A. Bergsma, Tijdeman Sr. and Lohman abstained from voting.
Question 2: "Should the right, granted to the writer or artist on whatever ground, be concluded within a certain space of time?"
is answered in the affirmative by unanimous vote minus that of Mr. van Lier.
Now comes the vote on the alternative question, proposed by Amendment.
a "Should this space of time be dependent on the duration of the writer's or artist's life?
Is answered in the negative by unanimous vote minus two: that of gentlemen de Kanter and Tijdeman Sr.
b. "Or is a fixed period of a predetermined number of years preferable?"
is answered in the affirmative by 34 votes, while the
Chapter 1 Page 137
72
two just mentioned gentlemen voted against and the gentlemen Levy, Katz, Engelen, van Lier, van Hasselt, M.S. Pols, van Boelens van Eysinga, W.A. Bergsma, C. van Eysinga, von Baumhauer and van Welderen Rengers abstained from voting.
Translation by: Miluska Kooij