Lord Northcliffe came up with Colonel Harvey to talk over my new copyright scheme, and spent the night. Considering his years, which are but forty-three, he is easily the most remarkable man of the day, I think. He has a smooth young face and frank and strong youthful enthusiasms, enthusiasms veiled under his native English reserve, but quite perceptible, nevertheless. When I first met him, eight or nine years ago, he was as fresh-faced as a boy, and indeed looked like a boy; yet he had already achieved his fortune, made his mark, and was a recognizedⒶtextual note power in the English world.
He began life under unpromising circumstances. He came up to London from the country, unacquainted with the world, destitute of friends competent to help him, a stranger, a waif, and without money. He presently got a humble place in a publication office, and as soon as his wage was increased to twenty dollars a month, he got married. He was about twenty-one or twenty-two years old then. Twelve years later, when I first knew him, he was proprietor of ten or twenty prosperous periodicals and daily newspapers, was burdened with more money than he knew how to spend, and had acquired a title—Sir Alfred Harmsworth. To-day, aged forty-three, he is Lord Northcliffe, is chief proprietor of that journal which for a hundred years has ranked with the sceptred sovereigns of the world as a political power, and he owns and conducts fifty-two other [begin page 279] journals and magazines besides the one just mentioned, the London Times Ⓐtextual note Ⓔexplanatory note. He lives in various palaces which he owns, he is steeped in luxury and magnificence, he has money without limit, yet he is in no way spoiled but is simple and modest in his ways, and quite as unassuming as he was when he married the moneyless girl of his choice on an income of twenty dollarsⒶtextual note a month.
He liked my new copyright scheme, of course. I know it to be the only one not idiotic that has ever been devised. He said that if I would go to England with it he would work for it with zeal in Parliament and would support it with equal zeal withⒶtextual note his entire battery of fifty-two guns including the London Times Ⓐtextual note. I am aware that to pass a measure in Parliament would be the same as passing it in Congress, because Congress always imitates Parliament in matters of copyright and never ventures to initiate anything in that line itself, but I do not want to go to England with this enterprise yet for I believe I can work it through Congress this winterⒺexplanatory note, and so at the judicious time I shall go to Washington and make the attempt. If I fail I shall go to England early next summer, or next spring, and take up the matter there with Northcliffe.
The following contains an embodiment of my scheme.
Copyright Ⓔexplanatory note.Ⓐtextual note
A Memorial respectfully tendered to the Members of
the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
Ⓐtextual note
NineteenⒶtextual note or twenty years ago, James Russell Lowell, George Haven Putnam, and the undersigned,Ⓐtextual note appeared before the Senate Commitee on Patents in the interest of CopyrightⒺexplanatory note. Up to that time, as explained by Senator Platt of ConnecticutⒺexplanatory note, the policyⒶtextual note of Congress had been to limit the life of a copyright by a term of years, with one definite end in view, and only one—Ⓐtextual noteto wit, that after an author had been permitted to enjoy, forⒶtextual note a reasonable length of time, the income from literaryⒶtextual note property created by his hand and brain, the propertyⒶtextual note should then be transferredⒶtextual note “to the public”Ⓐtextual note as a free gift. That is still the policy ofⒶtextual note Congress to-dayⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐtextual note
The purpose in view was clear:Ⓐtextual note to so reduce the price of the book as to bring it within the reach of all pursesⒶtextual note, and spread it among the millions who had not been able to buy it while it was still under protectionⒶtextual note of copyright.
This purpose has always been defeated.Ⓐtextual note That isⒶtextual note to say,Ⓐtextual note that while the death of a copyright has sometimes reduced the price of a book by a half, for a while, and in some cases by even more, it has never reduced it vastly, nor accomplishedⒶtextual note any reduction that wasⒶtextual note permanent and secure.
The reason is simple: Congress has never made a reduction compulsory. Congress was convinced that the removal of the author’s royaltyⒶtextual note and the book’s consequent (or at least probable)Ⓐtextual note dispersal among several competingⒶtextual note publishers would make the book cheap by force of theⒶtextual note competition. It was an error. It has not turned out so. The reason is,Ⓐtextual note aⒶtextual note publisher cannot find profit in an exceedingly cheap edition if he must divide the market with competitors.
The natural remedy would seem to be, an amended law requiring the issue of cheap editions.
I think the remedy could be accomplishedⒶtextual note in the following way, without injury to author or publisher, and with extreme advantage to the public Ⓐtextual note: by an amendment to the existing law providing as follows—Ⓐtextual noteto wit: that at any time between the beginning of a book’s forty-first year and the ending of its forty-secondⒶtextual note theⒶtextual note owner of theⒶtextual note copyright may extend itsⒶtextual note life thirtyⒶtextual note years by issuing and placingⒶtextual note on sale an edition of the book at one-tenth the price of the cheapest edition, thithertoⒶtextual note issued at any time duringⒶtextual note the ten immediately preceding years; thisⒶtextual note extension to lapse and become null and voidⒶtextual note if at any time during the thirtyⒶtextual note years he shall fail during the space ofⒶtextual note three consecutive months to furnish the 10Ⓐtextual note per cent book upon demand of any person or persons desiring to buy it.Ⓐtextual note
The result would be,Ⓐtextual note that no American classic enjoying the thirty-yearⒶtextual note extension would ever be out of the reach of any American purse, let its uncompulsory Ⓐtextual note priceⒶtextual note be what it might. He would get a two-dollar book for twentyⒶtextual note cents, and he could get none but copyright-expired classics at any such rate.
At the end of the thirty-yearⒶtextual note extension the copyright would again die, and the price would again advance. This by a natural law, the excessively cheap editionⒶtextual note no longerⒶtextual note carrying with it anⒶtextual note advantage to any publisher.
A clause of the suggested amendment could read about as follows, and would obviate the necessity of taking the present law to pieces and building it over again:
All books, and allⒶtextual note articles other than books,Ⓐtextual note enjoying forty-twoⒶtextual note years’Ⓐtextual note copyright-lifeⒶtextual note under the present law shall be admitted to the privilege of the thirty-yearⒶtextual note extension upon complying with the condition requiring the producingⒶtextual note and placing upon permanent sale of one grade or form of saidⒶtextual note book or article at a price 90 per cent below the cheapest rate at which said book or article had been placed upon the market at any timeⒶtextual note during the immediately preceding ten years.
Remarks.Ⓐtextual note
If the suggestedⒶtextual note amendment shall meetⒶtextual note with the favor of the presentⒶtextual note Congress and become law—and I hope it will—I shall have personal experience of its effects very soon. Next year, in fact:Ⓐtextual note in the person of my first book, “The Innocents Abroad.”Ⓐtextual note For its forty-two-yearⒶtextual note copyright-lifeⒶtextual note will then cease and its thirty-yearⒶtextual note extension begin—Ⓐtextual noteand with the latter the permanent low-rate edition. At present the highest price of the book is eight dollars,Ⓐtextual note and its lowest price three dollars per copy.Ⓐtextual note Thus the permanentⒶtextual note low-rate price will be thirty cents Ⓐtextual note per copy. A sweepingⒶtextual note reduction like this is what Congress, from the beginning, has desiredⒶtextual note to achieve, but has not been able to accomplish because no inducement was offered to publishers to run the risk.
Respectfully submitted.Ⓐtextual note
S. L. ClemensⒶtextual note
Lord Northcliffe came up with Colonel Harvey . . . London Times] Harvey brought Lord Northcliffe (Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1865–1922) to Stormfield on 20–21 November 1908 (Stormfield guestbook, CU-MARK). Harvey had probably introduced the two men in January 1901 (Notebook 44, TS p. 3, CU-MARK). Harmsworth was born in Ireland, but his family soon moved to London. He established himself as a journalist in the early 1880s. In 1888 he married Mary Elizabeth Milner against his mother’s wishes, and in the same year founded his own publishing business; by the early 1890s, in partnership with his brother Harold, he was issuing numerous popular magazines with combined sales of over a million copies a year. He bought the failing Evening News in 1894, and made it profitable by tailoring it to middle-class tastes. Two years later he launched the Daily Mail, and over the next few years added several more newspapers to his media empire. In March 1908 he purchased the London Times for £320,000. He was made a baronet in 1904, and in December 1905 was granted a peerage, taking the title Baron Northcliffe of the Isle of Thanet.
I believe I can work it through Congress this winter] On 11 December 1908 Clemens wrote to Champ Clark, a Democratic congressman from Missouri and an ally in his campaign to reform copyright law, to tell him of Harmsworth’s visit (MoHM). According to Paine, the scheme that Clemens outlines in this dictation was made at Clark’s suggestion, but was never introduced in Congress ( MTB , 3:1640).
Copyright] The text that follows, Clemens’s explanation of his copyright “scheme,” is based on a manuscript.
Nineteen or twenty years ago . . . in the interest of Copyright] Clemens may be referring to either of two occasions. In January 1886 he and James Russell Lowell both spoke before the Senate Committee on Patents, which was considering two international copyright bills. Three years later, in January 1889, he again went to Washington to lobby for one of the bills. The debate in Congress continued until 1891, when a law was adopted that made foreign publications eligible for copyright, provided their country of origin recognized the copyrights of U.S. authors. For Lowell and Putnam (secretary of the American Publishers’ Copyright League), and a discussion of the Senate hearings, see AutoMT2 , 584 n. 283.25–284.16, 597–98 nn. 317.29–36, 318.21–22, 318.39–40.
Senator Platt of Connecticut] Orville H. Platt (1827–1905) was a Republican senator from 1879 until his death. He served on the Senate Committee on Patents for nearly his entire career, and was its chairman in 1881–87 and again in 1895–99. An ardent proponent of international copyright, he was largely responsible for passage of the 1891 act (Coolidge 1910, 70, 90–110).
still the policy of Congress to-day] The first copyright law in the United States, passed in 1790, provided a term of fourteen years, renewable for another fourteen; in 1831, the term was extended to twenty-eight years plus another fourteen. That law remained unchanged until March 1909, when a bill was passed allowing a term of twenty-eight years, renewable for another twenty-eight ( AutoMT2 , 585 n. 286.12–13).
Source documents.
MS Manuscript, leaves numbered [1]–7 plus one unnumbered leaf: ‘Copyright . . . S. L. Clemens’ (279.17–280.39).TSa Typescript carbon (the ribbon copy is lost), leaves numbered [1]–6, made by Howden from MS and revised: ‘Copyright . . . S. L. Clemens’ (279.17–280.39).
TSb Typescript, seven unnumbered leaves, made from Howden’s notes and revised TSa.
MS is written on buff-colored laid paper measuring 5¾ by 8¾ inches. The last two leaves contain a note addressed to George Harvey of Harpers, which was transcribed in TSa; Clemens instructed Hobby to omit it from TSb (the complete note is transcribed in the entry at 4.16). TSb, comprising the dictated material and the essay on copyright, reflects the revisions Clemens made on TSa. The only revisions on TSb are inked corrections of typing errors, which are presumably the typist’s and are not reported. Another feature of MS has not been reported: the marginal notes identifying the topic of each paragraph are enclosed in boxes to separate them from the body of the text; typographic treatment makes this unnecessary in the transcription. Howden’s accidental variations from copy in TSa and TSb are not reported.