OF THE INJUSTICE OF COUNTERFEITING BOOKS

By Immanuel Kant




Transcriber note: This e-text edition of "Of the Injustice of Counterfeiting Books" is, essentially, with some changes or clarifications by the e-text preparer, based on a translation of this essay, from German into English, that was published in 1798 in: Essays and Treatises On Moral, Political and Various Philosophical Subjects, by Immanuel Kant, M.R.A.S.B., and professor of philosophy in the university of Koenigsberg; From the German by the Translator of The Principles of Critical Philosophy; IN TWO VOLUMES; Vol. 1; London: Sold by William Richardson Under the Royal Exchange, 1798; This e-text was prepared by John Mamoun in 2014. This e-text is not in copyright and is public domain.




CONTENTS

OF THE INJUSTICE OF COUNTERFEITING BOOKS

I. Deduction of the Editor's Right against the Counterfeiter

Proof of the Major

Proof of the Minor

II. Refutation of the Counterfeiter's pretended Right against the Editor.

Proof of the Major

Proof of the Minor

Universal Observation








OF THE INJUSTICE OF COUNTERFEITING BOOKS

Those who consider the publication of a book to be equivalent to the use of an author's property in the form of a copy (whether the possessor came by it as a manuscript from the author or as a transcript of it from an actual editor), and then, however, via the reservation of certain rights, whether of the author's or of the editor's, who is appointed by the author, want to limit the use of the book only to this, that is, want to impose the rule that it is not permitted to counterfeit the book, cannot, based upon the rationale of this aforementioned consideration, attain this anti-counterfeiting objective. For the author's property in his thoughts or sentiments (even if it were not granted that the concept of such thought or sentiment property has legal merit according to external laws) would remain to him regardless of whether or not that property was used or represented in the form of a counterfeit; and, since an express legal consent given by the purchaser of a book to such a limitation of their property would not likely be granted,* how much less would a merely presumed consent suffice to determine the purchaser's obligation?

     [*Footnote: Would an editor attempt to bind everybody who     purchased his work to the condition, to be accused of     embezzling the property of another entrusted to him, if,     either intentionally, or by the purchaser's lack of     oversight, the copy which the purchaser purchased were used     for the purpose of counterfeiting?  Scarcely anyone would     consent to this: because he would thereby expose himself to     every sort of trouble about the inquiry and the defense. The     work would therefore remain exclusively in the editor's                          
...

BU KİTABI OKUMAK İÇİN ÜYE OLUN VEYA GİRİŞ YAPIN!


Sitemize Üyelik ÜCRETSİZDİR!