dge, the four Scottish universites,
Sion College, and the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh.

It was believed for a long time that this statute had not interfered
with the rights of authors at common law. Ownership of literary property
at common law appears indeed to have been recognized in some earlier
statutes. The Licensing Act 1662 prohibited the printing of any work
without the consent of the _owner_ on pain of forfeiture, &c. This act
expired in 1679, and attempts to renew it were unsuccessful. The records
of the Stationers' Company show that the purchase and sale of copyrights
had become an established usage, and the loss of the protection,
incidentally afforded by the Licensing Act, was felt as a serious
grievance, which ultimately led to the statute of 1709. That statute, as
the judges in _Millar_ v. _Taylor_ (1769, 4 Burr. 2303) pointed out,
speaks of the ownership of literary property as a known thing. Many
cases are recorded in which the courts protected copyrights not falling
within the periods laid down by the act. Thus in 1735 the master of the
rolls restrained the printing of an edition of the _Whole Duty of Man_,
published in 1657. In 1739 an injunction was granted by Lord Hardwicke
against the publication of _Paradise Lost_, at the instance of persons
claiming under an assignment from Milton in 1667. In the case of
_Millar_ v. _Taylor_ the plaintiff, who had purchased the copyright of
Thomson's _Seasons_ in 1729, claimed damages for an unlicensed
publication thereof by the defendant in 1763. The jury found that before
the statute it was usual to purchase from authors the perpetual
copyright of their works. Three judges, among whom was Lord Mansfield,
decided in favour of the common law right; one was of the contrary
opinion. The majority thought that the act of 1709 was not intended to
destroy copyright at common law, but merely to protect it more
efficiently during the limited periods. _Millar_ v. _Taylor_, however,
was speedily overruled by the case of _Donaldson_ v. _Beckett_ in the
House of Lords in 1774. The judges were called upon to state their
opinions. A majority (seven to four) were of opinion that the author and
his assigns had at common law the sole right of publication in
perpetuity. A majority (six to five) were of opinion that this right had
been taken away by the statute of 1709, and a term of years substituted
for the perpetuity. The decision appears to have taken the trade by
surprise