,of ,the ,injustice of ,counterfeiting  
,books    by ,immanuel ,kant            
,transcriber note3 ,this e-text edition 
of ,of the ,injustice of                
,counterfeiting ,books is1 essentially1 
with some changes or  clarifications by 
the e-text preparer1 based on a         
translation of this  essay1 from ,german
 into ,english1 that was published in   
#agih in3 ,essays  and ,treatises ,on   
,moral1 ,political and ,various         
,philosophical ,subjects1  by ,immanuel 
,kant1 ,m4,r4,a4,s4,b41 and professor of
 philosophy in the  university of       
,koenigsberg2 ,from the ,german by the  
,translator of ,the  ,principles of     
,critical ,philosophy2 ,,in ,,two       
,,volumes2 ,vol4 #a2 ,london3  ,sold by 
,william ,richardson ,under the ,royal  
,exchange1 #agih2 ,this e-text  was     
prepared by ,john ,mamoun in #bjad4     
,this e-text is not in copyright  and is
 public domain4                         
99999999999999999999999999      ,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
 7whether the  possessor came by it as a
 manuscript from the author or as a     
transcript of it from an actual editor71
 and then1 however1 via the  reservation
 of certain rights1 whether of the      
author's or of the  editor's1 who is    
appointed by the author1 want to limit  
the use of the  book only to this1 that 
is1 want to impose the rule that it is  
not  permitted to counterfeit the book1 
cannot1 based upon the rationale of     
this aforementioned consideration1      
attain this anti-counterfeiting         
objective4  ,for the author's property  
in his thoughts or sentiments  7even if 
it were not granted that the concept of 
such thought or  sentiment property has 
legal merit according to external laws7 
would  remain to him regardless of      
whether or not that property was used or
  represented in the form of a          
counterfeit2 and1 since an express legal

  consent given by the purchaser of a   
book to such a limitation of their      
property would not likely be granted199 
how much less would a merely  presumed  
consent suffice to determine the        
purchaser's obligation8                 
99,footnote3 ,would an editor attempt to
 bind everybody who purchased  his work 
to the condition1 to be accused of      
embezzling the property of  another     
entrusted to him1 if1 either            
intentionally1 or by the  purchaser's   
lack of oversight1 the copy which the   
purchaser purchased  were used for the  
purpose of counterfeiting8  ,scarcely   
anyone would  consent to this3 because  
he would thereby expose himself to every
 sort  of trouble about the inquiry and 
the defense4 ,the work would therefore  
remain exclusively in the editor's      
hands4    ,i believe1 however1 that ,i  
am justified to consider the publication
 of  a book to be not the trading of a  
good in the form of a book in the       
trader's own name1 but as the           

transacting of business in the name of  
another1 namely1 the author4  ,by       
considering the act of publication  to  
be such a transaction1 ,i am able to    
represent easily and  distinctly the    
wrongfulness of counterfeiting books4   
,my argument1  which also proves the    
editor's right1 is contained in a       
ratiocination2  after which follows a   
second1 wherein the counterfeiter's     
pretension  shall be refuted4      ,i4  
,deduction of the ,editor's ,right      
against the ,counterfeiter    ,whoever  
transacts another's business in his name
 and yet against his  will is obliged to
 give up to him1 or to his attorney1 all
 the profits  that may arise therefrom1 
and to repair all the loss which is     
thereby  occasioned to either the one or
 the other4    ,now the counterfeiter is
 he who transacts another's business    
7the  author's7 against the other's     
will4  ,therefore the counterfeiter is  
obliged to give up to the author or to  
his attorney 7or the editor7  any       

profits from the transaction4           
,proof of the ,major    ,as the agent1  
who intrudes himself1 acts in the name  
of another in a  manner not permitted1  
he has no claim to the profit which     
arises from  this business2 but the     
author or editor in whose name he       
carries on  the business1 or another    
authorized controller of the work to    
whose  charge the former has committed  
the work1 possesses the right to        
appropriate this profit to himself1 as  
the fruit of his property4  ,besides1 as
 this agent injures the possessor's     
right by intermeddling1  nullo jure1 in 
another's business1 he must of necessity
 compensate  for all damages sustained4 
,this lies without a doubt in the       
elementary  conceptions of natural      
right4      ,proof of the ,minor    ,the
 first point of the minor is3 that the  
editor transacts the  business of the   
author by the publication4  ,here1      
everything depends  on the conception of
 a book1 or of a writing in general1 as 

a labour  of the author's1 and on the   
conception of the editor in general 7be 
he  an attorney or not74 ,whether a book
 be a commodity which the author1       
either through the author's own efforts 
or by means of another1 can  traffic    
with the public1 and can therefore      
transfer the ownership  rights of the   
book1 either with or without reservation
 of certain  rights2 or whether the book
 is instead a mere use of his works1    
which  the author can indeed concede to 
others1 but never transfer the          
ownership rights of2 ,again3 whether the
 editor transacts his business  in his  
own name1 or transacts another's        
business in the name of  another8    ,in
 a book1 as a writing1 the author speaks
 to his reader2 and he who  printed it  
speaks by his copies not for himself1   
but entirely in the  name of the author4
 ,the editor exhibits the author as     
speaking  publicly1 and mediates only   
the delivery of this speech to the      
public4 ,let the copy of this speech1   

whether it be in handwriting or  in     
print1 belong to whom it will2 yet to   
use this for one's self1 or  to traffic 
with it1 is a business which every owner
 of it may conduct  in his own name and 
at pleasure4 ,but to let any one speak  
publicly1 to  publish his speech as     
such1 means to speak in his name1 and1  
in a way1  to say to the public3      ,a
 writer lets you know1 or teaches you1  
this or that1    etc41 through me4  ,i  
answer for nothing1 not even for the    
liberty1 which the writer takes1 to     
speak publicly through    me2 ,i am but 
the mediator of the writer's thoughts   
coming    to you4    ,that is no doubt a
 business which one can execute only in 
the name of  another1 and never in one's
 own 7as editor74 ,the editor furnishes 
in  his own name the mute instrument of 
the delivering of a speech of the       
author's to the public29999 the editor  
can publish the said speech by          
printing1 which consequently shows      
himself as the person through whom  the 

author addresses the public1 but he can 
do so only in the name of  the author4  
9999,footnote3 ,a book is the instrument
 of the delivering of a speech to  the  
public1 not merely of the thoughts1 as  
pictures of a symbolical  representation
 of an idea or of an event4 ,what is    
here the most  essential about it is    
that it is not a thing1 which is thereby
  delivered1 but is rather an opera1    
namely a speech1 and certainly  literal4
 ,in naming it a mute instrument1 ,i    
distinguish it from what  delivers the  
speech by a sound1 such as a trumpet in 
music1 or the  mouths of others4    ,the
 second point of the minor is3 that the 
counterfeiter undertakes  the author's  
business1 not only without any          
permission from the owner1  but even    
contrary to the owner's will4 ,given    
that he is a  counterfeiter because he  
invades the province of another1 who is 
authorized by the author himself to     
publish the work3 the question is1      
whether the author can confer the same  

permission on yet another1 and  consent 
thereto4 ,it is1 however1 clear that1 as
 then each of them--the  first editor   
and the person afterwards usurping the  
publication of the  work 7the           
counterfeiter7--would manage the        
author's business with one  and the same
 public1 the labour of the one must     
render that of the  other useless and be
 ruinous to both2 therefore a contract  
between the  author and an editor that  
contains the corollary1 to allow yet    
another  besides the editor to venture  
the publication of the author's work1 is
  impossible2 consequently the author   
was not entitled to give the  permission
 to any other1 including by implication 
a counterfeiter71  and the counterfeiter
 should not have even presumed this2 by 
consequence the counterfeiting of books 
is a business totally contrary  to the  
will of the proprietor1 and yet         
undertaken in the proprietor's  name4   
,from this ground it follows that not   
the author1 but the editor  authorized  

by him1 suffers damages4  ,for as the   
author has entirely1  without           
reservation1 given up to the editor his 
right to the managing  of his business  
with the public1 or to dispose of it    
otherwise1 so the  editor is the only   
proprietor of the transaction of this   
business1 and  the counterfeiter        
encroaches on the editor1 but not on the
 author4    ,but as this right of       
transacting a business1 which may be    
done just as  well by another1 is not   
inalienable 7jus personalissimum71      
assuming  that no corollary exists      
otherwise in the author's contractual   
agreement with the editor1 so the       
editor1 as he has been authorized to    
have power over the work1 also has the  
right to transfer his right of          
publication to another2 and as the      
author must consent to this1 he who     
undertakes the business from the second 
hand is not a counterfeiter1  but a     
rightfully authorized editor1 i4e4 one  
to whom the editor1 who  was appointed  

by the author1 has transferred his power
 over the work4      ,,ii4  ,refutation 
of the ,counterfeiter's pretended ,right
 against the  ,editor4    ,the question 
remains still to be answered3 since the 
editor projects  to the public the      
ownership over the work of the author1  
does not the  consent of the editor 7and
 by implication also the author1 who    
gave  the editor legal control over it7 
to every use of the work1 including     
reprinting it1 result automatically from
 ownership of a copy of the  work1 such 
that such consent is automatically      
furnished to whoever  purchases a copy  
of the work1 however disagreeable such  
consent to  permit counterfeiting may be
 to the editor8 ,for the prospect of    
profit  has perhaps enticed the editor  
to undertake1 with the risk of having   
the published work counterfeited1 the   
business of editor1 where this  risk is 
more likely since the purchaser has not 
been excluded from  counterfeiting via  
an express contract1 because it would   

hurt the  editor's business if the      
editor tried to obligate all potential  
purchasers of the work to agree to a    
contract forbidding  counterfeiting1    
because potential purchases would       
generally not  consent to such an       
agreement and therefore would be less   
likely to  purchase a copy of the work4 
,my answer to this question is that the 
ownership of the copy does not furnish  
the right of counterfeiting4  ,i  prove 
this by the following ratiocination3    
,a personal positive right against      
another can never be    derived from the
 ownership of a thing only4      ,but   
the right of publishing a work is a     
personal positive right4                
,therefore1 the right of publishing     
never can be derived from the           
ownership of a thing 7the copy7 only4   
,proof of the ,major    ,with the       
ownership of a thing is indeed          
accompanied the negative right  to      
resist any one who would hinder me from 
the use of it at pleasure2  but a       

positive right against a person1 to     
demand of him to perform  something or  
to be obliged to serve me in anything1  
cannot arise from  the mere ownership of
 a thing4 ,it is true this positive     
right might by  a particular agreement  
be added to the purchase contract       
whereby ,i  acquire a property from     
anybody2 e4g4 that1 when ,i purchase a  
commodity1 the seller shall also send it
 to a certain place free from  expenses4
 ,but then the right against the person1
 to do something for  me1 does not      
proceed from the mere ownership of my   
purchased thing1  but from a particular 
contract4      ,proof of the ,minor     
,if someone can dispose of something at 
pleasure in his own name1 then  that    
someone has a right to that thing4  ,but
 if someone can perform  only in the    
name of another1 he transacts this      
business such that the  other is thereby
 bound1 as if the business were         
transacted by  himself4 7,quod quis     
facit per alium1 ipse fecisse putandus  

set74 ,therefore my right to the        
transacting of a business in the name   
of another is a personal positive right1
 to necessitate the author of  the      
business to guarantee something1 namely1
 to answer for everything  which he has 
done through me1 or to which he obliges 
himself through  me4 ,the publishing of 
the work is now a speech to the public  
7by  printing7 in the name of the       
author1 and is consequently a business  
in  the name of another4 ,therefore the 
right to it is a right of the  editor's 
against a person3 not merely to defend  
himself in the use of  his property at  
pleasure against him2 but to necessitate
 him to  acknowledge and to answer for  
as his own a certain business1 which the
  editor transacts in his name2         
consequently this is a personal positive
  right4    ,the copy1 according to     
which the editor prints1 is a work of   
the  author's and belongs totally to the
 editor after he has purchased it1      
either in the manuscript form or the    

printed form1 to do with it  everything 
the editor pleases1 where said doings   
can be done in the  editor's own name2  
for that is a requisite of the complete 
right in a  thing1 i4e4 ownership4 ,but 
the use1 which the editor cannot make of
 it  except only in the name of another 
7namely the author's71 is a  business   
7opera7 that this other transacts       
through the owner of the  copy1 where in
 addition to the ownership of the copy1 
a particular  contract is still         
requisite for other rights to be        
provided to the  owner of the copy4     
,now1 the publication of a book is a    
business which can only be  transacted  
in the name of another 7namely the      
author1 whom the editor  presents as    
speaking to the public through him72    
therefore the rights  of transacting the
 business of publishing the book is     
separate from  the rights that are      
associated with the ownership of a copy 
of the  book4  ,the right to publish the
 book can legally be acquired only by a 

particular contract with the author4    
,who publishes without such a  contract 
with the author 7or1 if the author has  
already granted this  right to another1 
i4e4 to an authorized editor1 without a 
contract  with that authorized editor7  
is the counterfeiter1 who then damages  
the authorized editor1 and must make    
amends to him for all damages4          
,universal ,observation    ,that the    
editor transacts his business of editor 
not merely in his own  name1 but in the 
name of another999999 7namely the       
author71 and without  whose consent     
cannot transact this business at all1 is
 confirmed from  certain obligations    
which fix themselves according to       
universal  acknowledgement4             
999999,footnote3 ,if the editor is at   
the same time also the author1 then1    
however1 both businesses 7writing versus
 publishing7 are different2  the editor 
publishes as a tradesman1 whereas what  
he published he  originally wrote as a  
scholar or man of letter4  ,but we may  

set aside  such an unusual example of   
two different roles being held          
simultaneously by the same person1 and  
restrict our exposition only to  that   
where the editor is not at the same time
 the author3 it will  afterwards be easy
 to extend the consequence to the first 
case  likewise4    ,were the author to  
die after he had delivered his          
manuscript to the  editor to be printed1
 and the editor had previously bound    
himself as  the authorized publisher3   
then the editor would not have the      
liberty  to suppress the manuscript's   
publication on the grounds that it is   
his  property2 but the public has a     
right1 if the author left no heirs1     
either to force the editor to publish   
the book or to give up the  manuscript  
to another who offers to publish it4    
,for the publishing of  his manuscript  
is a business which the author1 prior to
 dying1 had the  intention to transact  
with the public through the editor1 and 
for  which the editor succeeds the      

author by becoming the agent4  ,the     
public does not even need to know       
whether or not the author had this      
intention1 or to agree with the author's
 intention2 the public  acquires this   
right against the editor 7to perform    
something7 by the  law only4  ,for he   
possesses the manuscript only on the    
condition to  use it for the purpose of 
a business of the author's with the     
public2  but this obligation towards the
 public remains1 though that towards    
the author has ceased by his death4     
,here the argument is not built  upon a 
right of the public to the manuscript1  
but upon a business with  the author4   
,should the editor give out the author's
 work1 after his  death1 mutilated or   
falsified1 or let the necessary number  
of copies  for the demand be wanting2   
the public would thus be entitled to    
force  him to more justness or to       
augment the publication1 but otherwise  
to  provide for this elsewhere4 ,all of 
which would not be legally  justifiable1

 were the editor's right not deduced    
from the legal  concept that the editor 
is transacting a business between the   
author  and the public in the name of   
the author4    ,however1 to this        
obligation of the editor's1 which will  
probably be  granted1 a corresponding   
right exists1 namely1 the right to all  
that1  without which the editor's       
obligation could not be fulfilled4      
,this  is3 that he exercises the right  
of publication exclusively1 because  the
 rivalry of others in his business would
 render the transaction of  it          
practically impossible for him4         
,works of art1 as things1 may1 on the   
other hand1 be imitated or  otherwise   
modeled1 at will1 from a copy of them   
which was rightfully  acquired1 and     
those imitations may be publicly sold1  
without requiring  the consent of the   
author of the original or of the master 
who  supervised the artist in developing
 the artist's ideas4 ,a drawing1  which 
anyone has drawn1 or had engraved by    

another1 or executed in  stone1 metal1  
or stucco1 may be copied1 and the copies
 publicly sold2  as everything1 that one
 can perform with his thing in his own  
name1  does not require the consent of  
another4  ,lippert's ,dactyliotec may   
be imitated by every possessor of it who
 understands it1 and exposed  to sale1  
and the inventor of it has no right to  
complain of  encroachment on his        
business4 ,for it is a work 7an opus1   
not an opera2  these terms are mutually 
exclusive7 which everybody who possesses
 it  may1 without even mentioning the   
name of the inventor1 assume title  over
 it1 and also imitate it and use it in  
public trade1 in his own  name1 as his  
own4    ,but the writing of another is  
the speech of a person 7opera72 and     
whoever publishes it can speak to the   
public only in the name of this  other1 
and say nothing more of himself than    
that the author makes the  following    
speech to the public through him        
7,impensis ,bibliopola74 ,for  it is a  

contradiction1 to make in his own name a
 speech which he  knows1 and conformably
 to the demand of the public1 must be   
the speech  of another4    ,the reason  
why all works of art of others may be   
imitated for public  sale1 but books1 to
 which an editor is designated1 dare not
 be  counterfeited1 lies in this3 that  
artworks are works 7opera71 but  books  
are acts 7operae72 artworks may be as   
things existing for  themselves1 but    
books can have their existence only in a
  person4 ,consequently1 books belong to
 the person of the author               
exclusively299999999 and the author has 
an inalienable right 7jus               
personalissimum7 always to speak himself
 through every other1 that is1  nobody  
dares make the same speech to the public
 except in the author's  name4          
99999999,footnote3 ,the author1 and the 
owner of the copy1 may both say of  it  
with equal right3 ,it is my book6       
,however1 each would say this in  a     
different sense4 ,the author takes the  

book as a writing or a speech2  the     
owner interprets the book as being the  
mute instrument merely of  the          
delivering of the speech to him or to   
the public1 that is1 as a  copy4  ,the  
author does not have ownership rights   
over the thing1  namely1 the copy of the
 book 7for the owner may burn that copy 
before  the author's face72 instead1 the
 author has an innate right1 in the     
author's own person1 to wit1 to hinder  
another from reading the copy  to the   
public without the author's consent1    
which consent can by no  means be       
presumed1 because the author may have   
already given it  exclusively to another
 editor4    ,but while altering         
7abridging1 augmenting or retouching7   
the book of  another1 such as to re-work
 the book into what is substantially a  
new  book1 such that it would be wrong  
to publish the new book in the name  of 
the author of the original book1 the    
retouching of a book1 in the  proper    
name of the publisher1 is no            

counterfeit1 and therefore is not       
prohibited4 ,for here1 another author   
transacts1 via his editor1  another     
business transaction that is different  
from the initial  business transaction  
transacted by the initial author1 and   
consequently does not intrude upon the  
initial author's initial  business      
transaction with the public2 he         
represents not that author1  as speaking
 through him1 but another4 ,similarly1  
,i believe that the  unauthorized       
translation of an author's work into    
another language  cannot be considered  
to be a counterfeit2 for the translated 
book is  not the same speech of the     
author1 though the thoughts may be      
exactly  the same4    ,if the idea of a 
copyright1 or of the publication of     
books in general1  that were            
demonstrated in this essay1 were        
well-understood1 and  precisely         
elaborated 7which1 flattering myself1 ,i
 think is possible71  with a formality  
that was at the level of ,roman         

juridical learning1 a  complaint against
 a counterfeiter might be brought before
 a court1  without first needing to ask 
for a new law to structure the due      
process proceedings that would govern   
such a lawsuit against a  counterfeiter4