International works were not protected by copyright in the US, but it didn't really matter because of how long it took for copiers to get their copies on the market.
The vast majority of books made most of their sales shortly after publication. By the time the copier could get a copy of the published book, typeset their edition, and go into production almost everyone who wanted the book had bought a copy from the original publisher.
Stephen Breyer, back when he was a law professor at Harvard rather than a Supreme Court Justice, wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review called "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" exploring the idea that because of the limitations of copying technology much of earlier copyright law really didn't do much.
It's an interesting argument, but technological advances in copying have made it largely inapplicable for the present day.
But there are of course two sides to this story. Pirated editions back then as today increase the popularity of the artists, often more than their agency could do.
Unsurprisingly, even in the 19th century they came to a similar solution like our current music industry (minus the unsuccessful DRM part). You can't pirate live performances: "When he returned in 1867, he had mastered a way to generate alternative income streams based on his celebrity status. He performed readings of his work to packed houses and collected the receipts from the door."
> Pirated editions back then as today increase the popularity of the artists, often more than their agency could do.
Could work the other way too, though. Alexander von Humboldt had troubles with one of his books because a pirated translation into English was completed before the authorised version. Unfortunately, the pirated translation was so shoddy the book got really bad reviews in England...
The vast majority of books made most of their sales shortly after publication. By the time the copier could get a copy of the published book, typeset their edition, and go into production almost everyone who wanted the book had bought a copy from the original publisher.
Stephen Breyer, back when he was a law professor at Harvard rather than a Supreme Court Justice, wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review called "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" exploring the idea that because of the limitations of copying technology much of earlier copyright law really didn't do much.
It's an interesting argument, but technological advances in copying have made it largely inapplicable for the present day.