Piracy

There is scarcely a writer on the law of nations, who does not allude to piracy as a crime of a settled and determinate nature; and whatever may be the diversity of definitions, in other respects, all writers concur, in holding, that robbery, or forcible depredations' upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy. The same doctrine is held by all the great writers on maritime law, in terms that admit of no reasonable doubt.

In Criminal Law. A robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animo furandi, in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 610; 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 153, 163; 3 Wash. C. C. (U. S.) 209. This is the definition of this offense by the law of nations. 1 Kent, Comm. 183. "A pirate is one who roves the seas in an armed vessel, without any commission from any sovereign, and for the purpose of seizing by force and appropriating to himself every vessel which he may meet." Trial of Savannah Privateers, p. 371. The commission upon the high seas of such acts of robbery and depredation as would, if committed on land, have amounted to a felony. 4 Bl. Comm. 72. In Torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarism of a book, engraving, or other work for which a copyright has been taken out. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 4 Ves. 681; 5 Ves. 709; 12 Ves. 270. See "Copyright." PIRATA EST HOSTIS HUMANI GENERIS. A pirate is an enemy of the human race. 3 Inst. 113.

A robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animo furandi,' in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. U. S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 610, 4 L. Ed. 471; U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 153, 163, 5 L. Ed. 57; U. S. v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. • 209, Fed. Cas. No. 15,494. This is the definition of this offence by the law of nations; 1 Kent 183. It was not a felony at common law. In the 14th century suits in piracy become frequent, but they were for restitution, disre- “Depredation upon the high seas, without authority from any sovereign.” It Is not necessary th'at the motive be plunder or that the depredations be directed against the vessels of all nations indiscriminately. As in robbery upon land, it is only necessary that the spoliation or intended spoliation be felonious, that is, with intent to injure, and without legal authority or lawful excuse; The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. 408. All nations and individuals are warranted In seizing pirates. It has been held by many authorities that insurgents who have not been accorded belligerent rights are pirates, although it may be their intention to prey upon no ships except those of their mother country whom they are resisting. The American colonists in the American Revolution were declared to be pirates by Great Britain, and so were the cruisers of the confederate government by the federal government during the American Civil War; Snow, Lect. Int. Law 52. Piracy has two aspects: As a violation of the common right of nations, punishable under the common law of nations by the seizure and condemnation of the vessel only, in prize courts; as a violation of the municipal law of the place where the offenders are tried; Wliart. Cr. L. § 2830; 1 Phil. Int Law 488. Acts hostile in their nature, done for plunder, hatred, revenge, or mischief, or in the wanton exercise of power, are piratical; Harmony v. U. S., 2 IIow. (U. -S.) 210, 11 L. Ed. 230, where the subject is elaborately discussed. Property found on board a pirate ship goes to the Crown, of strict right; but the claim of the original owner is admitted, on application; 1 Ilagg. Adm. 142. Vessels recaptured from pirates, after whatever length of time, are always restored to the owner on payment of salvage; 4 C. Rob. 3. Congress may define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations; Const. U. S. art. 1, s. 7, n. 10; U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 336, 4 L. Ed. 401; U. S. v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 76, 5 L. Ed. 37; U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 353, 5 L. Ed. 57; U. S. v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 184, 5 L. Ed. 64. The following are the sections of the Criminal Code: Every person w Ho on the high seas commits the crime of piracy as defined by the Law of Nations, and is afterward brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life; { 290. Every seaman who lays violent hands upon his commander, thereby to hinder and prevent his fighting in the defence of his vessel or the goods entrusted to him, is a pirate and shall be imprisoned for life; $ 294. Robbery on shore committed by the crew of a piratical vessel Is piracy punishable by imprisonment for life, { 302. Every citizen who commits murder or robbery or act of hostility against the United States or any citizen thereof on imprisonment for life; § 304. Every subject of a foreign state found upon the sea making war upoh the United States or cruising against its vessels or citizens contrary to the provisions of any treaty between the United States and the state of which he is a subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is guilty of piracy, and shall be imprisoned for life; § 305. Every person who knowingly receives any vessel or other property feloniously taken by any robber or pirate, against the laws of the United States, and any person who, knowing that said pirate has committed any act of piracy or robbery on the land or sea, receives or conceals him, is accessory after the fact, and shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years; $ 834. See Recapture. In Torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarism of a book, engraving, or other work for which a copyright has been taken out; infringement of copyright' may be by unfair quotation; by piratical copying; by piratical use other than copying. Where the violation of the copyright consists of excerpts from plaintiff's hook, the court is bound to consider the quantity and quality of the matter appropriated and the extent to which the plaintiff is injured by it and the damage to the defendant by an injunction. It seems that the complainant is not always bound to prove pecuniary damage to entitle him to an injunction. Where the parts of the complainant's book are scattered through the defendant’s book and cannot be separated, the whole will be enjoined; Farmer v. Elstner, 33 Fed. 404. Piratical copying was held to be established in the case of a society directory by proof that out of 2800 names, 30 common errors were found to exist; List Pub. Co. v. Keller, 30 Fed. 772; and by proof that but of 60,000 names there were 67 common errors; Chicago Dollar Directory Co. V. Directory Co., 06 Fed. 977, 14 C. C. A. 213. Two common errors in maps were held sufficient to establish the fact that one map had been copied from the other; Chapman v. Ferry, 38 Fed. 530; in a mercantile agency book, the existence of 15 common errors was held sufficient to establish the use of the complainant’s book by the defendant; Jewelers’ Mercantile Agency v. Pub. Co., 84 Hun 12, 32 N. Y. Supp. 41. It is not necessary to point out many common errors to establish a presumption of piracy; Jewelers’ Mercantile Agency v. Pub. Co., 66 Hun 38, 20 N. Y. Supp. 749. The court does not feel hound to go through the whole of the defendant’s book to ascertain the extent of the piracy; 19 L. J. N. S. Ch. 90. In 2 Beav. 6, the court enjoined the defendant who had pirated parts of a topographical dictionary, without waiting until the whole of the pirated parts could be ascertained, and held that if the parts which had been copied could not be separated from those which were original without destroying the use and value of the original matter, the defendwas intimated that the injunction would be modified at the final hearing, if the proofs of the defendant tended to segregate any part of the material which had been made subject to the injunction. The rule is well settled that although the entire copyrighted work is not copied in the infringement, but only portions, if such portions are so intermingled with the rest of the piratical work that they cannot well be distinguished from it, the entire profits realized by the defendant will be given to the plaintiff; Belford v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488, 12 Sup. Ct. 734, 36 L. Ed. 514. See 2 Russ. 385; Elizabeth v. Pav. Co., 97 U. S. 12G, 24 L. Ed. 1000. It is the unfair appropriation of the compiler's labor in the case of the syllabus of a legal opinion that constitutes infringement. Identity of language will often prove that the offence was committed, but it is not the sole proof. If the subsequent digestor hap made an unfair use of any part of a syllabus of his predecessor, the burden is on him to show that there were parts of it that he did not use. Where the defendant’s editor, in compiling a digest of reports, digested some 13,300 cases from the 'Complainant’s pamphlet reports and a partial comparison of the copyrighted syllabi with the digest showed internal evidence of piracy in some 400 instances, it was held that this indicated a general, systematic, and unfair use of the copyrighted work, coupled with an attempt to disguise such use, and made out a prima facie case, which was not rebutted by the simple denial of the defendant’s editors that they had made use of the complainant’s syllabi. It was held that the whole work, so far as taken from the complainant’s pamphlet reports, should be enjoined, with liberty to defendant to show by further proofs what paragraphs were digested by non-offending editors and to move to have them excluded from the injunction; West Pub. Co. v. Pub. Co.,, 70 Fed. 750, 25 C. C. A. 648, 35 L. R. A. 400. See Copyright; Memorization.

Robbery on the high seas, done animo furandi, in the spirit of univei'sal hostility.

6 Robbery and depredation upon the high seas.^ Eobberyand forcible depredation upon the high sea, animo furandi.^ Eobbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.' Pirate. One who roves the sea in an armed vessel, without commission from any sovereign State, on his own authority, and for the purpose of seizing by force, and appropriating to himself, without discrimination, every vessel he may meet.!" Piratical. Imports an aggression unauthorized by the law of nations, hostile in character, wanton and criminal in its commission, and utterly without sanction from any public authority or sovereign power, — that the act belongs to the class of offenses which pirates are in the habit of perpetrating, whether the purpose be plunder, hatred, revenge, or wanton abuse of power. H ' 1 Steph. Hist. Cr. Law Eng. 490. » The Alzena, 14 F. E. 174-76 (1882), cases.: See also Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156 (1884). * Barring. Stat. 181. » Howard v. Digby, 8 Bligh, 269 (18M). * F. pirate: Gk. peirates', ore who attempts or attacks. ' [4 Bl. Com. 71. 8 United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 161-62 (1820), Story, J. » 1 Kent, 183; Dole v. New England Mut. Mar. Ins. Co., 2 Cliff. 416 (1864). '" United States v. Baker, 5 Blatch. 12 (1861), Nelson, J.: Davison v. Seal-skins, 2 Paine, 333 (1838?). Hostilities committed under a commission from a party to a recognized war are not included. In that case the superior may be held for the act.' Piracy is the same offense at sea as robbery on land. It is everywhere punished with death; at common law was punished as an offense against the law of nations (part of the common law) — the universal law of society: a pirate being deemed an enemy of his race, hoatis humani.g&neria.^ Congress shall have power " To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." ' " To define " is to enumerate thecrimes which E^ll constitute piracy.* 2. Infringement of a copyright by reprinting all or a substantial portion of the production, word for word; or, by imitating or copying it with colorable alterations. Citing the most important parts of a copyrighted work, with a view not to criticism but to supersede the use of the original work and to substitute the review.^ In determining the question of piracy, quantity, quality and value are regarded. If the selections are made animo furandi, with intent to make use of them for the purpose for which the original author used them, to convey in a different publication the information he imparted,' or to supplant him in his own territory, a small quantity will suflflce to support the charge. If the pirated portion, being substantial, cannot be separated from the original matter without destroying the publication, the whole book will be enjoined—upon the principle of the doctrine of "confusion of goods.''. ^ See Abridge, 1; Compile; Review,3.

The offence of depredation, robbery, or unlawful violence upon the high seas. Pirate: one engaged in or guilty of piracy. Piratical: involving the crime or guilt of piracy; like a pirate. Piratically: after the manner of pirates. This is substantially the definition ordinarily given. It should, perhaps, be limited in one aspect. As usually understood, the vessels of the pirate and his victims are independent. We doubt whether larceny, by force or fear, committed by one member of a ship's company upon another member of the same crew, or depredations upon a ship's stores by persons sailing on board, are piracy, though they are cases of robbery or depredation at sea. Compare United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610; United States ». Klintock, 5 Id. 144, 151. The above is, moreover, the commonlaw definition; acts have been made piracy by statute which do not fall within it. Piracy is sometimes used, in a quasi figurative sense, of violation of copy- The definition of piracy varies according to circumstances: 1. At common-law, the crime of piracy consisted in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, a committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there. If committed by an alien, it was held to be felony; if by a subject, it was a species of treason, until the statute of treasons, 25 Edw. III. ch. 2. 2. By statute law, the following offences are to be deemed piratical: Hostilities by a natural-born subject against any of her majesty's subjects, under color of a commission from a foreign power; the betrayal of his trust by a commander or other seafaring person; endeavoring to make a revolt on board ship; trading with known pirates, or fitting out a vessel for a piratical purpose, &c. (4 Bl. Com. 71-73; 4 Steph. Com. 219- 222.) 3. Piracy, by the law of nations, includes such piratical acts as are committed on board vessels whose de facto possessors are not recognized by any sovereign power as the lawful owners thereof; also, all unauthorized acts of private hostility committed at sea. AJoziey Sf W. An act of congress, providing for the suppression of " piratical aggressions," without defining what shall be deemed piratical, but leaving the courts to consult the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of congress to define and punish piracy. Congress may define by using a term of a determinate meaning, as well as by an express enumeration of the particulars included in that term. That is certain which, by necessary inference, is made certain; and the law of nations has described the crime of piracy with reasonable certainty. United States V. Smith, 5 Whe.at. 153. And see United States V. Chapels, 2 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 218; United States v. Kessler, Baldw. 15, 31. Robbery, or forcible depredation upon the sea, anlmo furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by act of congress. United States V. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153; United States V. Pirates, Id. 184. There is a distinction between the offence of piracy, as known to the law of nations, which is justiciable everywhere, and offences created by statutes of particular nations, cognizable only before the municipal tribunals of such nations. Dole i>. New England, &c. Ins. Co., 2 Clif. 394, 418. The general rule of the law, that robbery on the liigh seas is piracy, has no exception or qualification in favor of commissioned privateers in any act of congress, in the common law, or in the law of nations. United Sta,tes o. Jones, 3 Wash. C. Ct. 209. To make a robbery on the high seas piracy, it is not necessary that it should be punishable by death when committed upon the land. United States v. Hutchings, 2 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 543. edge no sovereign and no law, and support themselves by pillage and depredations at sea; but there are instances wherein the word pirata has been formerly taken for a sea-captain. Spelman. Pirates hold no commission or delegated authority from any sovereign or state, empowering them to attack others. They can, therefore, be only regarded in the light of robbers or assassins. They are the common enemies of all; and the law of nations gives to every one the right to pursue and exterminate them, without any previous declaration of war. But it is not allowed to kill them without trial, except in battle; those who surrender or are taken prisoners must be brought before the proper magistrates, and dealt with according to law. Wharton. A pirate is one who acts solely on his own authority, without any commission or authority from a sovereign state, seizing by force, and appropriating to himself without discrimination, every vessel he meets with. Robbery on the high seas is piracy; but to constitute the offence the taking must be felonious. Consequently the quo animo may be inquired into. Davison v. Sealskins, 2 Paine, 324. A pirate is one who roves the sea in an armed vessel, without any commission from any sovereign state, on his own authority, and for the purpose of seizing by force and appropriating to himself, without discrimination, every vessel he may meet. Trial of the O^fficers and Crew of the Savannah, p, 370. To constitute the offence of piracy, within the act of April 30, 1790, by " piratically and feloniously " running away with a vessel, personal force and violence is not necessary. The piratical and felonious act, within the meaning of the statute, is the runningaway with a vessel, with an intent to convert the same to the taker's own use, against the will of the owner. The intent must be aninw furandi. United States v. Tu Uy, 1 Gall. 247, If an innocent merchant-vessel is sunk or destroyed without any other object than to gratify the lawless appetite for mischief in the person who does the act, it is just as much a piratical aggression in the sense of the law of nations, and of the act of congress, ag if the act were done for plunder, lucri causa. United States v. The Malek Adhel, 2 Bow. 210.