Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents, on H.R. 19853, to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright: June 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1906.United States. Congress. House. Committee on Patents
History
Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents, on H.R. 19853, to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright: June 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1906.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Patents
Copyright -- United States
Mr. DAVIS. But the idea of inventions is to be able to produce a
mechanism which can be specially adapted to any music, whether of
to-day or to-morrow. My patent grant does not except new copyrighted
pieces.
Mr. WEBB. I understand that; but there are two propositions involved
here. The first is, you say it will destroy what you have already
invented. The next is, you say it will destroy you because of your
inability to get hold of these pieces that will be published and
copyrighted in the future. Is that your point, now? Is that your
argument?
Mr. DAVIS. I say that this practically depreciates or destroys the
marketable value of my inventions or machines, which are capable of
being used for mechanically reproducing either old or new music, as
well as destroying in part or whole my existing patent rights.
Mr. WEBB. Because it will not let you reproduce works published and
copyrighted in the future? Is that the reason, now, why you say it
will destroy your invention?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; coupling this admission with my previous
explanations.
Mr. WEBB. I wanted to get your meaning.
Senator SMOOT. Or, in other words, if Mr. Sousa should have a very
popular air or piece produced in the future, you think that you ought,
as you have in the past, to simply be permitted to reproduce that by
your machine?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; either I or any other patentee.
Senator SMOOT. Without any consideration whatever?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir, I do; because outside of a possible minor and
remote ethical or equity right, he possesses not a vestige of a
statutory or legal right to stop me.
Senator SMOOT. And whatever his brain, and his talent, and his gift
has brought forward, you are entitled to use?
Mr. DAVIS. And I want to go ahead and explain, if you will allow me,
why I say that.
Before I took up this art of self-playing musical instruments, as I
said, I saw that there was a possible limitation, and that in order to
make inventions commercially successful I would have to use musical
compositions. If I used old music, they would be useless. I would have
to use current music; and I read the Constitution, and the very first
article of the Constitution that I came to, section 8, reads:
That the Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science
and useful arts by securing, for limited times, to authors and
inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. Sousa insists on that, too. [Laughter.]
Senator SMOOT. Yes; I was going to say, that is just exactly what
Professor Sousa insists upon.
Mr. CHANEY. That is where the other fellows claim they come in.
Mr. DAVIS. There is where Mr. Sousa and the trust, on one side, and I
are going to lock horns--right here with the Constitution as our
battle ground.
Mr. MCGAVIN. Would you like to amend that?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account