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. I have been trying to get counsel here. He would probably
have advised me in my opening speech for the opposition to imitate Mr.
Sousa in making a bid for your sympathy and avoid a discussion of fine
legal points, but I will give you my practical ideas of that. I am an
inventor who has studied the law, but without being a lawyer I am
ready to say that as the law now stands----
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am speaking of the future. This bill affects the
future.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, "this bill affects the future," but has it the right
to affect the future? Has it the right to change a situation which has
existed since 1789? The bill proposes a change, not merely amend the
Constitution, therefore I challenge the authority of Congress to enact
it. At present the composer has no contractual right as regards a
machine, and Congress can not give it to him.
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is the very proposition we are trying to get at.
The CHAIRMAN. We can not very well change the Constitution.
Mr. CHANEY. It is not a question of changing the Constitution; it is a
question of giving the Constitution its fullest scope.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, a gentleman speaking here yesterday, Mr. Stephen H.
Olin, counsel for the American Publishers' Copyright League, although
favoring this bill as a whole, gave you a warning that if this bill
attempted to broaden the word "writing" so as to include a machine,
then the bill in this respect might be held by the Supreme Court to be
unconstitutional, and I have already traced the introduction of the
terms "machine" or "device" in the bill direct to the monopolistic
octopus. Mr. Olin made that statement here yesterday voluntarily.
Mr. CHANEY. I know that.
Mr. DAVIS. Proceeding further, Mr. Olin said he was not interested in
the introduction of any clause restricting the mechanical reproduction
of music; that he was satisfied to leave that to the courts, and let
the courts give the construction of that word "writing" in the
Constitution. They have been at work at it for many years, with the
result that a machine remains a machine and not a "writing."
Mr. WEBB. Mr. Davis, your idea is that if the composer or publisher
copyrights a piece of music and sells it and in the sale gets whatever
price his copyright or royalty gives him, and you buy it, or anybody
else buys it, that that purchaser has a right to play it or sing it in
public or private, or anywhere else he pleases?
Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I do not say that, exactly, sir----
Mr. WEBB. What is your position, then, if that is not your position?
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