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. CHANEY. Do you think you should do that without compensating him
for the genius he displayed?
Mr. O'CONNELL. Very early in my remarks I disavowed any such
intention. I did say that we were in the position--the independent
manufacturers that I represent--where we could be forced to the wall
because of these contracts, and that the resulting benefits to Mr.
Sousa and Mr. Herbert, if Congress had power to and did pass such an
act, would be vastly offset by the great detriment to our
manufacturing interests and to the public.
While I am on that point I would ask leave to digress and to submit
also a copy of a letter from the Æolian Company to the Chicago Music
Company, dated the 5th of May, 1902, and offer it in evidence here.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
THE ÆOLIAN COMPANY,
_New York, May 5, 1902_.
The CHICAGO MUSIC COMPANY,
_Music Publishers, Chicago, Ill_.
DEAR SIRS: Pursuant to the provision of the agreement granting us
the exclusive right under your United States copyrights for all
perforated music sheets intended for use in controlling automatic
musical instruments and machines for playing musical instruments,
we hereby notify you that a number of copyright owners
satisfactory to us have made with us agreements similar to our
agreement with you. From this date, therefore, our agreement goes
into effect.
Looking forward to profitable and pleasant business relations, we
remain,
Yours, truly,
THE ÆOLIAN COMPANY,
E. R. PERKINS, _General Manager_.
I now ask you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to turn to section 15 of
the bill, found at page 11 of the House bill, which would seem to me
to be rather ambiguous. It provides that the owner of the copyright
may commence proceedings and so forth within thirty days, but that he
has a whole year within which to complete his copyright. Now, that
means that he does not have to put his mark on it, I suppose, and
perhaps an independent manufacturer may go ahead for a year, or,
rather, for three hundred and sixty-four days, believing that he has
the right to do so, and then, on the three hundred and sixty-fifth day
the owner of the copyright completes his record, and he is promptly
sued for all that he has done for the past year. True, the act says
that in such case no action shall be brought for infringement of the
copyright until the requirements have been fully complied with; but
that merely says that he can not commence the action until he has
complied with the act. It does not say that after he has finally
complied he can not recover for the infringement during the full year
within which he practically permitted his copyright to lapse.
Mr. PUTNAM. Do you understand that he is not obliged to give notice
during the intervening period?
Mr. O'CONNELL. I am speaking of the one-year provision.
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