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
I instance this foreign law to show that under a system of
jurisprudence exactly like our own it has been found best to limit
rights heretofore granted in the most exclusive form, and provide
for compelling the owners of such rights to deal reasonably and
fairly with the public. This Canadian law relates to exclusive
rights to inventions under letters patent, where the ascertainment
of what is a just license fee or royalty is always more or less
complicated and difficult. In the case of copyrights much simpler
conditions prevail, the value of musical compositions are more
easily measurable and there would be far less difficulty in
arriving at a fair royalty by a contract between the parties or by
arbitration, or, in the last resort, by the judgment of a circuit
court. I have mentioned a circuit court merely for purpose of
illustration. It would probably be more convenient to confer this
jurisdiction on a United States district court.
It seems to me that under the conditions which confront your
committees, there being on the one hand a desire to recompense
musical composers, and on the other hand the necessity of
defeating the unlawful combination which will have entrenched
itself most securely if the bill should become a law including the
objectionable paragraph which I have discussed, an amendment of
the bill in some such way as above indicated is inevitable.
SPECIFIC AMENDMENT OF THE BILL.
I submit that in the interest of the public it is far better to
correct any evil in the existing copyright law, which was pretty
thoroughly revised not very many years ago, than to pass a
revision of the law which uses so many new terms and words which
have not received judicial interpretation, and which bill
evidently requires itself revision and amendment in almost every
section. It requires such amendment in detail in the first place
to eliminate those matters which have been embodied in the bill
for the purpose of most thoroughly carrying out the provisions of
section 1 (g), upon which I have already commented. If it is
necessary to eliminate the paragraph specified, it is also
necessary to revise the bill in many other sections where
corresponding matter appears.
In the second place, the bill requires amendment as to the term of
copyright proposed, as to the damages for infringement, as to the
effect which the certificate of the filing of the entry shall
have, as to the way in which and the terms in which the notice of
copyright shall be given, and as to broad and uncertain
expressions which are found in many sections, which can have no
good effect and which will only be productive of uncertainty,
confusion, and litigation.
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