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
Section 36, line 11, the word "common" should be inserted before
the word "law." This section should be compared with section 2,
and they should be consolidated, or preferably they should both be
omitted as unnecessary and as being outside of the purview of this
act.
Section 38, line 23, there should be inserted after the word
"musical" the word "-dramatic."
Line 25, the word "make" should be canceled and there should be
inserted the words "produce by."
It is evident that the right to make belongs to the patentee of
the device.
Page 30, line 1, the words "ninety days" should be changed to
"three months" as more convenient and as excluding any contention
whether or not Sundays and holidays are included in the ninety
days. The similar provision of the patent law reads "three
months."
Section 44 should be amended by inserting after "assignment", in
line 12, the words: "and index the same under the name of the
person by whom the original entry of copyright was made."
Section 45 should be amended so that lines 21 to 23 shall read as
follows: "signee shall in all cases give in the statutory notice
of copyright prescribed by this act the name of the person by whom
the original entry of the copyright was made."
Without this provision the public will be put to great
inconvenience in finding the original entry on which the copyright
depends. The copyright notice should be of a clear and specific
character so as to cause the public as little inconvenience and
uncertainty as possible.
Paragraph 52 should be amended by striking out "provided" and all
thereafter to the end of the paragraph in lines 2 and 3 of page
33. This provision is altogether too broad and the courts should
be left free to determine what are conditions precedent to a valid
copyright and whether there has been any breach of them.
Section 54 should be amended by striking out the words "the date
of the" and inserting "that the affidavit states the dates of;"
and in line 20 cancel the words "as stated in the said affidavit,"
and insert the words "which dates shall be given in the
certificate."
Section 55 provides for the destruction of card catalogues. The
wisdom of this provision is very doubtful. A single card catalogue
for each class of copyright work would save an immense amount of
time and error to the public, and to the Librarian in making
searches. Instead of periodically destroying card catalogues, they
should be added to and preserved. As soon as they are destroyed,
instead of being able to make one examination of one part of the
card catalogue, the public will be compelled to examine a great
number of periodically made printed indexes. I therefore suggest
that the words "and thereupon", to and including the word
"intervals," lines 9 to 12 of page 34, be canceled.
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