Our copyright laws urgently need revision. They are imperfect in definition, confused and inconsistent in expression; they omit provision for many articles which, under modern reproductive processes, are entitled to protection; they impose hardships upon the copyright proprietor which are not essential to the fair protection of the public; they are difficult for the courts to interpret and impossible for the copyright office to administer with satisfaction to the public. Attempts to improve them by amendment have been frequent, no less than twelve acts for the purpose having been passed since the Revised Statutes. To perfect them by further amendment seems impracticable. A complete revision of them is essential. Such a revision, to meet modern conditions, has been found necessary in Germany, Austria, Sweden, and other foreign countries, and bills embodying it are pending in England and the Australian colonies. It has been urged here, and proposals for a commission to undertake it have, from time to time, been pressed upon the Congress. The inconveniences of the present conditions being so great an attempt to frame appropriate legislation has been made by the Copyright Office, which has called conferences of the various interests especially and practically concerned with the operation of the copyright laws. It has secured from them suggestions as to the changes necessary; it has added from its own experience and investigation, and it has drafted a bill which embodies such of these changes and additions as, after full discussion and expert criticism, appeared to be sound and safe. In form this bill would replace the existing insufficient and inconsistent laws by one general copyright statute. It will be presented to the Congress at the coming session. It deserves prompt consideration. So far the message. It did not contain what was the fact as to the origin of this project, that it did originate in an informal suggestion on the part of the chairman of this committee. The conferences to which it refers were not open, public meetings; they were not conventions; they were conferences, and conferences of organizations--that is to say, associations representing a group of interests; and those organizations were specially invited, additions being made to the list later as suggestions were made of others that should be added. The organizations selected were the most representative organizations that we could think of or that were brought to our attention as having practical concern in the amelioration of the law, but especially, of course, those concerned in an affirmative way--that is to say, in the protection of the right. They were nearly thirty in number. The list of them and their representatives is before you. (The list referred to was, by direction of the committee, made a part of the record, and is as follows:)