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
Eleventh. That such legislation is in direct contradiction to all
recent judicial decisions on the subject in this country and abroad in
which common law rights and statutory rights of authors and composers,
their scope, extent, intent, and purpose have been discussed, the most
noted of which in this country is the decision handed down by the
United States circuit court of appeals, second circuit, during the
last week of May, in the Æolian suit against the Apollo Company,
Judges Lacombe, Townsend, and Coxe, without a dissenting voice,
approving and upholding Judge Hazel's opinion rendered in the court
below sustaining the contention that the perforated roll is not a
violation of the copyright, and it is interesting to note that the
court went out of its way to say:
The argument that because the roll is a notation or record of the
music it is, therefore, a copy would apply to the disks of the
phonograph * * * which it must be admitted is not a copy of the
sheet music.
In England the same position is taken by the courts, the leading and
most recent case being Boosey _v._ Whight, in which it was clearly
held that the perforated roll was not a violation of the copyright. In
Belgium, by decree of the fourth chamber of the court of appeals in
Brussels, December 29, 1905, in the case of Massenet and Puccini,
composers, _v._ Ullman & Co. and Pathe Frères, manufacturers, in
dismissing the suit, with costs, the court uses this language--I want
to say to you, gentlemen, that this was a graphophone case:
Considering that these apparatus can not be assimilated to the
writing, or the notation by an engraving process, of the thoughts
of the author; that they have nothing in common with the
conventional signs permitting reading or comprehension of the work
to which they are related; that isolated from the rest of the
instrument they remain in the actual state of human knowledge,
without any utility, that they are only one organ of an instrument
of execution.
In dismissing the suit the court referred to a similar suit decided in
France February 1, 1905, in which it was confirmed that--
airs of music on disks or cylinders of graphophones and gramophones
do not constitute a musical infringement.
Twelfth. That the proposed legislation in so far as relates to
mechanical reproductions is in furtherance of the plans of certain
powerful interests to obtain a monopoly--an international monopoly--on
mechanical reproducing instruments of all kinds, and that they are
attempting to use the legislative branch of the Government to secure
that which has been repeatedly denied them by the courts.
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