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
That is the only foundation that exists for the patent laws of the
United States, and it is the only foundation that exists for the
copyright laws of the United States. It is true that a copyright when
it is issued in accordance with the statute made in pursuance of that
Constitution is property, but it is not property in the historic sense
of property. It entirely lacks the notion of continuity. It entirely
lacks the notion of permanency. It is a species of property created,
and not arising out of the circumstances of civilization and human
life, as property in general has always done, long preceding
governments. It is a species of property created by the law-making
power, and a species of property created by the law-making power in a
matter not inherently subject to property right.
In creating that particular property the constitutional convention was
influenced by this consideration: We will not grant a permanent
property right in any intellectual production, because in our judgment
that would be inconsistent with the progress of civilization as a
whole, but we can consistently, with the progress of civilization as a
whole, grant a limited property right in an intellectual production.
Therefore they did provide in the Constitution that though Congress
might give to authors an exclusive right, the right must be limited in
point of duration, and therefore Congress has not the slightest power
to grant a permanent right in any intellectual production.
Victor Herbert may hereafter, as I hope he may, rival some of the
great composers of the past and produce music far better than the
splendid music that he has thus far produced, but if he does it will
be impossible for Congress to reward him and his heirs with a
permanent absolute property right in any such intellectual production.
The best we can do, Mr. Herbert, is to give you a limited right to
your intellectual production. That limited right is limited not only
in respect of duration, but it is limited in respect of quality, in
respect of formal expression, and it is limited thus: There shall be,
according to the constitutional provision, an exclusive right for a
limited time and for a limited form of expression, and that limited
form of expression is defined by the word "writings."
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have spent my laborious
life as a lawyer, a scholar, an inventor, an author, and a lecturer. I
have delivered hundreds of addresses that never were reduced to
writing. I have delivered but few that were. In so far as I delivered
those lectures that were never reduced to writing, I am not entitled,
either by law or by ethical principles, to any exclusive right. I am
entitled to an exclusive right to my intellectual productions only
when I reduce them to writing and file them in the office of the
Librarian of Congress, where they will remain a permanent monument,
and can be handed down to future times and can be read and availed of
by my contemporaries.
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