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 ought to be amended by adding the words "or be based on any
infringement begun before the time of that compliance," because
otherwise the public would have no protection at all. A man could go
on and innocently infringe during that year, and the only protection
this section gives him is that he would not be sued until after the
end of the year, but when sued the action would be retroactive; and
that amendment ought to go in to perfect the section.
Section 18 relates to the duration of copyright. Gentlemen, that is a
topic to which I have given great consideration, and I can do no more
than state my opinion. I should like to elaborate it, but what I would
recommend the committee to adopt on that subject is this very short
provision: That the copyrights secured by this act shall endure for a
hundred years in the case of an original book or dramatic or musical
composition (one hundred years, Mr. Herbert, I liberally advocate in
your behalf) and for fifty years in every other case.
I am totally opposed to any law providing for the extension of any
copyright or any patent. The public ought to know, when the copyright
comes out and when the patent comes out, exactly when it is going to
expire; and it ought not to be made contingent upon anything so
uncertain as human life. On the other hand, there is every reason in
favor of giving the copyrighter a very long period of monopoly.
Seventeen years is long enough for the patentee. I am a patentee
myself. I would be very glad indeed to have Congress extend some of my
patents, but I have not the effrontery to ask Congress to do it,
because I do not deserve it.
Mr. CURRIER. Do you think a hundred years is a limited time within the
meaning of the Constitution?
Mr. WALKER. Oh, yes; certainly. A thousand would be. [Laughter.] And I
wish to make this suggestion: It was suggested to me that the word
"limited" meant definitely limited, and that therefore Congress would
not be conforming to the Constitution if it made the period dependent
upon any uncertain contingency. Now there is some force in that.
Mr. SULZER. I agree with you, Mr. Walker, upon making the number of
years definite; whether you make the years few or many, make them
definite. Now, right there, without any intention to be facetious, do
you not think that fifty years is sufficient?
Mr. WALKER. No; and I will tell you why. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote
"Uncle Tom's Cabin" in 1853. She got a copyright on it for
twenty-eight years, then an extension of fourteen years, and at the
end of that time, in 1895, the copyright expired. Harriet Beecher
Stowe then was dead--died in 1896--but she left two maiden daughters;
and it would be a comfort to me, and it would be a comfort to all
those who honor the memory of Harriet Beecher Stowe, if those two
ladies could now be in the receipt of some royalty from "Uncle Tom's
Cabin," which they can not be.
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