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
At the first conference last year, the representatives of the
Association of Publishers, in a spirit of conciliation, agreed
with the representatives of the Typographical Union that they
would not oppose the requirement of an affidavit. As a member of
that Association of Publishers. I shall not now oppose the
affidavit section as a whole, which requires me to swear five
hundred times a year that I have done something, failure to do
which would have invalidated many thousands of dollars' worth of
copyright property.
But I do object earnestly and emphatically to the final paragraph
of section 13 (lines 21-25, p. 9), requiring the statement in the
affidavit of the particular establishment in which the work has
been done. This fact is wholly irrelevant to the purpose of the
affidavit and has no bearing on the requirements of the copyright
law. It is purely a private business matter. In case the affidavit
is challenged (as it would be in only an infinitesimal proportion
of registrations) and proof of domestic manufacture is required in
any action, of course the establishment would be readily shown.
Copyright proprietors should not be required to disclose it
otherwise, satisfying the curiosity of business rivals and others.
It seems also an unnecessary insult to the publishers to provide
special penalties for false affidavits. Will not the ordinary
penalties for the crime of perjury be sufficient to cover all
cases where publishers, in addition to jeopardizing their property
rights by violating the provision for domestic manufacture, swear
falsely in the premises?
I believe that Mr. Sullivan, in behalf of the Typographical Union,
stated at the last conference that the union was not disposed to
insist on the specification of the establishment in the affidavit
if it should appear that this fact was unnecessary and irrelevant
to the purpose of the affidavit. I hope that the union will make
no opposition to the elimination of this provision, which is
obnoxious to the publishers. By so doing they will at least
minimize the opposition of the publishers to the affidavit
provision as a whole. There are very many publishers throughout
the country who are not members of the association referred to,
and will not be governed by the agreement made at the conference.
The date of publication, if given in the affidavit, might serve
for convenience as furnishing an essential fact to be a part of
the record covered by the Librarian's certificate.
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