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
Every copyright proprietor may be defendant in a suit as well as
complainant. Suits may be brought in good faith or for malicious
reasons; for the real protection of property or for harassing
business rivals. They may be well founded or groundless, honest or
frivolous. Now, speaking as the proprietor of a large number of
copyrights and a great deal of valuable copyright property which I
am anxious to protect against infringement, I would much prefer to
forego the advantages offered to complainants under this section
rather than run the risk of the infinite vexation which might be
caused my company as defendant in malicious and frivolous suits
brought in foreign jurisdictions chiefly for purposes of
blackmail.
I see no good reason why copyright proprietors should have
facilities for the use of the Federal courts not accorded to any
other class of suitors. It is true that certain classes of
copyright property may require special provisions for their
protection, but it should be noted that section 966 of the Revised
Statutes is by this bill retained (see sec. 64), and would
therefore still protect dramatists and musical people in the
peculiar rights which they now have under the present law.
The penal provisions of this bill are severe and even harsh,
including misdemeanor clauses with fines and forfeitures and even
imprisonment. On the other hand, the law is full of novel
provisions. It will be, at best, years before these can be
judicially construed so that they may be generally understood.
Meanwhile, everyone concerned will find many doubtful points and
open questions on which legal advice will vary, and can in no case
be conclusive. To subject authors and publishers to the danger of
being peremptorily summoned to defend an action in a distant
district for some supposed violation of some provision, "any
provision of this act," however insignificant, with the issuance
of ex parte injunctions operative throughout the whole country,
with possible "impounding" of important and valuable publications
for an indefinite period of time (during the pendency of the suit,
see sec. 23, p. 18), a publisher in New York might sue his
neighbor across the street in any distant district, possibly
Alaska or the Philippine Islands; a rich and powerful house might
crush a feeble competitor by forcing him to defend suits brought
simultaneously in a hundred jurisdictions. These possibilities may
well terrorize all persons interested in copyrightable property of
any description.
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