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
It had been maintained that mechanical players tend to discourage
learning and reduce the sale of copyright music, but all the
evidence taken on this subject proves the contrary is the case,
and it was never questioned, even by counsel representing the
publishers, who now seek special privileges. The publishers can
not prove that they have paid an average of 1 per cent on
copyright music they have published, nor the composers that they
have earned an average of 1 per cent on their copyrights, in an
industrial field of their own, yet they ask legislation giving
them a dominating interest in an industry that other brains and
money have created. Any amendment to this measure placing all
interests on an equitable footing will be fought by its advocates,
showing their corrupt intentions. This industry has been hampered
for past years by threats of the mentioned combinations, and
Congress in any new bill should clearly define whether this
mechanical matter is or is not included in the amendment. To end
this matter once and for all, I am in favor of giving the
composers (not the proprietor or owner of a copyright) the
specific right to copyright his composition as applied to
mechanical reproductions, and to collect reasonable royalties from
manufacturers who may wish to use it, leaving it to a court of
equity to determine what a reasonable equity would be, if such a
measure is considered advisable. I should urge that, as this
provision will apply solely to mechanical reproductions and
receive its benefits therefrom, the term of this copyright should,
in all equity, take the life of a patent with which it associates.
The following parallel ethical equities with the case of the
composer might well be considered by the committee:
The architect, the man of brains, who conceives a wonderful
conception of a piece of architecture or arrangement of a
building, how can he prevent anyone else from duplicating this
result or building it, which is the creation of his conception and
work? A man discovers a treatment for some disease; others use it
and apply it. A surgeon discovers a new form of operation; the
others use it. A business man, by dint of his brain, figures out a
great system for running his business, which makes it immensely
profitable; his fellow-beings adopt it and don't pay him a cent.
There are hundreds of parallel cases. Gentlemen, if it had not
been for this gigantic conspiracy you would not have heard of the
composer's woes.
This amendment has been fathered throughout by publishers,
associations, and rings. They have exploited the composers'
interests when they do not represent them, but, instead, their own
selfish interests, which have been safeguarded in advance by
contract.
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