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
If there is to be secured or conferred upon anyone an exclusive
right to the perforated roll, or to the talking-machine disk, or
to the phonograph cylinder, for producing to the ear a particular
composition, that right, in virtue of authorship, belongs to the
arranger of the perforated roll and to the singer or player who
produces the talking-machine disk or the phonograph cylinder.
That copyright may reasonably be granted to the producers of these
devices for the devices themselves seems too obvious for argument,
and that it should not be in the power of any composer whose
composition is published and on the market to discriminate between
different arrangers of perforated rolls or different singers or
players, in respect to the right of making such records,
respectively, and of selling or renting the same, seems also
obvious justice.
It would be no injustice, in view of the observed facts above
stated--that the composer derives benefit only and never injury
from the sale of these automatic devices--that he should have no
rights in respect to them, except to be credited with the
compositions by having them marked with the title which he has
given them for market and with his name as composer. But in view
of the possibility that there may be reciprocal advantage--that
the name and repute of the music and of its author may contribute
to the sale of the reproducing devices--a royalty for the use of
the title and name may reasonably be allowed to the composer.
But the composer should not be recognized as having any right
entitling him to prohibit anyone who desires to do so from making
such automatic reproducing devices by employing either the art of
the arranger of the perforated roll, or the voice of the singer,
or the skill of the player on musical instruments.
And the royalty should be uniform for all makers of each sort of
device; that is, all makers of perforated rolls for a given
composition should pay the same royalty to the composer for the
use of his name and the title of his music, and all makers of
vocalizing disks or cylinders should likewise pay the same royalty
for a given composition.
This right to royalty should be allowed, not in virtue of any
domination or supposed domination of the original copyright over
the act of reproduction, but solely in virtue of the natural right
of the composer to have his name and the title which he has given
to his music associated therewith, howsoever it is produced, and
of the fact that presumably a commercial value attaches to such
name and title, which will benefit the seller of the automatic
reproducing device.
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