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 may be deemed proper and it will not be denied that it would be
just that a composer of a musical composition of this class who
causes it to be embodied in the form of perforated roll, and who
can derive a revenue from it practically only in this form, should
be considered in the light of both composer and arranger, and as
entitled to obtain original and independent copyright of the
perforated roll, so as to control the composition absolutely in
this form.
It is believed that it will not be difficult to frame a provision
of the statute to do justice to this class of composition, and
which shall not trench upon the natural equity of the perforated
roll arranger for other musical compositions, or upon the natural
right of the public to derive the use of the automatic reproducing
devices upon ordinary musical compositions, without requiring the
consent of or paying tribute to the composer.
_4. As to duration of copyright._--The bill before your committees
proposes a remarkable extension of the period of copyright beyond
anything heretofore granted. This is believed to be contrary to
sound public policy and of doubtful constitutionality.
The Constitution expressly limits the power of Congress in respect
to their copyright protection to granting such protection "for
limited periods." The term "limited" can have only a relative
meaning, and the obvious meaning is limited with respect to or in
comparison with the period during which the public will have
desire or use for the copyrighted work. It is contemplated,
evidently, that in compensation for the protection which the
statute gives the composer for a limited period the public shall
derive the unqualified use and benefit of the work for a remaining
period. If there is no remaining period, the consideration for the
protection has failed.
It needs no statistics to establish to the common knowledge of the
committee that not one book in ten thousand has any commercial
value fifty years after its publication. It will probably be safer
to say that not one published work in a hundred thousand has any
life after fifty years. If, therefore, the author is given the
monopoly for fifty years, the public has nothing left to
compensate it for that monopoly and protection.
Not one work in a million endures so as to have any value after
one hundred years.
But the bill proposes, as to the great bulk of copyrightable
matter, that the period of copyright shall be substantially one
hundred years--fifty years after the death of the author.
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