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
Mr. BURKAN. I represent the Music Publishers' Association. This
combination between the Music Publishers' Association and the Æolian
Company, the purpose of which is to destroy the independent
manufacturers of perforated rolls, cylinders, and disks adapted to
reproduce musical sounds.
I think we should at this time refer to the history of this alleged
contract between Æolian Company and some of the publishers. A number
of years ago an action was brought in the circuit court of
Massachusetts to restrain the manufacture and sale of perforated rolls
on the ground that such perforated rolls infringed the complainant's
copyright on his musical composition. The case was argued before Judge
Colt, and he decided that a perforated roll was not a copy of a sheet
of music, and therefore not an infringement of the copyright. (Kennedy
_v._ McTammany, 33 Fed. Rep., 584.) A number of years thereafter
another action was begun in the District of Columbia, the case of
Stern _v._ Rosey, to restrain the manufacture of cylinders and disks
adapted to reproduce musical sounds--applying particularly to talking
machines. That court decided against the publisher. Thereafter these
companies grew up, one after another, and manufactured rolls, disks,
and cylinders, and appropriated for use upon these devices the
property of the composer, for which he did not receive a dollar.
The Æolian Company, the pioneer in this line of industry, became a
very large concern, investing millions of dollars in the establishment
of a plant and in the manufacture of these rolls. They knew, or were
advised by counsel, that this question, whether a perforated roll
adapted to reproduce a copyrighted musical composition was not a
"copy" of the composition within the meaning of the copyright law, was
uncertain; it had never been decided by any appellate court. And it
was very essential for the welfare of the company, and for the
protection of its interests, to ascertain whether in fact it was
infringing upon a copyright every time it made or sold a roll.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Do you represent the Æolian Company?
Mr. BURKAN. No, sir; I do not. I have no interest in the Æolian
Company. I never appeared in any action for it, am not appearing for
it now, and do not expect and will not receive or accept any
compensation for my services here. I represent the music publishers,
and I am a friend of Mr. Victor Herbert.
I desire to reiterate that the Æolian Company was advised by able
counsel that there was some doubt about this proposition. The Æolian
Company, to protect its property, and in order to settle this question
once for all, sent its agents to several publishers who stated to
them: "Gentlemen, we have sought legal counsel--the ablest that we
could find in the city of New York--who advise us that there is grave
doubt as to whether the manufacture by us of these perforated sheets
do not infringe your copyrights, and that question ought to be
determined by the highest court or the land."
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