I say that every edition of a book that is copyrighted under the United States law should contain notice of copyright, irrespective of where it may be printed, and thus give the public due notice. Senator MALLORY. Let me ask you in regard to that instance that you speak of in your experience. That book had two different titles, you say? Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir. Senator MALLORY. That is, there was an English publication under one title and an American publication under a different title? Mr. OGILVIE. Yes. Senator MALLORY. Were they identically the same book? Mr. OGILVIE. No; not identically the same book, even. Senator MALLORY. Which title did you publish under? Mr. OGILVIE. Under the English title. Mr. SULZER. Was the subject-matter different? Mr. OGILVIE. The subject-matter was different. A portion of it, consisting of some 500 pages, was alike, but a considerable portion of it was different. Mr. HINSHAW. The English book was copyrighted in the United States? Mr. OGILVIE. The American book was copyrighted in the United States. The English book contained no notice of copyright, and I may go further and say---- Mr. SULZER. Did you publish the English book? Mr. OGILVIE. We published the English book. I may go further and say that the American publisher, by contract, agreed to the elimination of the American copyright mark; and he did that for this reason: The people who live in Great Britain refuse to buy, if they can avoid it, American books. I have had opportunities to sell several thousand copies of my copyright books, provided I would leave out of them the American copyright notice. I have in my office in Chicago at the present time a great number of American copyright books that have been printed in the United States and sold to publishers in Great Britain, who required the elimination of the American copyright notice; and the American publishers were foolish enough to comply with that request, thereby, in my humble judgment, vitiating their copyright. I say that in the case of an American copyright book the public are entitled to be informed, not merely by the insertion of the word "copyright," but by the insertion of the word "copyright," together with the date on which the copyright was taken out and the name of the person who took it out, exactly as the law is at present. It is not enough to simply substitute the word "copyright;" it means nothing. Mr. CURRIER. Suppose in the case you have referred to you began to publish this book without any knowledge that it was protected by copyright? Could you not go right on and publish and sell that book? Mr. OGILVIE. The courts have enjoined me. Mr. CURRIER. If this law is passed, could you not do that? Let me read it. (Reading:) "It's omission"--that is, notice of copyright--"by inadvertence from a particular copy or copies, though preventing recourse against an innocent infringer without notice."