Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives Part 28

3. In the provisions of the new bill dealing with importation a careful distinction has been maintained between unauthorized (fraudulent) copies and copies of authorized editions not printed from type set within the limits of the United States.

In the case of all unauthorized reprints of books the prohibition of importation is absolute, and any such copies introduced into the United States are subject to seizure, forfeiture, and destruction. (See sections 26 to 29 of the bill.) In the case of copies of authorized editions not set in the United States, such copies if imported are seized and exported, but not destroyed.

(See copyright bill, sec. 31.)

All exceptions, therefore, to the prohibition of importation of authorized editions in the bill concern only authorized copies, and there is no permission in favor of any one to import any unauthorized, pirated copies.

Very respectfully, yours,

THORVALD SOLBERG, _Register of Copyrights_.

Hon. FRANK D. CURRIER, _Chairman House Committee on Patents, House of Representatives_.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems that a Mr. Davis, who represents some manufacturers of musical devices, does not understand that he is to have any part of the hour a.s.signed to the gentlemen mentioned yesterday. Is Mr. Davis here?

Mr. PUTNAM. I think Mr. Davis has not yet come in.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will state as to the letter of Mr. Wilc.o.x, to which I referred yesterday in connection with the suggestion from Mr. Malcomson as to the need of including lithographs in the specification of subject-matter, that the pa.s.sage which I should have read if I had had the letter here (it was with the stenographer) was this:

I congratulate you that the bill has taken this definite form and is now to be given a preliminary hearing, so that it will be in shape to be urged for pa.s.sage next winter. The bill is a monument to the industry and broad intelligence and information of those who have been actively concerned in drafting it. * * * As affecting the interest of my client, the Consolidated Lithograph Company, which is a large producer of lithographic and other prints, engravings, etc., especially for use as posters, the form of the bill seems satisfactory to me, and I have no doubt it will be so to my client.

This refers particularly to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, defining the subject-matter of copyright and the form of applications for registration. These provisions are in the highest degree liberal and enlightened.

The copyright office has received a communication from Mr. Fritz von Briesen, requesting that in section 5, after line 7, a further subdivision, "Miscellaneous," be inserted, and that the following be added:

_And provided furthermore_, That a series of maps, drawings, photographs, prints, and pictorial ill.u.s.trations, and labels and prints relating to articles of manufacture, and other subjects of copyright of an artistic nature, const.i.tuting a unit or a.s.sembled for a unitary purpose, shall be considered as the subject-matter of a single copyright registration, should the applicant so elect, whether or not they are actually joined by binding, printing on the same sheet of material, or otherwise.

I suggest this, Mr. Chairman, as appropriate to be inserted in connection with the discussion of the fees yesterday by Mr. Remicher.

It bears on that point.

The CHAIRMAN. That will go in the record.

Mr. PUTNAM. I handed in, I believe, yesterday, a statement in writing from Mr. A. W. Elson, of Boston, making certain specific recommendations for changes. He telegraphs me, "Written presentation sent you fully covers my view."

That is in answer to an inquiry as to whether he wished to have a hearing before the committee.

I have received a communication from the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, as follows:

As president of Local No. 4, of Bookbinders' Union, of this city, and representative of the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders of the United States, I would be pleased to be heard on the Currier copyright bill to-morrow, immediately after Mr. J. J. Sullivan has spoken on bill. I will not consume more than ten minutes, and possibly less than that. I will be in attendance at the hearing.

Very respectfully,

J. L. FEENEY.

The office has received, since the bill was introduced, from the Music Publishers' a.s.sociation, certain proposed amendments, additional provisions in connection with the protection of the copyright on musical compositions. These, I should advise the chairman, have not been communicated to the gentlemen who are to speak in opposition to any of those provisions. They have not had them, therefore, before them in preparing their case this morning at all; and while I have manifolded copies here which are at their disposal, it is to be understood that these were not communicated to them. On the other hand, Mr. Serven, who in behalf of the music publishers handed these to me, states (if I am not correct, Mr. Serven, you will correct me) that these contain additional specifications but in the same general direction. That is all.

Mr. A. R. SERVEN. That is correct, Mr. Librarian, and simply to conform subsection G of section 1 to comply with the recent decision of the United States circuit court of appeals in the White-Smith _v._ Apollo Company case. The same idea is represented simply. The case was decided, of course, since the bill was printed.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Putnam, just call our attention to the proposed change.

Mr. PUTNAM. This is contained in a written communication, and it will really take less time to read it from the communication.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PUTNAM. (Reading:)

Section 1, subsection G, should be amended to read as follows:

"To make, sell, distribute, or let for hire any device, contrivance, or appliance adapted in any manner whatsoever when used in connection with any mechanism to reproduce to the ear or to cause the said mechanism to reproduce to the ear the sounds forming or identifying the whole or any material part of any work copyrighted after this act shall have gone into effect, or by means of any such device, contrivance, appliance, or mechanism publicly to reproduce to the ear the whole or any material part of such work."

Omitting the explanations, the next amendment will be as follows:

Section 3 should be amended to read as follows:

"That the copyright provided by this act shall extend to and protect all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted, any and all reproductions or copies thereof, in whatever form, style, or size, and all matter reproduced therein in which copyright is already subsisting, and the devices, appliances, or contrivances mentioned in section 1, subdivision (_g_) of this act, but without extending the duration of such copyright."

Section 23, subdivision (_b_)----

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the other amendments are simply to follow if the first amendment is approved?

Mr. PUTNAM. If the first amendment is approved; that is my understanding.

Mr. SERVEN. Mr. Chairman, that is true with the exception of one amendment. The Musical Publishers' a.s.sociation suggests that the same right of appeal and review in interlocutory judgments and orders should be provided for in the new bill as is provided for in the existing law. That is the only thing that is different.

Mr. HORACE PETt.i.t. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Serven whether he will add to his amended section 3 the clause which I suggested in my amendment to the original section 3? It would accomplish the same purpose as I had intended. My suggestion of amendment would also apply to your amended section 3, which adds:

_And provided_, That no devices, contrivances, or appliances, or dies or matrices for making the same, made prior to the date this act shall go into effect, shall be subject to any subsisting copyright.

Mr. SERVEN, Yes, Mr. Chairman; I think that is only fair to the interests represented.

Mr. PETt.i.t. You accept that as an addition to your amendment?

Mr. SERVEN. We are very glad to, indeed. We think that is perfectly fair.

Mr. CURRIER. A suggestion was made here the other day, the first day of the hearings, to strike out section 3, I think.

M. PETt.i.t. Well, either that or that my amendment be added to it.

Mr. CURRIER. Yes. Who was the gentleman who replied to you.

Mr. PETt.i.t. Mr. Fuller, of New York.

Mr. CURRIER. I understood Mr. Fuller to say that the question of whether subsisting copyrights covered these mechanical devices was now in the court, and they thought the court might hold that such devices were now covered. If such should be the decision of the court, would it not prohibit the use of graphophone cylinders and records already made and in use, if they were records of music covered by a subsisting copyright, under that section 3?

Mr. PETt.i.t. If the decision of the court were such as to include talking-machine records or other sound records within the subsisting law, of course it would prohibit that.

Mr. CURRIER. Does any gentleman here think we ought to legislate along that line?

Mr. PETt.i.t. Not that I know of. I do not understand that they think so, unless Mr. Fuller was misunderstood.