Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives Part 59

Mr. CROMELIN. The chairman asked the gentleman whether the aeolian Company was interested in this----

Mr. BURKAN. Absolutely not.

Mr. CROMELIN. And the manager of the company told me that they were.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. It might occur to some members of this committee that if one concern was to get an absolute monopoly of making perforated rolls or musical disks, it did concern this committee.

Mr. BURKAN. Can I say a word, sir, on that point? There are hundreds of publishers, sir--hundreds of publishers who are under no contract with the aeolian Company; there are hundreds of composers who are under no contract with this company. You are legislating for the future, and it seems unfair that hundreds of publishers and composers, not parties to this agreement, should be punished because a number of publishers, 10 or 20, have made an unlawful agreement. That is the question that you must consider in connection with this "monopoly" charge.

Mr. WEBB. Now, you are a lawyer?

Mr. BURKAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEBB. May I ask you your opinion as to whether or not the word "writings," referred to in article 8 of the Const.i.tution covers these rolls?

Mr. BURKAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir. If you will just allow me three minutes----

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. No; answer the question. I can not allow you three minutes, because we shall have to go over to the House. The hearings will be closed right here, as soon as you answer that question.

Mr. BURKAN. In the circuit court of appeals, White-Smith Company _v._ Apollo Company case, the court said in a decision involving the question as to whether a perforated roll is an infringement of the copyrighted work which it is adapted to reproduce, and it is important in connection with the claim that Congress has no power to enact this legislation----

The questions raised in these cases are of vast importance and involve far-reaching results. They have been exhaustively discussed in the clear and forcible briefs and arguments of counsel. We are of the opinion that the rights sought to be protected by these suits belong to the same cla.s.s as those covered by the specific provisions of the copyright statutes, and that the reasons which led to the pa.s.sage of said statutes apply with great force to the protection of rights of copyright against such an appropriation of the fruits of an author's conception as results from the acts of defendant.

This language of the court is in itself, without further argument on the definition of the word "writings," sufficient warrant and authority for the Congress to enact this legislation.

(The hearings were thereupon announced closed.)