license

provided further, and as a condition of extending the copyright control to such mechanical reproductions, That whenever the owner of a musical copyright has Compulsory used or permitted or knowingly acquiesced in the use of the copyrighted work upon the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, any other person may make similar use of the copyrighted work upon the payment to the copyright proprietor of a royalty of two cents on each such part manufactured, to be paid by the manufacturer thereof; and the copyright proprietor may require, and if so the manufacturer shall furnish, a report under oath on the twentieth day of each month on the number of parts of instruments manufactured during the previous month serving to reproduce mechanically said musical work, and royalties shall be due on the parts manufactured during any month upon the twentieth of the next succeeding month. The payment of the royalty provided for by this section shall free the articles or devices for which such royalty has been paid from further contribution to the copyright except in case of public performance for profit: And provided further, That it shall be the duty of the copyright owner, if he uses the musical composition himself for the manufacture of parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, or licenses others to do so, to file notice thereof, accompanied by a recording fee, in the copyright office, and any failure to file such notice shall be a complete defense to any suit, action, or proceeding for any infringement of such copyright.

"In case of the failure of such manufacturer to pay Damages to the copyright proprietor within thirty days after demand in writing the full sum of royalties due at said rate at the date of such demand the court may award taxable costs to the plaintiff and a reasonable

Public performance

The compromise result

counsel fee, and the court may, in its discretion, enter judgment therein for any sum in addition over the amount found to be due as royalty in accordance with the terms of this Act, not exceeding three times such amount.

"The reproduction or rendition of a musical composition by or upon coin-operated machines shall not be deemed a public performance for profit unless a fee is charged for admission to the place where such reproduction or rendition occurs."

This provision, though somewhat involved in form, tells its own story, and there has thus far been no occasion for judicial construction.

In the series of discussions before the Committees, the friends of copyright argued for the exclusive and unrestricted right of the musical composer to control absolutely the mechanical reproductions of his work, while the representatives of "canned music” argued at first that mechanical reproduction should be permitted without reference to copyright, and later that there should be entire liberty to make reproductions of a musical work on the sole condition of a specified payment to the copyright proprietor. The provision as actually adopted was a compromise upholding the negative right of the author to prevent mechanical reproduction, but requiring him, in the event of a grant of authority to any one manufacturer to reproduce his work mechanically, to extend that privilege to any other manufacturer on payment of the specified royalty. This scheme is practically modeled on what was known as the Pearsall-Smith royalty plan, which, as proposed for books, was stoutly fought by the proponents of the copyright act of 1891, throughout that memorable copyright campaign.

In the case of the White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., in which the Æolian Co. was supposed

to be the real complainant, the representatives of Judicial the musical author were, in 1906, denied protection construction against the mechanical music rolls made by the defendant, by the Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judges considered themselves "constrained" by the necessity of strict construction to decide that "a perforated roll is not a copy in fact of complainant's staff notation," while saying "that the rights sought to be protected belong to the same class as those covered by the specific provisions of the copyright statutes." It was presumed by many during the copyright campaign that the Supreme Court would make a broad construction of the statute, but that court held, February 24, 1908, in an opinion written by Justice Day, that the considerations adduced "properly address themselves to the legislative and not to the judicial branch of the Government" and that "as the act of Congress now stands, we believe it does not include these records as copies or publications of the copyright music involved in these cases." Justice Holmes, while not dissenting, added a memorandum to the effect that "the result is to give to copyright less scope than its rational significance and the ground on which it is granted seems to me to demand. . . . On principle, anything that mechanically reproduces that collocation of sounds ought to be held a copy, or if the statute is too narrow, ought to be made so by a further act, except so far as some extraneous consideration of policy may oppose." While the judges thus felt "constrained" to deny relief, their strong language in defense of copyright control doubtless had its effect upon the legislative authorities in the framing and the passage of the new code.

This decision was confirmatory of an earlier decision, in Stern v. Rosey in 1901, of Judge Shepard in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia,

Punishment

that the mechanical reproduction of two copyrighted songs could not be prevented under the existing law.

Specific and elaborate provision is made for the of infringe- punishment of infringers under the mechanical music

ment

Notice to

proviso (sec. I, e) by sec. 25, e:

"Whenever the owner of a musical copyright has used or permitted the use of the copyrighted work upon the parts of musical instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, then in case of infringement of such copyright by the unauthorized manufacture, use, or sale of interchangeable parts, such as disks, rolls, bands, or cylinders for use in mechanical music-producing machines adapted to reproduce the copyrighted music, no criminal action shall be brought, but in a civil action an injunction may be granted upon such terms as the court may impose, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover in lieu of profits and damages a royalty as provided in section one, subsection (e), of this Act: Provided proprietor of also, That whenever any person, in the absence of a license agreement, intends to use a copyrighted musical composition upon the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, relying upon the compulsory license provision of this Act, he shall serve notice of such intention, by registered mail, upon the copyright proprietor at his last address disclosed by the records of the copyright office, sending to the copyright office a duplicate of such notice; and in case of his failure so to do the court may, in its discretion, in addition to sums hereinabove mentioned, award the complainant a further sum, not to exceed three times the amount provided by section one, subsection (e), by way of damages, and not as a penalty, and also a temporary injunction until the full award is paid."

intention to

use

Office form

and fees

The Copyright Office provides a special form (U) Copyright on a blue card for registration of "notice of use on mechanical instruments," in which the copyright owner of a musical composition gives notice that he "has used or has licensed the use of said composition for the manufacture of parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically such musical work." The recording fee for such notice, as fixed by the statute (sec. 61), is twenty-five cents for the first fifty words and twenty-five cents additional for each additional hundred words.

For recording and certifying the license referred to (sec. I, e) the statute provides (sec. 61) for a fee of one dollar for not over three hundred words, two dollars if not over one thousand words and one dollar for each additional one thousand words or fraction thereof over three hundred words.

The actual fixing of a specified price, as that of two The concents or a halfpenny on each reproduction, is a fea- stitutional ture quite new in law, American or English, and in- question volves a serious constitutional question. Congress has granted to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and state legislatures to specified authorities, as public service commissions, power to regulate prices; and the U. S. Supreme Court, in 1909, confirming the N. Y. Court of Appeals in the Consolidated Gas Co. cases, upheld the application of the sovereign power of the state to limit the price of gas to 80 cents per 1000 cubic feet, as sold by a corporation enjoying a public franchise. In this compulsory license provision of the copyright code, Congress has gone further in two directions: it has fixed a royalty price, not by definition or limitation of a "reasonable" price, but absolutely, and it has applied this provision not to a corporation enjoying franchise privileges, but to the individual owner of property created by his own labor.