to certain other articles it is the words "found in his possession or by him sold." It often happens that a willful infringer has sold all the infringing copies and none are found in his possession. In this case the injury has been done and the profit made. It is to cover such cases that the committee recommend this change.

Paragraph e is new, but it is believed that some legislation of this kind is necessary and that the provision borrowed from the bankruptcy act, providing that rules and regulations for practice and procedure, etc., shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court, will give proper protection to all parties. The rest of this section is necessary to carry out the provision of paragraph c.

Section 21 is inserted to prevent a multiplicity of action.

Section 22 provides that a willful infringement for profit of a copyright shall be a misdemeanor. Such an infringement, when affecting any dramatic or musical composition, is a misdemeanor under existing law, and under existing law the punishment for such misdemeanor is imprisonment for a period of not exceeding one year, with no alternative sentence. This section applies to all copyrights what now applies to only dramatic and musical compositions, but it diminishes the punishment by striking out the provision for imprisonment in the discretion of the court and makes the punishment a fine. This section in the original bill retained the imprisonment feature. Your committee felt that the provision, in the existing law which gives the court no discretion and compelled a jail sentence, as is provided in certain cases in existing law, was too drastic.

The second paragraph of section 22 provides the same penalty for 9 fraudulent insertion of a copyright notice in a work not copyrighted, and that paragraph further provides a penalty for the sale, knowingly, of such article. The last paragraph in the section prohibits the importation into the United States of articles bearing such fraudulent notice of copyright. These two last paragraphs in substance reenact existing law.

Section 23 is new, but is necessary to carry out the provisions of the preceding section.

Section 24 reenacts in substance section 3076 of the Revised Statutes, although the provision in regard to the destruction of property in such manner as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury is new.

Section 25 is new, but is needed to carry into effect section 24.

Section 26 is new, but is simply an enactment into law of existing regulations made under authority conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster-General by the act of March 3, 1891. The first paragraph of section 27 forbids the importation into the United States of piratical copies or of authorized copies which have not been produced in accordance with the manufacturing provisions of this act, but provides that such prohibition shall not apply to (a) authorized copies of works in raised characters for the use of the blind. That is a reenactment of existing law. (b) To foreign newspapers or magazines containing copyrighted matter, upon certain conditions. This is also a reenactment of existing law. (c) To the authorized edition of a book in a foreign language, of which only a translation has been copyrighted in this country. This, too, is a reenactment of existing law. (d) Changes existing law by prohibiting the importation after an edition shall have been produced

HR-59-2-Vol 1-41

in this country in accordance with the manufacturing provisions of the act. The act of March 3, 1905, gave an unrestricted right of importation of such books during the ad interim term of one year therein provided. The first subdivision of section e changes existing

law.

Under existing law any individual may import for use and not for sale two copies of a book in any one invoice. The provision in this bill limits that to one copy under permission given by the proprietor of the American copyright. So far as your committee are informed, there is little or no objection to this change. The second subdivision reduces the number of copies which may be imported from two to one, and the third subdivision makes the same change. In the original bill the right of importation given in this section was restricted to copies which could not be supplied by the American publisher. Your committee thought that the right to import one book for the purposes set forth should be an unrestricted right, and with this change your committee understand that this provision is satisfactory to the libraries of the country. Subdivision fourth changes the law by permitting the importation of books which form parts of libraries or collections purchased en bloc for the use of certain societies, and substantially reenacts existing law by permitting the importation of books forming parts of libraries or personal baggage belonging to persons arriving from foreign countries which are not intended for sale.

Section 28 is a new provision permitting the return in certain cases to the country of export of books which can not be admitted under the provisions of this act.

Section 29, as it appeared in section 32 of the original bill, provided that all actions shall be cognizable by the circuit courts of the United States, etc. This is existing law. Your committee believed that this should be changed to include district courts, so that a defendant might not be put to great inconvenience. The second paragraph of this section, as it appeared in the original bill, provided that actions might be brought in the district of which the defendant was an inhabitant, or in the district where the violation of any of the provisions of this act had occurred. It was urged that under this provision a man living in New York who sold what was alleged to be an infringing article in the Philippines might be sued there and the process could be sent to the United States marshal in New York and served on the defendant, who would have to go to the Philippine Islands to defend the case. Your committee felt that this provision might work great hardship, and so the present provision that the suit must be instituted in the district of which the defendant or his agent is an inhabitant, or in which either of them may be found, should be substituted. To limit the institution of actions to the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant would fail to reach the case of an infringer of the copyright of dramatic works or city directories, etc., for instance, who travels from State to State.

The third paragraph in section 29 practically reenacts section 4970 of the Revised Statutes. It is provided herein, however, that the injunction granted may be served on the parties wherever they are within the limits of the United States and shall be operative throughout the United States, but the defendants may make a motion

to dissolve the injunction before the court in any district where the violation is alleged to have occurred, and the court may pass upon the same as though the proceedings were originally brought in the district in which the motion is made. This provision is founded upon the act of January 6, 1897, relating to the infringement of the copyright of any dramatic or musical composition. This is now made general in its application to copyrights. The last paragraph of the act is also found in the act of January 6, 1897.

Section 30 substantially reenacts section 699 of the Revised Statutes. Section 31 is found substantially in section 4968 of the Revised Statutes.

Section 32 changes the existing law by allowing a reasonable attorney fee as a part of the costs.

Section 33 is new, but recognizes the distinction, long established, between the material object and the right to produce copies thereof.

Section 34, while a new provision in the copyright laws, simply provides for the transfer of well-recognized property rights.

Section 35 changes existing law by providing that the assignment in writing shall be acknowledged before an officer.

Section 36 simply refers to assignments executed in a foreign country.

Section 37 provides for the recording of such assignments and makes such record constructive notice.

Section 38 provides for the issuing of a certificate under the seal of the Copyright Office.

Section 39 allows the purchaser of a copyright to substitute his name for the name of the author in the notice.

Section 40 reenacts section 4948 of the Revised Statutes.

Section 41 increases the salary of the Register of Copyrights from $3,000 a year to $4,000 a year and provides a new office, that of Assistant Register of Copyrights, at a salary of $3,000.

Section 42 is new, but in the belief of the committee this provision should be incorporated in the law.

Section 43 provides that the Register of Copyrights shall give bond in the sum of $20,000 to the United States. Under existing law the bond was given by him to the Librarian of Congress in the same sum, and the Librarian of Congress gave bond to the United States.

Section 44 provides that the Register of Copyrights shall make an annual report, to be printed in the annual report on the Library of Congress, etc. Under existing law the Librarian of Congress is required to make the report.

Section 45 retains the present seal.

Section 46 is a new provision, but is not intended to confer upon the Register of Copyrights any judicial power.

Section 47 provides that the Register of Copyrights shall keep record books, etc., a duty now imposed upon the Librarian of Congress.

Section 48 makes the certificate issued under the provision of this act prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. This provision is new.

Section 49 is new. It provides that after complete indexed catalogues have been made from the original manuscript catalogue cards, the cards may be destroyed, and makes the indexed catalogues prima

H. Rep. 7083, 59–2– -2*

facie evidence of the facts stated therein as regards copyright registration.

Section 50 substantially reenacts the act of March 3, 1891, although the provision regarding the sale of the consolidated catalogues and indexes and the turning in of the money thus received to the Treasury of the United States is new.

Section 51 is new, but deemed by your committee to be a proper provision.

Sections 52 and 53 are inserted for the following reason: The Librarian of Congress states that the volume of the copyright deposits is now enormous and 200,000 articles a year are now being added to the great accumulation. Many of these articles are valuable to the Library and are used by it. The rest remain in the cellar, and the accumulations there number a million and a half of articles. There are many articles there that would be useful in other Government libraries. Some might be used in exchange for other articles. The remainder are a heavy charge upon the Government for storage and care, without any corresponding benefit.

The impression that the deposited articles are a part of the record and are necessary evidence of the thing copyrighted is not well founded. In the last thirty-six years there have been only four cases in which articles deposited have been taken into court, and it is said that in none of these cases was there any necessity for such use of the deposited article. It is believed by your committee that the sug gestions of the Librarian of Congress embodied in these two sections are wise ones and that the rights of all parties interested are carefully safeguarded.

Section 54 provides for fees. Under existing law the fee for recording title, etc., is 50 cents and the fee for the certificate, if called for, is also 50 cents. Section 54 provides for the issuing of a certificate as a matter of course and makes the fee just what it would be under existing law if the certificate was called for.

It was felt by your committee that this fee of $1 would be a burden to photographic establishments, which applied for many thousand copyrights, and so we provided that in the case of photographs the entire fee should be 50 cents unless a certificate was requested. Under existing law the fee for recording and certifying any instrument was $1. The provision in the present bill makes that fee depend upon the length of the instrument. Certain other fees, for search. etc., are new. The proviso regarding one registration fee in case of several volumes of a numbered series of any work is new, but is believed to be in the interest of the public.

Section 55 is new.

2d Session.

7 Part 2.

TO AMEND AND CONSOLIDATE THE ACTS RESPECTING

COPYRIGHT.

MARCH 2, 1907.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. BARCHFELD, from the Committee on Patents, submitted the following as the

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

[To accompany H. R. 25133.]

We disagree with a portion of the majority report submitted by the Committee on Patents on House bill 25133, reported on January 30, 1907.

The bill is a redraft of House bill 19853, which was introduced in this House on May 31, 1906. In its original form the bill had a provision (subdivision g, section 1) securing to musical composers the exclusive right to reproduce their compositions by mechanical means, such as perforated rolls and disk or cylinder records.

The greater part of the time given by the committee to public hearings on this bill was taken up by the consideration of this provision.

In these hearings the fact was brought out very strongly that the manufacture of devices for the mechanical reproduction of music has assumed gigantic proportions and is still growing in bulk of output, as well as in the range of practical application.

Though its beginnings date back but a few years, this industry is now producing and marketing every year many millions of perforated music rolls for player pianos and of records for talking machines. While there has been much conflicting argument as to whether these appliances are proper subjects of copyright, it is not questioned that each of them represents a musical composition and will, when operated with a proper instrument, reproduce the music of that composition to the ear. The appliance does away with the personal performer and at the same time with the sheet of music which is required by the performer to guide him in striking the proper notes.