The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-27
Copyright and the Music OF the Ma
chimes.


Photographs, gramophones and other in
struments for the mechanical making OF
speech or music have become OF such great
variety and the subject OF such extensive
business enterprise. that an exposition Of
the law touching the use OF these instru-
ments ia Of wide public interest. A lead
ing case affecting them has just been decided
in the English Court OF Appeal. The British
Judges held, in substance, that such
machines 30 far as their private use Ia
concerned. are entirely beyond the law OF
copyright.
The well-known firm OF Boosgr, ( Co.,
musca publishers applied for an injunction
10 restrain the agent OF one OF the promi-
nent organs OF this species from reproduc-
ing three songs my Lady's Bower" The
Better Land. and THE Holy City" whose
copyright the BoosEYs owned. The mcchsn-
ical principle OF the operation Of this partic-
uar machine Ia well understood Whom il
lie set going rolls OF perforated paper
are unrolled the holes serving ut tho proper
moments to lot mir into pipes, by means OF
which the desired musical sounds are pro-
duced with great precision. Machines ~
this character have had very large sale
all over the world. The BOosEYs main
tanned that the perforated rolls were sub
stantially copies Of sheet music and hence,
when played upon, caused IN infringement
OF tn" copyright act. II was admitted that
upon these rolls there were also inscribed
various musical directions, such as 'crescen-
do" or "fortissimo." and these. II VIVA as
serted. served TO make the infringement OF
copyright certain md obvious
Mr.. Justice STIRLING, boforo whom tho
application came in the first instance, de-
cnrcd that. in his judgment. the perforated
paper could not h" considered rs the cOpy
Of sheet OF music. and hence was no viola
tion OF the copyright law. He thought,
however, that the musical directions upon
tho rolls did infringe upon the law.
He, therefore, refused to grant an in
Junction restraining the use Of tho
rolls. but granted one IA to the musical d.
rect!ons. This, of course, wac unsatisfac-
tory to both plaintiff and defendant. 1t
was, in essence, a decision against both, ma
It held practically that the owner Of tho
copyright could not maintain It against
the machine. while the use Of the machine
was thereby seriously restricted In it's
operation and it's sale was hampored
In the Court Of Appeal. to which the case
WAS carried, and before which long and
able arguments were made by some ~ the
most distinguished members of the English
bar all three Judges, Lord Justice RoMrR,
Sir FRANCIS JEUNE and Sir NATHANIEL
LINDLEY, agreed In refusing the irjlnc-
ton altogether. either IA to the musical
directions or tho perforations.
The Court OF Appeal declared that copy-
right In nm article meant the exclusive
right Of printing or multiplying copies OF
that article. that is to say, in the case be-
fore the court. OF copies sheets OF music
and OF the notes and other printed sigma
and words upon those sheets. The holder
OF copyright had, however. no exclu-
sive privileges in the private exccu-
tIon OF the music indicated by such
sheets, nor in mechanism for its ex-
ecution. Regarding the perforated rolls
the only question waa whether they
could be held to be copies OF the sheets OF
music In question. We're they copies
within the meaning Of the copyright law.
or we're they even copies at all 1t was
one thing to play an instrument from a
sheet OF music which appealed to the eye,
but quite another thing to play 1t from
perforated piece of paper, which was in
itself part OF the very mechanism, often
automatic, by means Of which the
music was produced. A copy. in general,
was that which came so near the original
as to give to every person seeing 1t the
idea created by the original, and In this
sense perforated rolls could not be regarded
| as music sheets
IL was strenuously urged by the counsel
for the plaintiff that many persons were SO
trained that these rolls presented to their
1 eyes the original musical score and that