147 F. 226 | 2d Cir. | 1906
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
We are therefore of the opinion that a perforated paper roll, such as is manufactured by defendant, is not a copy of complainant’s staff notation, for the following reasons: It is not a copy in fact. It is not designed to be read or actually used in reading music as the original stall notation is; and the claim that it may be read, which is practically disproved by the great preponderance of evidence, even if true, would establish merely a theory or possibility of use, as distinguished from an actual use. The argument that, because the roll is a notation or record of the music, it is therefore a copy, would apply to the disc of the phonograph or the barrel of the organ, which, it must be admitted, are not copies of the sheet music. The perforations in the rolls are not a varied form of symbols substituted for the symbols used by the author. They are mere adjuncts of a valve mechanism in a machine. In fact, the machine or musical playing device is the thing which appropriates the author’s property and publishes it by producing the musical sounds, thus conveying the author’s conception to the public.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.