§1 (2)
a barrel organ upon which his composition could be performed. It is submitted that both the general words of the sub-section and the specific words of this paragraph do give the musical composer the monopoly of making barrel organs and similar instruments. There is nothing which can be construed as confining the author's right to the making of interchangeable parts.
Existing law.—A literary work is only protected as a book, and the exclusive right of the author is limited to making copies of the book. The author of a dramatic or musical work has the exclusive right of making copies if it is published as a book or sheet of music, and he has the exclusive right of public performance. A record, perforated roll, or cinematograph film is not a copy of the book or sheet of music, even although it reproduces the whole dramatic or musical element contained in the book or sheet of music. The making of such things is therefore not an infringement of copyright[1]. Neither does the person who makes such things infringe the performing right in the dramatic or musical work notwithstanding that he sells them to persons whom he knows will use them for giving public performances. He does not. by making and selling the record or film, cause the public performance[2]; neither does he infringe the performing right by exhibiting the films in his business premises to his customers and possible purchasers[3].
"And to authorise any such acts as aforesaid."The last words of sub-sect. 1 (2) appear to be superfluous. It is clear that if a person has the sole right to certain acts, no other person can have the right to authorise such acts. The words are therefore unnecessary in so far as they are intended to exclude third persons from any enjoyment of the work. If they are intended to accentuate the fact that the owner of the copyright may authorise other people to exercise his exclusive right, the words are equally unnecessary, as the power to license others is obviously incidental to the exclusive right of doing the acts in question.
§1 (3).(3) For the purposes of this Act, publication[4], in relation to any work, means the issue of copies- ↑ Boosen v. Whight [1900] 1 Ch. 122; Newmark v. National Phonograph Co. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 439: Mabe v. Connor, [1909] 1 K. B. 515; Monckton v. Gramophone Co. (1910), The Times, Dec. 6; Cop. Cas. 1905–10, p. 304.
- ↑ Karno v. Pathé Fréres (1909), 25 T L. R. 242.
- ↑ Glenville v. Selig Polyscope Co. (1911), The Times, July 20.
- ↑ Sects. 31, 35 (2).
