Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/240

 The English laws had not mentioned mechanical reproduction up to the musical copyright act of 1906, which in section 3 expressly provided that " 'pirated copies' and 'plates' shall not, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to include perforated music rolls used for playing mechanical instruments, or records used for the reproduction of sound waves, or the matrices or other appliances by which such rolls or records respectively are made." The test CEise meanwhile on this question was that of Boosey v. Whight, which was finally decided in the Court of Appeal in 1900, with respect to the use of copyrighted songs on the perforated rolls of the ^Eolian. Justice Sterling in the lower court had decided that the perforations were not an infringement of the copyright but that the marginal directions for playing might be such; Justice Lindley, M. R., held with him that the perforated roll was not a "copy" of the sheet music, but overruled him on the second point, holding that the directions, though copied from the printed page, were neither music nor a literary composition.

The new British measure as prepared in 1910 included as incident to copyright the sole right "in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make any record, perforated roll, cinematograph film, or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically performed or delivered," thus in the simplest fashion completely covering the control of mechanical reproduction in conformity with the convention of Berlin. But in the Parliament of 1911 the bill emerged from committee stage with an elaborate proviso, based on the American precedent, excepting from the definition of infringement contrivances for the mechanical reproduction of sounds on (I) proof that the copyright owner has previously acquiesced in mechanical reproduction, (2) prescribed notice of