In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 3
Leaf #:
00031
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1257 ence to projecting machines? I don't mean that yon should state that in terms but in general. A. Well, this label provided that the films should only be used or leased for use on motion picture projecting machines licensed by the licensor. Q. Do you recall what this label provided with reference to the sub-rental prices? A. There was a provision in the label that the sub-rental prices should not be less than the prices that might be fixed and determined by the licensor. Q. Do you recall what this label provided with reference to dupes? A. The label provided that the motion pictures should not be duped, that is to say, photographically copied. Q. Did you define a dupe on your direct examination in January? A. I don't recall whether I did or not. Q. Well, then, will you do it now? A. Well, a dupe, as it is known in the art, is a secondary photographic copy of a motion picture strip. It is obtained, usually, by photographing the motion picture strip, making a negative, and then making a positive copy from that secondary negative. That is what is known as a dupe. Mr. Grosvenor: Is the word "dupe" a short abbreviation of "duplicate," or does it stand for the word meaning deception? The Witness : Well, I am sure I don't know, Mr. Grosvenor, but I am inclined to think that it is probably an abbreviation of duplicate. I think that is probably the way the word grew up. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. But duping, itself, represents an act of piracy, does it not? A. It does. Q. An act akin to literary piracy, where the manuscript of an author is duplicated or stolen? A. Yes. Unless it is done with the consent of the original producers and owners of the motion pictures. Q. But in the ordinary acceptation of the term as used in the art, it represents an act of piracy? A. Yes. It is used to make piratical copies, ordinarily.