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.
FEBRUARY 1901 in mechanism for its execution. Regarding the perforated rolls the only question was whether they could be held to be copies of the sheets of music in question. It was one thing to play an intrument from a sheet of music which appealed to the eye, but quite another thing to play it from a perforated piece of paper, which was in itself a part of the very mechanism, 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 it the idea created by the original, and in this sense perforated rolls could not be regarded as music sheets. While the case was one regarding simple sheets of music and a particular machine, it is obvious that the principle laid down by the English court of appeal applies thoroughly to the use of machines devised to make sounds that in any way become the subject of copyright. Its effect is, there- fore, far reaching. The wax cylinder of a Phonograph cannot be a copy if perforated strips of paper are not copies. One may use these instruments freely in private as one may read or sing or play a printed page, without violating the law of copyright. It must be borne in mind, though, that, so hr as the English decision goes, it in no sense nullifies the English law preventing a public performance of a copyrighted work, but only applies to private reproduc- tions. In this country it seems dear that the effect of the decision, if it is followed by our courts, will be much wider than in Great Bridan.