, dramatized it and assigned
the drama to the plaintiff, but it was never printed, published or
represented upon the stage. B, ignorant of A's drama, also dramatized
the novel and assigned his drama to the defendant, who represented it on
the stage. It was held that any one might dramatize A's published novel,
and that the representation of B's drama was not a representation of A's
drama. This case may be compared with _Reade_ v. _Lacy_ (1861).

In the "Little Lord Fauntleroy" case (1888) the person who dramatized
the novel of another without his consent, an operation up to that time
believed to be unassailable in law, was attacked successfully, by
preventing him from using printed or written copies of the play, either
to deposit with the lord chamberlain or as prompt-books. In every case
where much of the original dialogue of the novel is taken, this stops
the production of the dramatization.

In music, statutes of 1882 and 1888 have prevented the use of the
provisions inflicting penalties for the performance of copyright songs
for purposes of extortion, by allowing the court to inflict a penalty of
one farthing and make the plaintiff pay the costs, if justice requires
it. Authors reserving the right of public performance are required to
print a notice to that effect on all copies of the music.

An important decision (which appears to be a grave injustice) on musical
copyright is the case of _Boosey_ v. _Whight_ (1899; followed in other
cases--see _Mabe_ v. _Conner_, 1909), in which it was held that the
reproduction of copyright tunes on the perforated slips for an Aeolian
or other mechanical instrument is not an infringement of copyright. In
Germany it has been decided (_Lincke_ v. _Gramophone Co._) that the
reproduction of copyright music on a gramophone is an infringement, and
an injunction was granted. It has also been held in France that the
production of copyright _words_ (but not music) was an infringement,
while in the United States the Copyright Act of 1909 extended copyright
control to mechanical reproductions, and gave the copyright proprietor
power to exact royalties.

The copyright in music was subject to serious injury in England from the
selling of pirated copies in the streets by hawkers; and in 1902 an act
was passed enabling summary proceedings to be taken for having such
copies seized and destroyed. But this act had various practical defects,
which still left publishers largely at the mercy of the