Summary

Louis Brandeis Jewell-La Salle Realty Company v…

This question has in part been necessarily answered by our discussion of question II, for, unless the number of infringing performances of a copyrighted musical composition exceeds twenty-five, the minimum allowance of $250 must be made. Where more than twenty-five infringing performances are proved, and there is no showing as to actual loss, the court must allow the statutory minimum, and may, in its sound discretion, employ the scheduled $10 a performance as a basis for assessing additional damages.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Jewell-La Salle Realty Company v…

It is now contended that, as applied to performances, the rule is burdensome and unreasonable; that it was followed unwillingly [2] by the lower courts in the mistaken belief that the Westerman Case required them to do so; that the legislative history of section 25, when considered in the light of earlier Copyright Acts, indicates that the fourth subdivision, relating to musical compositions, was not intended to be controlled by the maximum and minimum provisions of the so-called 'no other case' clause
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Jewell-La Salle Realty Company v…

This appears to be the meaning of the section, read as a whole, particularly since the amounts in the scheduled subdivisions appear to have been inserted merely as an aid to the court in awarding such damages as 'shall appear to be just.' [5] The definite specification of a maximum and minimum in every case, is not contradicted in any way by these legislative suggestions as to what may be deemed reasonable allowances in cases falling within the prescribed limitations.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature