This association desires to make it clear and definite that we all feel it to be most important that this country pass a copyright bill that will give us entry into the International Copryight Union-called the Berne convention. Maj. George Haven Putnam has at a previous hearing presented the case for the publishers. We are here to emphasize and to back up the statement previously made by Major Putnam. As president of the National Association of Book Publishers, I am requested to state that we heartily approve of the Perkins copyright bill, with one serious objection: Section 41 will have a serious and disastrous effect on the American book publishers. Strike out section 41 entirely and the bill has our entire, unanimous approval. Section 15 of this bill guarantees to all creators of copyrightable material the right to assign exclusive rights for a specific territory, but the machinery for enforcing this absolutely necessary right is in section 41 provided for American authors only. An exclusive right to print an author's book and no exclusive right to sell the same is worth little. If this copyright bill is passed with section 41 in it, the book publishers' business of our country will be seriously wrecked. We will be left at the mercy of our foreign competitors. When the American publisher takes over by contract the book rights of a foreign author and sets and manufactures his book here, he must have the same exclusive right to sell the market here as is given to the American book author; otherwise, the American publisher of a foreign author is put at once in an impossible position as to competition, and American manufacture of books will suffer serious loss. Take for example, a $2 novel by an English author. Our American publisher would, on the average, pay a royalty of 30 cents per copy. The English publisher would sell his book at 7s. 6d., but the English publisher has a clause in his contract permitting him to sell colonial editions on a royalty payment of 22d. per copy. The American publisher will be under contract to pay a royalty of 30 cents on each copy sold in the United States of America, while the English publisher can sell here and pay a royalty of only 5 cents per copy. This will make American competition impossible in such cases. Again I emphasize the fact that our association wants the passage of this copyright bill, providing section 41 is entirely stricken out, or so carefully amended as to cover the present disastrous effect it will have on the American publisher of books. The paper manufacturers of our country, the printers, and the binders will all be seriously hurt by the passage of this bill with section 41 left in its present condition. Of necessity the labor of the country will be seriously harmed. When the American book publisher manufactures a book by a foreign author in this country, he not only helps paper makers, printers, binders, and American labor, but each book published provides for a considerable cost in advertising and circularizing; this all adds up to the advantage of the home markets. We American book publishers know we can and do manufacture as good books and as cheaply as they can be manufactured in any other country, but we need and must have a fair and open field. Section 41 hamstrings us and will put us out of fair competition. Our association desires the United States to join the Berne convention, and the Perkins copyright bill with section 41 deleted will accomplish this much desired end. Our large and growing population, with the ever-increasing standards of education, is providing a great number of readers for books, the higher American wages make it possible for more people to buy books here than is the case in any other country. We publishers feel that your distinguished committee must and will give heed to our desires and needs, as affected by section 41. Before closing, I would like to congratulate the authors' league on being able to contribute so ably toward the solution of our American copyright difficulties. We are all deeply indebted to Mr. Solberg for his untiring devotion for so long a period to our American copyright problems. We imagine other interests will have their particular difficulties; our disaster in this bill would be section 41. Delete this and we are content. In the name of the National Association of Book Publishers I thank you, gentlemen of this committee, for the courtesy and the patience you have shown to Maj. George Haven Putnam and to our delegation here to-day. STATEMENT OF MR. F. A. SILCOX Mr. SILCOX. I am representing the United Typothetæ of America, composed of the employing printers, and I also represent the New York Employing Printers' Association, which is affiliated with the national association. We have gone over this bill in conference, the Dallinger bill originally, with the various groups represented, and our board of directors went on record as approving that particular bill. We are not so much interested in the whole technique of copyright legislation as we are interested in the manufacturing clause in the bill, and our position is that we want the incorporation of section 18 of the Dallinger bill in any legislation that is passed. We prefer it as it is in the Dallinger bill. We just got a copy of this bill quite recently, and our whole organization is on record in favor of the Dallinger bill as originally drafted. Now, I notice that in this new bill there is no protection in the form of a manufacturing clause. The printers do not feel that the tariff legislation protects them from foreign competition, and I am here merely to put the printers on record. Having gone through the conferences with these various groups and having approved the original bill, we desire to have the same protection in the form of a manufacturing clause. Mr. REID. Did you see the amendment that was prepared Mr. SILCOX (interposing). I have, but I have not had an opportunity to go over it and check it with section 18 of the Dallinger bill. Mr. REID. If that does what it says it does, that will cover your point? Mr. SILCOX. Yes. The printers are primarily interested in that section of the bill. When you get into the question of technique, we are not so much interested. Our particular interest is in the matter of manufacturing in this country, and the organizations with which I am associated Mr. REID (interposing). Have you a list of those organizations? Mr. SILCOX. The United Typothetae represents the printing centers all over the country, 2,000 employing printers, and there are about 42,000 wage earners in the industry, in the book end of it. Mr. BLOOM. Did you hear the question I asked the previous speaker with reference to this manufacturing clause? Mr. SILCOX. Yes. Mr. BLOOM. Do you not think it is more important at this time for a copyright bill to pass than it is to fool around with this one section? Don't you think that this should not interfere with our going into the Berne Convention and becoming a part of the Berne Convention? Do you think that that one clause should interfere with that? Mr. SILCOX. The manufacturing clause? Mr. BLOOм. I mean, do you think it is serious? Mr. SILCOX. We do. Mr. BLOOM. What is involved, in dollars and cents? Mr. SILCOX. It is very hard to tell, but inquiries are coming from a great many foreign organizations trying to find out how they can get printing done abroad, and we are fearful that that is going to develop, because of the wages in this country and because of the competition. Mr. BLOOM. You have no knowledge of what that would really amount to in dollars and cents? Mr. SILCOX. It is hard to tell. I have no way to get at it. Mr. PERKINS. You said you had inquiries from foreign countries? Mr. SILCOX. There is a Franco-American organization and there is a British organization Mr. PERKINS (interposing). In this country? Mr. SILCOX. Yes; and they are thinking about having their printing done abroad, and we are fearful some of that will develop. Some of the large steamship companies are having their printing done abroad because of lower wages, and we are fearful, if that is left as it is drawn, that more of that will be done. Mr. PERKINS. How will section 18 of the Dallinger bill, if incorporated into this bill, correct that? Mr. SILCOX. We have approved section 18 of the Dallinger bill as an organization. Mr. PERKINS. How will it prevent these concerns getting their printing done abroad? Mr. SILCOX. All American work must be printed in this country; wherever the copyright is in the United States, it must be printed here. Mr. PERKINS. Take your steamship companies. Mr. SILCOX. It won't affect them. Mr. PERKINS. Take your Franco-American company. Mr. BLOOM. Could not that all be regulated by tariff? Mr. BLOOM. The importation of any of these books or anything like that could be regulated by tariff. Mr. SILCOX. Yes; of course, the tariff has a direct effect on it. Mr. REID. That is a republican tariff you are talking about. Mr. BLOOM. Naturally. But, Mr. Silcox, that is not so serious, is it? It could be regulated? Mr. SILCOX. The tariff is quite a question. Mr. BLOOM. There is a tariff on books now? Mr. SILCOX. Yes, sir. Mr. BLOOм. It is 15 per cent? Mr. SILCOX. Yes. Mr. BLOOM. So the tariff can be increased enough so as to protect the manufacturers of books and such things in this country? Mr. SILCOX. Undoubtedly, but we are fearful of the adjustment, of the tariff. We prefer to have the manufacturing clause in the. bill. Mr. BLOOM. The tariff on American books made abroad is higher than the tariff on English books? Mr. SILCOX. I do not know. Mr. BLOOм. The tariff on American books made abroad is 25 per cent and on English books it is 15 per cent. That could be covered, so there is nothing serious to this outside of that? Mr. SILCOX. It can be covered by the tariff. Mr. BLOOM. You would say "Amen" to the entire bill outside, of that one thing? Mr. SILCOX. I am not approving any other sections of the bill. I am not passing on that at all. We are interested in the manufacturing clause. Mr. HAMMER. Whom do you represent? Mr. SILCOX. I represent the employing printers, the organized employing printers. Mr. HAMMER. Is this organization made up altogether of union labor? Mr. SILCOX. Oh, no; all kinds of labor. Mr. HAMMER. Is your concern sending out these circulars twice a month that we receive? Mr. SILCOX. You mean the employing printers of America? I am not connected with that organization. That is a nonunion organization. The United Typothetae of America is an educational association, underwritten by printers who do business with the union as well as those who do not. Mr. HAMMER. You have nothing whatever to do with the labor question? Mr. SILCOX. We have a suborganization within it with a closedshop group who negotiate all the contracts. They have the control of the labor policy; and then there is an open-shop group that has complete control of its labor policy, but the main organization does not touch the question of labor. Mr. BLOOM. That tariff proposition would not be a matter for Congress, anyway. It would come before the Tariff Commission, and they could regulate it at will. Mr. SILCOX. Does the Tariff Commission still exist? Mr. BLOOM. You are referring to last Saturday's affair? Mr. SILCOX. Yes. Mr. HAMMER. That is only temporary. Mr. BLOOM. You represent nonunion shops as well? Mr. SILCOX. Yes; we represent both groups. There is no question of labor policy involved. Mr. HAMMER. My recollection is that I have received a number of circulars, and that Members of Congress and newspapers have received them, from the United Typothetae of America. What is it you are writing us about? Mr. SILCOX. I do not know. The organization is quite large. I do not know what they were writing about at that particular time. Mr. HAMMER. I know that most of you come here, and each fellow's purpose is to get legislation for his particular benefit. Mr. SILCOX. Oh, yes; that is frankly the case. I am here to represent the printers and ask for a manufacturing clause that protects their particular interests. Mr. BLOOM. But still you are willing to admit that if you do not get that which you ask for, that can be protected in the tariff? Mr. SILCOX. Yes; that will afford some protection, unquestionably; but we ask for the additional protection in the form of a manufacturing clause.. STATEMENT OF MR. ALFRED A. KNOPF Mr. KNOPF. I think it is very unfortunate, gentlemen, that so much of an impression has gotten around that we American publishers are particularly interested in the rights or privileges of English authors. I think that English authors are quite able to take care of themselves. The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent? Mr. KNOPF. My own firm. I myself am heartily in favor of this bill that Mr. Solberg has drawn and am extremely anxious to see us in the Berne Convention. I think that is very much the most important factor that has to be considered here. On the other hand, like my colleagues, I am opposed to section 41 of this bill. I think, among other things, that section 41 that is written in the bill, as it stands, might well defeat the very purpose of the bill. The primary purpose of the bill is to get us into the Berne Convention, because it in effect discriminates against British authors. Mind you, I am not for a moment arguing in favor of the British author or trying to protect his rights in the matter. Mr. REID. They discriminate against us. Mr. KNOPF. You miss my point. My point is that I fear that the Berne Convention would decide that a copyright law which involves such discrimination would be regarded as contrary to the Berne Convention. Mr. REID. England is in the Berne Convention, and still they discriminate. Mr. KNOPF. Just how? Mr. REID. Do they? Mr. KNOPF. No; they do not. Mr. BLOOM. Did you say that England is not in the Berne Convention? Mr. KNOPF. It is. We feel that there are great advantages accruing to ourselves as publishers, to authors, and to American citizens and readers generally through the American manufacture of books of all kinds, books of all authors, and books by foreign authors and translations, and the more literature from everywhere that can be made available the better it will be for Americans. I have the feeling myself that if section 41 remains as it is it will result in the increased sale in this country of English editions of English authors, resulting indirectly if not directly in a somewhat decreased sale for books by American authors. For example, the current cheap edition of a novel in England to-day sells at 2 shillings, speaking of a book primarily by an English author. The current cheap edition of a novel in this country, whether by an American or by an English author, sells for 75 cents, a difference approximately of 33% per cent. I think that a great many books, particularly novels, are bought on the basis of price, and that if it were possible for the American reader by and large to buy English novels for 33% per cent less than American novels they would naturally buy the English novels. Mr. REID. What do you mean by the statement that in this country the English novel is 33% per cent less? |