Mr. HAMMER. The principle is based on the same practice that the shoe and automobile dealers follow, but the trouble is that it goes to too great an extent.

Mr. RICHEY. I wanted to answer Mr. Reid's question. It would probably mean that a number of authors, composers, and publishers would select in the city of Detroit, for instance, the same regional collector who would look after their interests, to prevent violations and collect the license fee, but in consideration of allowing a number of composers, authors, and publishers thus to band themselves together, that man would have to come to the theater owner armed with a schedule of rates asked by each individual composer, author, or publisher, in this case fixed by Congress, and the theater owner would designate whose composition and publications he desired to use and pay his license fee on that basis. He would take out a license for the amount of and particular music that he wanted, and would not have to take the music he did not want.

Mr. PERKINS. What would happen if somebody did not come representing the man who wrote it? Would the theater owner use it anyway? As compared to buying a book or play, this stuff is very fugitive; it goes instantly.

Mr. RICHEY. I do not know whether it is, if you understand what I mean.

Mr. WEFALD. Do you mean that the individual theater owners should bargain with the individual authors?

Mr. RICHEY. Yes, sir; or through their representative if they pool their copyrights, if that is to be allowed. At the present time that is exactly what they do. He then could take the publication of each individual composer that was submitted to him, and if he felt that the price was too high he would not buy it.

Mr. WEFALD. You are familiar with the viewpoint of the small town theater owner on this question?

Mr. RICHEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEFALD. Now, is it a fact that he considers that he should not have to pay anything for music?

I

Mr. RICHEY. I can not speak for every little theater owner. suppose that that same man thinks that his films are too high, and that everything else is too high.

Mr. WEFALD. That is the tenor of every letter I have received. and I have answered some of those letters, and I have asked them what percentage of the total outlay they pay for music as compared with what they pay for pictures and they will never answer the question.

Mr. PERKINS. How many picture houses are there in the United States generally?

Mr. RICHEY. It is reputed to be from 10,000 to 15,000.

Mr. PERKINS. Do you know how many of those are paying a license?

Mr. RICHEY. That would be information you would have to get from the society.

Mr. PERKINS. There are 2,800.

Mr. RICHEY. Well, we have over 300 out of 500 in the State of Michigan that are paying.

Mr. PERKINS. So there are 200 theaters that are using this music that are not paying for it at all?

Mr. RICHEY. I could not dispute that question at all.

Mr. PERKINS. You say there are 300 picture houses in your State that pay for this music?

Mr. RICHEY. Yes, sir. I do not know that all of the rest of those are using copyright music.

Mr. REID. Do they belong to your association?

Mr. RICHEY. All but 75.

Mr. PERKINS. Then some of them in your association are using this music and paying nothing for it?

Mr. RICHEY. I do not know that, because you must remember that in computing the total theaters in the United States there is many a little theater in a little town which uses an automatic piano and tax-free rolls.

Mr. BLOOM. What is the price they pay, about 22 or 3 cents? Mr. RICHEY. The whole procedure, Mr. Bloom, of collecting the musical fee is to get all you can get, and that is the thing we object to. Mr. PERKINS. That is true of the business world generally.

Mr. RICHEY. I do not think so. If your law laid down a specific amount that could be collected, I say, "collect it."

Mr. BLOOM. You do not mean to say that the big theater like the Capitol, in New York City, or some of the other theaters, should pay the same rate as some 300-seat theater way out in Oshkosh or some other place?

Mr. RICHEY. No.

Mr. BLOOM. Well, then, do you not think that the society in making these different rates is doing the right thing to help the theater owner along?

Mr. RICHEY. I do not know what permits the right.

Mr. BLOOM. All right; we will take your view of it and give a fixed price on it. Now, then, would not a great many of these theaters you represent be hit very hard?

Mr. RICHEY. I think that price can also be fixed in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr. PERKINS. How are you going to make all the theaters pay if you fix a price?

Mr. RICHEY. Well, if some man is transgressing my rights, it is up to me to see that he does not. I do not believe this committee could assist me in that regard.

Mr. PERKINS. That is the best answer you can make on that? Mr. RICHEY. I do not know what other answer could be made. Mr. PERKINS. I do not regard that as any answer.

Mr. RICHEY. Now, I promised not to take a lot of time, although I am perfectly willing to answer questions, but in summing up the motion-picture theater owner does not believe the law anticipated or should permit the pooling of copyrights which makes it necessary for him to deal with the society, but he is willing to deal directly with the individual composer, author, or publisher.

He is not willing, nor does he believe it is the intent of the law, to force him to pay a license fee on music he does not use. He believes that he should pay a license fee only on the music of composers and publishers whose music he has found valuable in his theater.

He is confident that the law never intended nor will it permit the operation of the society whose powers are unlimited as to the

license fees that can be charged and which if allowed to continue will actually place this license fee at a prohibitive price and in addition demand that the theater owner popularize the songs in the theater or on the screen.

He feels that if composers, authors, and publishers are to be permitted to operate their collection for licenses, not individually but through a third party, this committee should fix a maximum rate. Here is another important point. Under the present arrange

ment

Mr. PERKINS (interposing). What maximum rate would you suggest? Mr. RICHEY. Per composer?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. RICHEY. That, in order to be answered, would have to be dependent upon what that composer, author, or publisher produces.

Mr. PERKINS. How are we going to fix it by law?

Mr. RICHEY. If you want me to sit with this committee, I think I can figure it out.

Mr. REID. Well, then, you come on down.

Mr. BLOOM. Suppose we should amend the law so as to exempt any moving picture theater with 75 seats or less from the payment of any of this tax?

Mr. RICHEY. There is not any such theater.

Mr. REID. Make it 300, then.

Mr. RICHEY. That does not change the principle involved here. It is not a question of money or of how much one theater pays. It is a question of the way it is being handled and the fact that we are being forced to take music we do not want.

Mr. REID. If you belong to a club, you do not have to use all the departments.

Mr. RICHEY. You can get out of the club.

Mr. REID. You do not have to take a bath because you belong to it, and yet you pay for it.

Mr. PERKINS. Did you not make an arrangement covering every theater in your State?

Mr. RICHEY. No.

Mr. PERKINS. Well, how many theaters did you make arrangements for?

Mr. RICHEY. All we could get. It was a cooperative arrangement with the society. The representatives of the society and myself, after going over the list of those who desired to play copyright music, fixed a license fee accordingly.

Mr. PERKINS. How many that you arranged for are there that are not paying the fee at all?

Mr. RICHEY. I say there must be Mr. Rosenthal has the figures— about 358 licensed.

Mr. MCLEOD. Do you feel that the authors and the people who write this stuff get sufficient remuneration for their work with the present legislation that we have?

Mr. RICHEY. That depends on how much of that remuneration goes to the overhead of the society and how much goes into the pockets of the author and composer.

Mr. MCLEOD. Is there enough going into the society to properly pay them?

Mr. RICHEY. I would think more than enough.

Mr. BLOOM. How many members have you in your association? Mr. RICHEY. I have 435.

Mr. BLOOM. Do they all pay the same yearly dues?

Mr. RICHEY. The same rate per seat.

Mr. BLOOM. Is that not just what this society is doing, paying the same rate per seat?

Mr. RICHEY. Under the present arrangement, yes; but there is no limit as to what that rate can be.

Mr. BLOOM. Is there any limit to what you can charge?

Mr. RICHEY. Yes; because a membership in that organization is not an absolute necessity to popular music being played in a theater. Mr. PERKINS. You object to paying the price for a necessity that

Mr. RICHEY (interposing). I do not believe I mentioned price this afternoon.

Mr. REID. It is against his principles to pay what his interests require.

You do not object to collective bargaining?

Mr. RICHEY. Yes.

Mr. REID. You are collectively bargaining for your society?
Mr. RICHEY. No, sir.

Mr. REID. In no way?

Mr. RICHEY. Not that I know of.

I object to this proposition of the society being able to charge a theater any price it sees fit, and I do not believe that that was the intend and purpose of the law. It was to protect the individual author and composer.

Mr. BLOOM. Do you not think it is a good idea for the Congress to make a price on the films you are using as well as the music?

Mr. RICHEY. I think that would help the theater owner a lot. There is another point which I think should have the attention of the committee, and that is this, that under the present arrangement orchestrations as used in theaters are not marked plainly, "Copyrighted," and are not so marked that the owner of that copyright or the controller of that copyright makes it clearly known that he demands a license fee for public performance. Under the present arrangement a piano player has to carry around the names of the composers and authors whose works are controlled by the society. Now, in order to prevent any theater owner from violating the law unintentionally, I think those should be very plainly marked, and such a provision should be included in the law, so that if a man wants to get along without copyright music he can do so.

Mr. BLOOM. Can you mention one orchestration of any copyrighted publication that has not got "Copyrighted" printed on it?" Mr. RICHEY. No, sir, I can not, but I can also mention to you a lot of orchestrations marked "Copyrighted" on which there is no copyright at all.

Mr. BLOOM. You said a lot of orchestrations are copyrighted that have no copyright print on it.

Mr. RICHEY. No, I say that there are a lot of copyrighted orchestrations which are copyrighted but on which the composer and author of that copyright does not demand a license fee.

Mr. PERKINS. You take it without asking?

Mr. REID. When he buys it, he thinks he has got a right to use it for any purpose he wants.

STATEMENT OF MR. R. W. PERKINS

Mr. R. W. PERKINS. My name is R. W. Perkins, of New York, representing the First National Pictures. I appear in substitution for Mr. Samuel Spring, who was unable to come down, and I would like to ask permission to file a statement.

Mr. HAMMER. How long?

Mr. R. W. PERKINS. A short statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any one move that he be permitted to insert his statement if it is short?

Mr. REID. I move that he be permitted to file it if it is short. Mr. R. W. PERKINS. It is not in existence now, Mr. Reid. Mr. HESS. Mr. Swartz yielded to Mr. Richey, and may I not suggest that Mr. Swartz be heard now so that the motion-picture producers will have a semblance of continuity in the argument?

Mr. SWARTZ. I would like to say that I hope that by granting these concessions to out of town people I am not going to lose the fair attendance I have now, because I spoke to empty benches last June

when I was here.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Miss Hunt.

STATEMENT OF MISS ESTHER HUNT

Miss HUNT. I am representing various art dealers, art publishers, and artists.

Mr. HAMMER. Where is your address?

Miss HUNT. My present address is New York City, but I have recently come from San Francisco.

I am speaking for the artists whose work reaches the public through art dealers and art publishers, and we are in favor of this bill but feel that it should do something more for the artists. It leaves us in the same position regarding protection of our works as the present bill. The protection suitable for authors does not protect us enough and we need protection of a slightly different kind.

We do not object as a rule to the borrowing indulged in by many artists. Generally it is not injurious. Nor does plagiarism which affects the authors affect us much.

Besides actually copying or reproducing our work, the greatest damage is done to works sold to the public through the art dealers and publishers by cheap imitations, usually crude and cheaply produced, which keep far enough away in details of design from the original to escape being called an actual infringement but which look very much like the same thing. Unscrupulous artists and art dealers and publishers make a business of these imitations, copying all successful work and speedily running it off the market. The public ceases to buy a fine thing after it is seen in crude imitations. Actual copying might be less damaging.