Lapas attēli

Other sources of income for composers, such as sheet music, are small. The fact is that careers in music would often be impossible without performance royalties. They are the mainstay for many composers.

In deciding how to apportion the writers' share of ASCAP's rer. enues, the most successful popular writers do something unique as far as I know-they encourage the development of other writers by a distribution system which channels money from those who earn most to those who earn less.

Specifically, the 100 or so writers who receive the most "performance credits" in the ASCAP survey of performances receive less than the amount they would receive if they were paid on the same basis as all other writers. These sums "flow down" to writers whose works do not enjoy equal commercial success.

Money, after all, is the essential encouragement one must have. It permits the writer, especially the beginner, to keep writing when, otherwise, he might have to give up his profession.

ASCAP's members have agreed to distribute 10 times as much to writers and publishers of serious music as this music earns from licensing performances in concerts and recitals. The money used for this purpose obviously comes from ASCAP's other licensees. These include "general" licensees, such as restaurants, hotels, and taverns, and would include receipts from jukebox operators. Accordingly, the fees ASCAP would receive for jukebox performances under the general revision bill are of vital interest to me and to other serious composers.

And there are other reasons. There is the international aspect-we Americans receive far more for foreign performances of our works than we pay to foreign creators for American performances. Jukebox performances abroad earn money for our composers; why should we do less for theirs ?

Why, indeed, should we be parsimonious toward our creators in any aspect of our copyright law? As one who has devoted his life to the creation of music, I am deeply concerned about the term of copyright protection. I am told that some witnesses have appeared before this committee to argue against the term of life plus 50 years which you have proposed, Mr. Chairman, in your bill, and which is consistent with the terms in virtually all civilized countries.

My own first work was published in 1921. In the absence of enactment of this bill, or of a further extension bill, this work of mine will go into the public domain in the United States in 1977. Elsewhere in the world, its copyright term will run at least 50 years after my death. I submit that the United States should protect works of authorshin at least as long as most other nations.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the achievements of Americans in literature, painting, and music are measures of the greatness of our Nation. They are honored around the world and we can all be proud of them.

You have a rare opportunity: Most people are not in a position to offer more than lip service to the Nation's creators, men and women in every State, large and small. On this eve of our Bicentennial you can carry out the intention of the framers of our Constitution. In considering each of the solutions to the complex issues confronting you, the questions I should like you to repeat to yourself are: Is it fair to authors? Does it, in fact, carry out the famous constitutional mandate

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries?

Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Copland follows:]



Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Copland, and I reside in Peekskill, New York.

I am a composer, author, conductor, and teacher and a member of the National Institute of Arts and Letters and the American Academy of Arts and Letters.

I appear today as a spokesman for the 23,000 members of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, on whose Board of Directors I have served since 1973. However, I believe I speak for all composers, authors, and publishers of music and, indeed, that the point of view I shall express is, in fact, the point of view of everyone who has looked at the juke box question, with the sole exception, of course, of the juke box industry.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my personal appreciation of your extraordinary efforts on behalf of authors and composers over the past dozen years. I believe all creators owe you a large debt.

I hope my statement will accomplish two things: first, to state succinctly ASCAP's position on the juke box issue and, second, to set forth briefly some facts about the world of music which are not generally known.

For many years ASCAP and other organizations representing composers sought a change in the 1909 copyright law so that royalties would be earned when the public paid to hear our music played on juke boxes. Fortunately, we no longer have to concern ourselves with the basic question in dispute over those many years-whether juke box operators should pay any performance fees. They now agree to pay $8 per year per juke box

Thus, the only question now is whether the $8 fee should be frozen by statute or subject to periodic review and adjustment, up or down, as the facts may warrant. Last year the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended such review by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, subject to veto by either House of Congress. We favor that approach.

The origin of the $8 per year provision in the present bill is well-known. In 1967, for the first time, the prospects for enactment of a general Copyright Revision Bill were good, but there were two problems the fee to be paid for juke box performances and how cable television should be treated. To resolve the juke box issue, we and other licensing organizations agreed with the juke box industry that their fee would be $8 per box per year- substantially less than the $19 to $20 fee recommended by this Subcommittee in 1966.

The bill, as so amended, passed the Ilouse--with the cable television provisions deleted—but the Senate failed to act. The $8 fee for the 500,000 juke boxes then in use would have produced $4 million per year in license fees. That's a total of $28 million for the period 1968 through 1974. Because the bill was not enacted, not a penny has been paid for performance fees,

Your bill, Mr. Chairman, is the same as the bill passed by the Senate in September, 1974. As a result of a last-minute amendment on the Senate floor, the juke box provision ($ 116) was changed so that the $8 fee would not be subject to periodic review and adjustment by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal.

ASCAP's position, then, is that we support H.R. 2223 with a single change: we urge that 8 116 be amended and restored to the form in which it won Senate Judiciary Committee approval. The juke box fee should not be frozen by statute. It should be treated the same as the other statutory fees- the mechanical fee ($ 115) and the cable television fee (8 111). Congress is too busy to be burdened with periodic review and adjustment of copyright royalty rates as economic conditions change. Such adjustments are best left to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal

Mr. Chairman, it would not surprise or disappoint me if, when my name was listed as a witness on this issue, you and the other members of the committee were puzzled as to why my fellow composers would call on me, or why I would agree, to speak for them when I am better known to concert audiences than to

57-786 0.76 • pt. 1 . 25

those who drop their quarters, half-dollans and, I am told, even their dolar bills, into juke boxes.

The answer is that the world of serious music is much closer to, and me dependent on, the world of popular music than is generally realized Tap preciate why this is s and how "serious' composers stand to share in royale paid by juke box operators it is necessary to understand how ASCAP and .. lar licensing organizations function.

We must start with the reason for ASCAP's existence. Since 1914 ASCAP has provided an essential public service. It is a clearinghouse through w composers, authors and publishers, and liners of copyrighted music, aume taugrut to issue or to obtain licenses for performance of music. ASAP prurido mechanism through which performance rights can be marketed in bus at enormous savings over the costs that individual negotiations would necessary entail.

ASCAP, members grant the Society the nonexclusive right to lienettet works to all who perform them publicly for profit. ASCAP's licensing arta: ments now extend to over 35.(M) users of music, ranging from the tavern wit who may use records, tapes, a single instrumentalist or an orchestra, to three television networks.

To ensure that the various license fees are fair, ASCAP has voluptari'y entered into a convent Judgment in United State* V. ANCAP (Civ. 13 March 14, 1850, S.D.V.Y.), which prorides for judicial determination of a reasonable license fee if ISCAP and any unr fail to reach agreement of counsel, Mr. Bernard Korman. can give you details on how this provision las worked over the past twenty-five years,

ASCAP licenses are valuable to users precisely beause they couver many ( positions the works of all of ISCIP's members and the works of tens of the sands of music creators who belong to similar foreign morieties with wood AS('AP is attiliated in all parts of the world.

ASCAP members include com mers of serious music, rock n' roll, the great American standards, kurie frota Bruadway shows, tìm music, religioos r. jazz, country and western- inderd, all music,

The wide diversity of ISCIP membership is reflerted not only in the differvat types of music, but also in the different degree of achievement member. P ÍN open to any writer who has had one cumposition published or recorded, and to any publishes who assumes the normal financial risk of the business Amunt ingly. the membership includes the most wommercially sucrful, there who have only one or two oful work over their lifetimes, and those who Deser a single successful work. The publishers, too, range from the most sorryful to the struggling operation which may never show a proot ANCAP is not a cortation. We are an unincorporated, nonproge membership

Xiation- really, a kind of m**rative. After operating expertise arr dedosta, amounts are set aside for foreign Néxieties to pay their memten All rilaik. revenues are dintributed to the memn , 5000 to the writers and to tbm publishers. The distributions are based on an objective survey of serfirman Again, our Counsel can explain this distribution system in more detail 1 fuu wish

Many of us who create music rely primarily on our copyright royalties for our livelihow. In addition to our mrformance royalties We Also River rosalcie But it is important for you to realize that revni wale went ! companies and performen more than they benefit writers and publishers (or sider the mehanical ruvalty inne partied by writers and publishers no & nurd that se!!s one milliofi - there are not many- and nemet tat al the print than:'11 intilory few of % Imrand, the polisher wouid rurit

Other sury of inaume fist VII. Ew

hash music are small There te that are in music world often be irr ible without performance royalties They are the main fenn many plan

I have met*]1.1 t diretat kinds of misle in the ASAP itan

fremler fairly for the autribution his work make to 1* regnary

in fetting her fix wartten the writen shape OLAN IP rent the num #tyful ar wr. des 10 hunk onlijun is far as I know they en the developartit of flirt writen by a distribution system which channels Lukory from the the earn mit fachemp who am las

*inully the 6th honeirut or writer who pive the most performance erreix la the INCAP uri) (3&swrtorul revive less than the amount they

would revelre if they were paid on the same basis as all other writers. These sums "ow down" to writers whose works do not enjoy equal commercial succes,

Nues, after all, is the twential encouragement one nust have. It permits the ret, ***ally the beginner, to keep writing when, otherwise, he might have

ANAP writer also set aside up to 5of their share for special awards to Walen whose purks have unique prestige value for which adequate compuxa.

* *d not otherwis be raised. These awards are made by vial papeis ****!! of that.11.etler who are music pur

I las tentioned me a pets of the ASCAP distribution system which promote and revurage authorship. Writers of popular nu le have also devide that It is 10.portant to encourage writers in my area, usually spoken of an classical or srl,* Khuse

NAP lietilen have a gred to distribute ten time as much to writers and Dulwers of wrious music as this music enrns froin licTIS111 rformances in

tors and revital. The twnry 10 for this purt ou tously come from AN AP other berlines. These include "general* license, such as restaurant, hru and taierts, and would include recipe from Juke Box Operators Acrord121 te ft.S0AP would rtle for juke boxjerformanov** under the general frin bill are of vital interest to the aid to other serious commen

A..d there are other trustin, There is the internationala *twe Americans Uvije far more for foreign performany of our work than we pay to foreign real for American lirfutia naye, Juke box jrformances abroad earn money fit ir umirrn, why should we do les for thein? WT. Ince.tould we *** frimonious tomard our (rritors in any A rt refer upright IAWA one who has devoted his life for the creation of music. I am deeply (vpred about the term of copyright protection. I atu told that Be witnesses have a lred before this ('otunnitte to argue axainst the term of ste plus 30 years which you have protamsir Chairman, in your bill, and

hle eutanateat with the termin in virtually all cilind (wantrie My Art Mark was published in 191 in the alunece of eactment of this telor of a further ritron bull, this work will go into the public domain in I love tallada tes in 1977. .l.**lier in the world, it right term will run alat your aller 11) drutl Iubmit that the mited a bould protest

** of authorship at least as long amost other nations. Mr (Iran an Venets of the (unnittee, the achievements of Americans 12 1.'erat.ri, futtating and male are titres of the greatures of our natiota. T..., arr bered around the world and up tan ali be proud of thein

lave a rate of rtulit intre are not in a pition to offer mor a', lpg ly to them as arruin, 11.4 and wofit) in mery late, large

atkail On this pie of our fleraatennial you cati karry out the intention of the Irati ofer ( vetitullin In derink each of the waiutions to the crisplex Ini pentru ate!, the questa setiel like you to rent to profil arr o r te bre' il, il fait, iar) Ons lee famous fortitutiotal

'p 10 profete the ro o f Pip and y*flirts, by Muring for limen T 11.6 to Arbors and lutton to pilul Raht to their tie W.. a. T eri!

l'at you

Mr K*1* 1. Withank you, Jr. (opland, for that fine state. Art.t. Your rift for onliww.t10n is not limited to mumle apparenty.

Mr (D ND. '1.nk you, wir.
Mr. KAW13011n. If you wish to - Imanie. Mr. Korman!

Jir. KOMMA.. If I 111, 111. Charani Mr Vereer has a statement in which he nfernt

to a lot of olunur tots while in the past base urgedral of these ball) called juhe! 01 Pripta. .dtis, as the balans hrouw, has been going for a very long title. Il t.' peuple supporting the jukeborswrittoon hair len the jurbar

[ocr errors]

As you know, the Senate back in 1958 concluded that a fair fee would be between $19 and $20, and 8 years later, in 1966, the Hy Judiciary Committee came to the same conclusion. The bill as paupun by the House in 1967 provided for a fee of only $y, and that was agreed to as a compromise because authors and composers recognir the overriding public importance of general copyright revision.

I think it is important to stress that last year the Senate come to me stayed with the same fee only after providing a mechanism for patie! review and adjustment. That mechanism is the Copyright Rosa? Tribunal, which would be empowered to review periodicalls ad adjust all of the compulsory license fees in the bill, the merda!! license fee, the cable television license fee, and the jukebox live fee.

ASCAP supports the Senate committee's approach. We beliere a strong case could be made for a fee higher than sn, but we w' accept the $8 fee provided it is subject to periodic review and adja ment by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal.

Indeed, we can see no justification otherwise for any statutort fee, and certainly not for a fee of only $* for jukeboxes. Fee huid be arrived at by the normal bargaining process and, if special! cumstances are believed to require compulsory licenses and statutong fees, a mechanism for adjustment must be provided. Both sides know that if they fail to reach agreement on a reasonable fee, an :: partial body stands ready to adjust the statutory fee on the basis of a full record.

I might interject here that ASCIP has had 25 years of experiene under a consent judgment entered in the Distriit Court for the South ern District of New York where the court has stood rrads to til fres. Perry Patterson, who will be appearing later for the juaplus manufacturers, has represented clients who would have been in tutti. represented by all industry groups who have petitional the mire to determine reasonable license fees. The court has never had to deter mine a license fee after a full hearing on the merits beaut! parties have always reached an agreement.

The Music Operators of America has said in the past that " operatory could not be p erted to barrain equally with the help organizations like SESIC, BMI, and ISCAP. The fact is that lo. would ripresent the industry, and we would sit down with M0.1. 1° I envision the procedure, and work something out with them on that basis of what the current economic conditions are at the time. 1!. is the way things are done in other industries, and I we no res why the same procedure would not apply here.

There has also been talk in the past about how the rates wou'd drive jukebox Operators out of business. Mr. Verrer savs at the time of page of his statement :

(rratore power when usor p er We certainly have no Incrotire to seek few which would drive un out of busine. With the Copyright Reynity Tribunal avaliable to adjust statutory free to reasonable levels is cond.t: 108 bank subject always to reto by either House of Congo, we anticipate that the swart) would en:RAF in pwd faith mrgulintiene ud much fnir urtements in the same way that business is rondxted betwrp burers and selen

( on r surely should be very wary of writing into the new copyright law any provision which may net only be unfair at the time of enactmeni, bet which is band to trupe unfair later, punon.le codile change

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »