Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

people so that they may be employed more extensively for the public benefit, and you can only do that by clarifying your copyright laws. To-day no author, no writer, is sure of just what he can sell, how he can sell it, and what he can get for it, and how he can be protected against the loss that will afterwards or subsequently disturb him very much by the sense of outrage or sense of injustice.

I say, therefore, that the purpose of your legislation, as I understand it, is actually to emancipate or liberate the imaginative faculties of your authors and writers, and with that thought, the metaphorical expression was an actual description of what you are attempting to accomplish.

The gentleman has asked why there might be opposition to the plan to vest in the author exclusive right to copyright and the right to own copyright. I think it is an accurate statement to say that the habits of injustice are just as fixed as the habits of justice, and just as difficult to disturb or set aside, and I know there have grown up in this country many practices or habits of injustice that it has been almost impossible for the writer to budge, disturb, or alter in any way, and we can only succeed in diminishing the effects of those practices by being put in the position in which I think the author should have been put many years ago. Without criticism of Congress, I think it has absolutely evaded its obligations and been recreant to the trust which the Constitution imposed upon it, in that it did, as Mr. Bent said this morning, secured to the inventor certain rights, but has never secured them adequately for the writer.

The music business is perhaps the most convincing and, I think, the most exasperating evidence of the effect of these failures of Congress. The song writer or composer is absolutely without the power to market his product except at the mercy or at the whim or at the decision of the publisher. I say the song writer and composer is in that position, excepting only that very small group that by dint of tremendous genius, by dint of influence and activities aside from their creative faculty have established themselves so that they can command their own terms. I mention, for instance, the distinguished composer, Mr. Romberg, who writes his own contract. They come and solicit him for his labors. There are in America approximately 650 writers of music and lyrics. Of those 650, fewer than 75 are in a position to obtain for themselves anything like equitable contracts, but those 75 are in a position to command their own terms. They get the copyright for themselves, not by grace or courtesy or consideration of Congress, but by dint of their own demands, and they are in a position to enforce those demands.

Why should you impose upon the author-upon the creator of thought the necessity for employing counsel, for employing agents, managers, promoters to give effect to his problem? Why not liberate his mind so that he will no longer be distressed and harassed by these worries and these concerns?

The music publishers, I understand, in attempting to justify the habits of a century, the practices that have gone on without interruption, says that if you take away from him the copyright you will disturb his business. I do not understand why he ever got the copyright, and I do not understand why the disturbance of his business should be more important than the disturbance of the song writer's business. Without the song writer the music publisher could not

exist. Is that correct? I mean he could not go on. Unless some man wrote music there would be no music to publish.

But the worst injustice that I find is this: The music-publishing industry has undergone a very revolutionary change in the current generation. The sale of sheet music from which the largest part of the music industry was derived some 20 years ago has diminished, I believe, by more than 75 per cent. Coincidentally, by the way, the sale of musical instruments has declined, particularly of pianos, almost by the same amount, which brings about a condition that some of your educators are thinking of very seriously with respect to its effect upon the new generation and upon the appreciation of art and participation in art. Now, these music publishers have ceased actually to be publishers in the sense in which they organized and launched their business; but they insist upon sharing or rather in appropriating to themselves all of the profits that accrue from collateral industries and collateral channels of sale. I do not know by what theory, by what logic, that right can be established or that practice can be regarded as a right; but they go on.

The song writer is without recourse. He has not the means of publishing his music because he is not a publisher, and he is at the mercy of this publisher, who not only gives to him just whatever he chooses to give him or whatever the exigencies of business or competition at the moment make him feel that he should give. I say that if you will award to the author that which is his natural right the right to own and dispose of the property that he createshe will solve his problems. I say that especially of the musicpublishing business and the author and composer of music, because I am charged here with the privilege of speaking for them; but I say that of all authors, because my entire career has been either that of an author or associated with authors, and I like to speak for all of them; and I think I do speak for all of them when I say that this is almost a thrilling moment to me, because I think that for the first time we see justice coming to the creators of thought under the constitutional provision intended to encourage them and stimulate their work. I thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you for your brilliant talk, Mr. Koenigsberg. It has been very interesting to the committee to listen to you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do I understand that the gentleman means to hold Congress to blame for their failure to pass necessary legislation for the benefit of the authors?

Mr. KOENIGSBERG. I do not know just who else can be blamed. I regret if it causes any feeling, but I can not understand that you can blame Mr. Romberg or that I myself should be pilloried. You understand I did not say this Congress; I said Congresses of the past.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I happened to be a Member of the Congress of the past.

Mr. KOENIGSBERG. I do not hold you wholly responsible. You are only one Member.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In order to disillusion the gentleman, who may be led astray by my questions, I may say that I am not opposed to the fundamental principles he has been advocating here to-day, but in propounding those principles I was just trying to bring out for

my own information as to whether or not this was a sincere regard on the part of the organization that you folks represent here to-day to protect all the American people and not alone to protect themselves, and I hope the gentleman did not misunderstand the purport and intent of my questions directed to the preceding witnesses. I thought, however, that I did detect a sense of conflict between the interests of the people and the writer or author. I do not think that such a conflict or the possibility of such a conflict comes into proper consideration with relation to the copyright bill. I want the gentleman to understand that as a Member of Congress we have got many points of complaint from the folks back home. Naturally, we are interested in getting a brand of legislation that will be for the best interests not only of you folks but for the American people as a whole, and that was the purport of my questions.

The CHAIRMAN. And I want to explain to Mr. Koenigsberg that I know of no member of the Committee on Patents and Copyrights that is a finer friend of the author and composer and writer than Congressman Underwood. He is in absolute sympathy with their cause, and I want to tell you when the battle will be waged Congressman Underwood will be down in the front rank battling with me to help the cause.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not deserving of the compliments, but I did want the gentleman to understand the fundamentals of our failure to enact legislation of this character in previous Congresses.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe Mr. Koenigsberg's bark is worse than his bite.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I hope so. The CHAIRMAN. Now, ladies and gentlemen, before I adjourn this meeting I think I would be remiss in a sense of obligation that I owe to the committee and to myself if I did not take this opportunity to express my thanks to you, Miss Sillcox, for your indefatigable and persevering work, for your persistent and watchful care, your indomitable and untiring efforts to help me and the chairman of past Committees on Patents and Copyrights, for your cooperation, collaboration, and wonderful work that you have given in behalf of the authors and composers and writers of America.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to say as one member of this committee that I think I voice the sentiments of the entire committee in saying that we are very thankful to our distinguished chairman for bringing so many learned men and women before us to-day in order that we may be better informed upon the legislation that is now pending in Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The committee stands adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock, when we will hear the book publishers and magazine publishers.

(Whereupon, at 5.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Wednesday, February 3, 1932.)

GENERAL REVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1932

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON PATENTS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to cal!, at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William I. Sirovich (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

STATEMENT OF PERCY MacKAYE

Mr. MACKAYE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the point I would like to bring out, representing the author, is the length of time over which a copyright runs.

The CHAIRMAN. One question for the benefit of the committee. Just what work are you interested in, Mr. MacKaye?

Mr. MACKAYE. I am an author. I think I published about 50 volumes in plays, poems, essays, biography; about 20 volumes of plays, 9 volumes of poems-I forget.

The point I want to touch upon is the length of copyright.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you begin, may I ask you for the benefit of some of the members of the committee who are here to-day that were not here yesterday-it seems that every witness who appeared before our committee representative of the Authors' League of America, the novelist, the dramatist, the authors, composers, and so on, stressed the concept that they believe in three things this committee ought to do: First, have the copyright in the name of the author; second, for the author to have the privilege of assigning that copyright to whomever he wants, providing that assignment is registered in the copyright office; and, third, that the author, as the copyright owner, shall have the right to license any particular part of his publication, either in part or whole, to whomever he will, providing this license is recorded in the copyright office.

Do you subscribe to those things that all the witnesses have spoken of yesterday?

Mr. MACKAYE. Yes, sir. I indorse them very heartily, especially the last, which seems to me exceedingly important.

Several years ago, years ago, I being in the library of the elder Morgan, who was showing me his collection of original manuscripts, he picked up two sheets of paper, with not very much written on them, and said "I have just lately paid "-I think he said $15,000-" for these two sheets of paper." He said: "You may notice what is written up in the corner. In the corner was written "Paid, $5." That was a poem by Edgar Allen Poe. Nearly 100 years before that Edgar

١/

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »