Needless to say, I fully concur in your sentiments and assure you that it would be most pleasing to me if, early in my administration, I should be empowered to make the United States a party to this convention.

Sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

Mr. SOLBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to state further that during the hearing this morning I received a telegram from Mr. Gene Buck containing expressions strongly favoring the copyright treaty? I should like to put this telegram also into the record. Senator DUFFY. It will be placed in the record, as requested. (The telegram is as follows:)

Mr, THORVALD SOLBERG,

NEW YORK, N.Y., May 28, 1934.

White House, care Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee:

Received wire; regret unable to be present at hearing owing to board meeting here; Nathan Burkan also tied up in court. We are both strongly in favor of treaty; believe it tremendous step forward in protection of American creators. Respectfully urge signing of treaty at this time. Enabling amendment needs clarification. We are 100 percent for international copyright.

Regards,

GENE BUCK.

Mr. SOLBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of adding to the record editorials published in the New York Times in their issues, respectively, of May 23 and April 1, and also an editorial published in the New York Herald Tribune in its issue of May 24 and one published in the Washington Post in its issue of May 26, 1934; and also editorial paragraph from The Nation for June 6; the article entitled "Copyright Justice" from the World-Telegram, New York, for June 1, and the article "A Treaty to Ratify" from the Boston Evening Transcript for June 2?

Senator DUFFY. The editorials will be added to the record, as requested.

[From the New York Times, May 23, 1934]

THE COPYRIGHT TREATY

In Mr. Roosevelt's letter to Robert Underwood Johnson on the copyright treaty he comes up to the expectations of those who covet for our country not merely material prosperity but moral leadership. The President wrote:

"Needless to say, I fully concur in your sentiments and assure you that it would be most pleasing to me if, early in my administration, I should be empowered to make the United States a party to this convention."

Taken in connection with the advocacy of the treaty by the Department of State, this declaration places the administration unequivocally with those who advocate pure and simple justice to literary property wherever produced-a principle for which American authors have always stood.

The passage in 1891 of the International Copyright Act was hailed as putting and end to the national disgrace of tolerating literacy piracy. But the reform was not complete, and although American writers have supported every legis lative advance, our statute still excludes from fair and equal security the work of English authors. Their writings may still be pirated here unless they conform to the onerous and expensive procedure of manufacture in this country of a supplementary edition.

It is thus a mistake to say that we have established international copyright. Not to do so now would be virtually to go back, so far as Great Britain is concerned, to the situation before 1891. No consideration of petty advantage or secondary interest ought to be allowed to stand in the way of a full, just, and honorable policy toward all literary property. The Senate would do itself credit by ratifying the treaty without further delay. Ratification would assure to American authors and other producers of copyrightable property automatic copyright in the 37 nations which compose the Berne Copyright Union. But it is not alone on this ground that ratification is urged. It will relieve British book

manufacturers of the compulsion of printing an American edition in order to enjoy our copyright. The typographical unions have handsomely joined in wishing to do the fair thing. In the end, that will not result to their disadvantage and will make for justice.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 1, 1934]

THE COPYRIGHT TREATY

It is not often that justice and expediency are so combined as they are in the new movement to improve the international copyright situation by ratifying the Treaty of Rome which the President has sent to the Senate. In the matter of justice, it repeals the onerous clauses compelling manufacture of British books in this country, together with the clause forbidding importation of the original edition of books so copyrighted. For more than 40 years, ever since the passage of the International Copyright bill of 1891, our British cousins have had to pay the price of being compelled to make two editions of a work, one for the English and the other for the American market, or to forego the advantages of copyright in this country. It is creditable to the typographical unions that some time ago, during the agitation for the Vestal Copyright bill, vigorously led by the Authors' League, they consented to the abolition of these two clauses in order that American authors and other producers of copyrightable property might automatically obtain the security of their property in the 37 nations which compose the Berne Copyright Union.

This change in the law is necessary in order to bring the United States into equitable relations with these various countries. Its advantages to American authors are obvious and very considerable. The treaty and the bill, introduced by Mr. Cutting in the Senate and Mr. Luce in the House of Representatives, which is in the nature of an enabling act in case the treaty should be approved, are identical. As in the case of most other countries, exacting formalities are dispensed with and copyright will become automatic from the moment of the composition of the work.

It is inconceivable that this would not give immediately and permanently an impetus to American letters-to_American writers, including playwrights and composers of moving pictures. This would be accomplished without injury to anybody and without preliminary expense. As a compensation to the printing trades, there could not fail to be a larger production by Americans for both domestic and foreign markets. This measure will remove the only blot on our copyright escutcheon and will be hailed everywhere as an advance in our national ethics. Mr. Cutting's bill would not in any way interfere with the further revision of the domestic law which is made desirable by new activities in the copyright field. It is to be hoped that the Senate will approve the treaty promptly and not leave the subject to the chances of legislative pressure and accident in a session now well advanced.

[Editorial in New York Herald Tribune, Thursday, May 24, 1934]

THE COPYRIGHT CONVENTION

The recommendation by the State Department for the ratification of the so-called "Treaty of Rome" affecting copyrights, which is now pending before the Senate, calls attention once more to the fact that for years American authors have been campaigning for full American participation in an international copyright agreement. The existing laws in this country do not afford adequate protection. At the same time they discriminate against certain foreign publications. To remedy this situation Messrs. Cutting and Luce have introduced into the Senate and House a sort of enabling act to implement the treaty when the Senate ratifies it. The purpose is to simplify copyrighting and to insure the equitable operation of copyright provisions. Under the terms of the treaty American authors would enjoy foreign copyright benefits and foreign authors would be protected in this country. Certainly there can be no logical objection to such a procedure.

President Roosevelt has already indicated his approval of the proposal. Shortly after submitting the treaty to the Senate for ratification he wrote to Mr. Robert Underwood Johnson, who has fought valiantly for this cause in recent years, assuring him that he hoped to be empowered to make the United States a party to the international convention. It is hard to see whence serious opposition to ratification is to be expected. The problem is nonpolitical and

nonpartisan. Ratification of the treaty will help rather than harm bonafide American publishing houses. The sooner, therefore, that the Senate acts on the treaty the better.

[Editorial from the Washington Post, Saturday, May 26, 1934]

THE COPYRIGHT TREATY

In its rush toward adjournment the Senate ought not to overlook the copyright treaty. President Roosevelt has expressed his interest in ratification of this agreement in his recent letter to Robert Underwood Johnson. The State Department as well as thousands of American writers and artists are urging action at the present session of Congress.

Ratification of the treaty would make the United States a member of the International Copyright Union, thus extending protection against literary and artistic piracy to a world-wide basis. Authors in 37 other countries now enjoy these safeguards. The United States is one of the few countries which still relies upon outmoded bilateral agreements which afford very incomplete protection.

It is especially important that the treaty giving this country membership in the Copyright Union be approved at this session because another conference on copyright matters is anticipated next year. The American Government ought to be represented at that gathering as a member of the Union, to foster any adjustments that may appear desirable.

In a world where culture, literature, and art freely overrun national boundaries, and many masterpieces attract world-wide attention, it is anomalous indeed to keep our copyright law on a narrowly national basis. American authors are depried of adequate protection abroad, and the American public is denied important books from other countries. With the ratification of this treaty, copyright matters will become subjected to a definite body of international law that may be almost universally applied.

Not all of the advantages arising from this treaty are of an international character, however. Together with the Cutting-Luce bill, which is designed to make our statutes conform to the international copyright law, it would afford writers, artists, and composers immediate protection everywhere against unauthorized use of their productions. In other words, copyrighting would become automatic with the creation of an artistic production. It would not be necessary for authors to follow complicated formulas to avoid indiscriminate appropriation of their work.

[From the Boston Evening Transcript, Saturday, June 2, 1934]

A TREATY TO RATIFY

Public opinion has been sufficiently massed in favor of the so-called "Treaty of Rome", involving copyright, to warrant the United States Senate taking an hour or two in which to vote for its ratification. This measure, for which Robert Underwood Johnson and others have worked unceasingly and unselfishly for years, would correct an injustice to foreign authors, and at the same time extend to American authors protection within the 53 nations which compose the Berne Copyright Union. American authors have received a meed of benefit from the passage of the International Copyright Act of 1891, but literary piracy is still possible, and a British author still must publish (print) his work in the United States to be fully protected here. Furthermore, our own authors are equally entitled to the full protection under international copyright which they would enjoy if the treaty were ratified.

President Roosevelt has expressed his approval of the treaty, and its ratification has been advocated also by the Department of State.

The issue is the extension of exact justice to authors as the creators of property, which will not exist until international law has been perfected, as it would be by the ratification of this treaty. Upon the ratification of the treaty an enabling act, sponsored by Senator Cutting and Representative Robert Luce of Massachusetts, will follow, which will implement it and remove certain discriminations against foreign publications which should not exist. Honor and justice alike call for prompt action by the Senate.

[From The Nation, June 6, 1934]

Although President Roosevelt on February 19 last sent to the Senate the convention for the protection of literary and artistic works which every civilized nation has signed except China, Russia, and ourselves, after all these months the treaty is not yet ratified. Entry of the United States into the Copyright Union has been sought for more than 20 years as the best possible way to benefit our authors, artists, composers, and dramatists. No fewer than 21 learned and scientific associations have approved it, yet the treaty still hangs fire in the Senate. Although numerous hearings have been held on it by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, it has now been referred by that committee to a subcommittee of three headed by Senator Duffy of Wisconsin, and it is reported that the subcommittee is now on the point of beginning once more to take testimony and hear those who favor and are opposed, just as if there were not already hundreds of pages of verbatim testimony available. We confess that the delay is as maddening as it is inexplicable. It is a most flagrant example of our refusal to cooperate with the rest of the world in what is simply a matter of international justice and good will. The chief protests seem to come from labor unions who insist that if we ratify the convention a lot of books will be printed abroad that would otherwise be printed here the old damnable protective-tariff principle. The only thing to do now is for the Senate to ratify the treaty at once and if necessary to defer until later the framing of the enabling act to carry out the provisions of the treaty, which is the excuse for the new hearings and the present indefensible delay.

[Editorial from the New York World-Telegram, June 1, 1934]

COPYRIGHT JUSTICE

After decades of battling writers, from Mark Twain on down, American authors and moving-picture scenario writers yet are able to protect their works in foreign lands only by publishing in one of the countries which have adhered to the automatic reciprocal copyright treaty which 53 nations adopted in 1928.

With good reason American authors are therefore now urging the Senate to ratify the treaty and Congress to amend our copyright laws in a way to make that ratification acceptable.

Ratification would be acceptable only if our statutory law ceases to require British publishers to print special editions in this country in order to prevent pirating here.

President Roosevelt, in recommending favorable action to Congress, warmly sponsored the proposals.

We hope that Congress, in taking the course indicated, will speedily remove a great handicap from American authors in correcting an injustice to British publishers and authors.

Mr. KILROE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. McClure a question. I agree with you, Dr. McClure, that once it is reduced to writing it is protected; but under the Rome Convention it is protected as soon as it is spoken and not reduced to writing..

Mr. McCLURE. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILROE. My question is whether the United States Congress has power to give protection to the spoken word. The Rome Convention speaks of literary, scientific, and artistic domain, whatever mode or form of expression, which clearly includes oral copyrights. In other words, if you made a speech on the corner and never reduce it to writing, it has copyright protection. Has Congress now the right to grant that protection for the United States?

Mr. McCLURE. You put to me, of course, a question that is of very large purport and which has not been judicially decided, so far as I am aware, and one which I can only answer by giving which is a personal opinion and not the opinion of an expert in constitutional law.

I certainly should reply in the affirmative that Congress, which has the right to protect writings, has the right to protect those things that

are under modern conditions the equivalent of writings; for instance, the broadcasting of an address over the radio.

66

In view of the great increase in the number of things that modern discoveries and modern methods of recording thought have brought about during the decade since the Constitution was adopted, and which have been acceptable as properly copyrightable under the laws, it does not seem to me that the Constitution using simply the word 'writing", which was the natural word to be used in the days when the Constitution was promulgated, would be confined to strictly something put down with a pen. But under modern conditions, if we use something like radio to. do what we formerly did with the pen, the right of Congress to protect broadcasting of the statement in the same way that it protects writing would be lessened by virtue of that word.

Mr. FENNING. May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? The United States if it joins now will join without any reservation? Mr. McCLURE. It should do so, in my opinion.

Mr. FENNING. And that will be the only important nation that is a member of the Union that has not made reservation?

Mr. MCCLURE. I have not made an examination to be sure. Mr. FENNING. So we would not go in on a natural footing with other nations?

Mr. McCLURE. If any other nation has made reservations we would go into it with those reservations that the others have made.

Senator DUFFY. The suggestion has been made and inasmuch as Senator Dill has stated that he wanted to appear in opposition, that he sort of take charge of the time for those who desire to register their opposition. That is very satisfactory to the committee, and I would suggest that those who are here and desire to express their opposition get in touch with Senator Dill, so there will be an orderly program worked out and we can finish tomorrow.

This hearing will now be adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, when the opposition will be heard.

(Thereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 29, 1934.)