Mr. VALLEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And 617 radio stations, which have taken in over $100,000,000, have paid the sum of $2,500,000, so that the society has received in round numbers about $4,000,000?

Mr. VALLEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think, based upon your experience and nothing else, that this amount of money that has been taken from hotels, from restaurants, from radios, and from cabarets and from motion pictures is excessive?

Mr. VALLEE. Regardless of the fact that my future is with these interests which are complaining about the amounts which they have paid, I would say that they have not paid a fair proportion of what they have earned, net or gross, to the society. I feel that the amount is not excessive. I feel that it is woefully inadequate.

The CHAIRMAN. Two more questions and I am through. My colleague, Mr. O'Malley, asked you whether you believed in the Berne Convention. Now, in order to understand that principle, let me tell you that in 1879, Victor Hugo called together various authors and writers throughout Europe and formed an organization for the artistic protection of authors and composers against the piracy of their works, and the first meeting was held in Berne, Switzerland, in 1886.

The next convention was held in Paris in 1896. The third convention was held in Berlin in 1908. The last one was held in Rome in 1928, and the next one will be held in Brussels this year.

Now, one of the fundamental points put in by Congress in 1891 in the copyright bill, in 1897 and 1907, was what we call the manufacturing clause, which states that any foreign author or American author who secures a copyright for any book or publication, cannot have that book or publication published and printed unless the same is printed in the United States, in order to enable the employment of the 250,000 American working people here.

Now, if we enter the Berne Convention, which has no formalities whatsoever, the Berne Convention makes it mandatory upon us, whether we want to or not, that we must allow European countries to make and print books in English, both by cheap paper, cheap labor and dump them into the American market to compete against our books.

Now, although you have nothing to do with printing, would you be in favor of going into the Berne Convention, which would throw out 250,000 American printers from printing books in the English language and allow European manufacturers to print them there and compete with our workers?

Mr. VALLEE. Obviously, no.

The CHAIRMAN. The manufacturing clause, about which Congressman O'Malley spoke, was passed in the Senate as a part of the Duffy bill, which contains the laws of 1891, 1897, and 1909, but that in itself, even though in the Duffy bill, does not permit us to enter the Berne Convention.

So that on that basis, there are various things in the Duffy bill that are commendable, that are in our bill, and that we discussed here in 1930 and 1931, before Senator Duffy came to the Senate, but there are more features, like the manufacturing clause and the entrance into the Berne Convention, which makes it impossible for an American author or composer to protect his works, because in Germany,.

in Italy, and other dictatorial governments today our American authors works are absolutely rubbed out, burned, in the bigotry of intolerance, no royalties can be collected.

While these dictatorial governments are in power at the present time, and with such action taken against authors and composers and novelists and writers and so forth, do you think it would be fair to enter the Berne Convention at the present time?

Mr. VALLEE. I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. CHURCH. May I ask a question?

Mr. Vallee, the chairman spoke about the society receiving from these three different sources certain amounts totaling $4,000,000. Is that per year?

Mr. VALLEE. Per year; yes, sir.

Mr. CHURCH. Then, if the Sirovich bill is passed, what is your estimate as to the amount that the society will receive per year? Mr. VALLEE. I do not think it will increase it particularly. I think the amount will be the same, but at least it won't be less. Mr. CHURCH. Then it won't be of importance to you at all, will it? Mr. VALLEE. At least it gives a chance to progress to us, and in time to make more, which the Duffy bill would take away from us. Mr. CHURCH. $4,000,000 a year during the depression months is what has been received, and what would be the comparable amount in preceding years, in good times?

Mr. VALLEE. I did not quite get that question.

Mr. CHURCH. Under the present law what has been this amount received by the society during good years? You say that during the depression last year $4,000,000 was received.

Mr. VALLEE. In the past, let us say 10 years ago, the society's royalty was practically a byproduct and the men depended upon their royalty from sheet music and records.

Mr. CHURCH. Maybe I can shorten this. Do you know?

Mr. VALLEE. Not specifically; no. I think it was about one-half or one-third, but the society's check was not as important to them or as vital as it is today. Today the society's check is practically the only livelihood that a man has, and of course he depends on it for his livelihood.

Mr. CHURCH. It is a measure to help these people during the depression?

Mr. VALLEE. No, no. It is the only chance for the creator to get anything today for his efforts. There is no royalty from sheet music, phonograph records, or anything any more; this is the only chance for a livelihood.

Mr. CHURCH. The copyright law has been identical for a number of years, and it has not been changed.

Mr. VALLEE. But we have demanded more in the past.

Mr. CHURCH. Therefore, you have been operating under the present law for a number of years. During the past year the receipts were $4,000,000. I am trying to arrive at what benefits financially, compared with this $4,000,000, you will receive. If you will receive no more than that, then you will prefer no bill at all? Is not that right? Mr. VALLEE. Rather than the Duffy bill no bill; yes, sir.

Mr. CHURCH. You feel that the $4,000,000 a year is enough, and that the situation is good enough, and that you would rather have no bill?

Mr. VALLEE. If you were going to make it any less; rather than the Duffy bill, yes. I still think $4,000,000 is woefully inadequate, but rather than having it less, which the Duffy bill would bring, I would rather see nothing.

Mr. CHURCH. If there is to be a change in the law you want the Sirovich bill, because that will not only enable you to increase these amounts by negotiation—that is, there is a possibility to increase it, is there not, over the $4,000,000 and you will gather other rights. If you do not know, it is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Deen wants to ask a question.

Mr. DEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Vallee if he is for the retention of the $250 damage clause.

Mr. VALLEE. Yes, sir; we are.

Mr. DEEN. In connection with legislation which is passed?
Mr. VALLEE. I believe we are; yes, sir.

Mr. DEEN. Mr. Chairman, in that connection, I think it is fair to the committee and to Mr. Buck and to Mr. Burkan, who testified last week, to refer to a letter which was received by me on yesterday, and to have that inserted in the record, but pending that insertion, I think the committee ought to have the benefit of hearing the letter before it is offered for the record.

Shall I read it, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. DEEN (reading):

Hon. BRASWELL DEEN,

Washington, D. C.

CAMP BALMORAL ON OTTER TAIL LAKE,
Battle Lake, Minn., February 28, 1936.

Hon. Mr. DEEN: I just happened to notice the enclosed item in the Billboard in regard to the A. S. C. A. P., especially the last part where Mr. Mills says they never collect a fine when they take out a license.

I have a dance pavilion and received a notice from them to get a license. I wrote them asking the amount of the license, but before I got an answer to my question, they sent me a notice that I was fined for playing one of their pieces. I was ready and willing to take out a license but didn't know what the license would be so couldn't very well pay it until I did. When they wrote me and said that I was fined, I offered to pay a license but they refused, so I fought them in court, and was fined $250. Then they said that my license was $12.50. I paid that license for 2 years, then I received notice that my license would be $50, although I had made no change, etc., in my pavilion or policy. I wrote and told them I was ready to go to court again to find out the difference in price. I then received a letter stating that they would make the license $20 and it would always be that.

This will just show you their policy.

Even the judge who passed the sentence said he would like to make the fine $1 instead of $250.

I thought perhaps you could use this little information when Mr. Mills make such a statement.

Yours very truly,

C. J. MATTHEWS, Manager, Balmoral Dance Pavilion.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will request Mr. Mills, who will testify next, to kindly answer that questionnaire.

Mr. LANHAM. May I ask Mr. Vallee a question before that?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Vallee, if the picture shows today were running the silent films as they did in the days of old, do you think they would get much patronage?

53579-36-11

Mr. VALLEE. As a matter of fact, I think sound came along just about the time that the silent film was doomed. I have heard it said by experts in that particular industry that the motion picture, the silent pictures, were just about to fold up.

Mr. LANHAM. Let me ask you this question: Among those using the music of this society are the radio, the moving pictures, the hotels, various orchestras, in night clubs and so forth, who depend very largely upon this music for their entertainment?

Mr. VALLEE. Completely.

Mr. LANHAM. And for their income. It is not but fair, in the matter of a comparison of returns to creators and to those who use creators' works, to contrast the $4,000,000 received by the society with the amounts received for the use of their music by radio, by moving pictures, by hotels, by cabarets, by night clubs, and so forth. In other words, would you not have to take the sum total of their receipts, their gross receipts, from the use of your music, and contrast it with the gross receipts of the creators of that music, to get some relevant idea of the remuneration received by the composer?

Mr. VALLEE. I think that is a very fair procedure.

Mr. DALY. Mr. Chairman, there is just an observation or two I would like to make.

Mr. Vallee, I want to ask you this: I think Congressman Deen or Congressman O'Malley-I forget which-asked you if the conditions was not the same today as it was when the last copyright bill was passed in 1909, and you replied that it was. Am I correct in thinking that since 1909 the talking picture and the radio have materially changed the situation?

Mr. VALLEE. I would say this-you said that I said the situation was the same?

Mr. DALY. One moment. Whether the income which the composer and the author formerly received from the sale of sheet music and records has now possibly dwindled to nothing.

Mr. VALLEE. To nothing; yes, sir.

Mr. DALY. And you are materially hurt. Mr. O'Malley asked you if you opposed one clause, and you felt that the whole bill was wrong because you objected to one clause in it. If you had your choice between two boxes of oranges and one had perfect oranges, and the other was rotten

Mr. KRAMER. What kind of oranges are you referring to?

Mr. DALY. Your state does not grow any.

Mr. KRAMER. We have the best.

Mr. DALY. I am speaking of the Sunkist.

Mr. KRAMER. That is the California orange.

Mr. DALY. Do you not know that the one rotten orange would eventually spoil all the oranges in the box?

Mr. VALLEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DALY. And, for that reason, you think, and properly so, I believe, one bad feature of the bill, even if the others were goodMr. VALLEE. There are two.

Mr. DALY. Is so bad that in your opinion it will eventually destroy the whole thing. Am I right in that?

MI. VALLEE. You are perfectly right.

Mr. DALY. You were asked again if you did not know that the Sirovich bill was introduced on February 24, and you were here pre

pared to testify on February 25. I presume you have had some experience in law business. I have had some little experience in it, and it is not an extraordinary thing at all to be served with a very important document on Monday, and the lawyers stay up all night preparing to answer it on Tuesday. So that there would be nothing extraordinary in the counsel of this association being able to advise you properly on Tuesday as to the contents of a bill which was introduced on Monday, would there? There would be nothing extraordinary about it.

Dr. Sirovich, I want to make just one observation in alluding to the Berne Convention, as to what Europe can do and would do, if America went into the Berne Convention.

Doctor, is it not a fact that Italy today, with powers growing out of the Berne Convention, exercised by a dictator who rules Italy today, has taken steps so that what is considered the leading newspaper in the world, the New York Times, is prohibited in Italy?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right, and also the Chicago Tribune. Mr. KRAMER. You will find that situation also persisting in Germany.

Mr. DALY. You will find that every place where they get a chance to take a crack at us. Particularly in Italy they have made a drive against the New York Times, which is one of the outstanding papers in the world.

Mr. LANHAM. May I ask a question on that point?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lanham.

Mr. LANHAM. Reverting to the orange illustration, where one spoiled orange might spoil the entire box, let me ask you this question as an ithetical, question to that: In view of the fact that the constitutional provisions upon which our statutes are predicated has in mind the creators of artistic works, if the creators of artistic works are properly protected by statute in that constitutional provision, might not that be the leaven that with reference to copyright would leaven the whole lump? Instead of spoiling the whole box of oranges, might not the protection afforded the creators by the leaven, thus leaven the whole lump and simplify the matter of dealing with copyright legislation?

Mr. VALLEE. I believe so; yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, going on with the discussion of oranges: In my opinion, it was an apple which caused all the trouble in the world.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Vallee, what do you think of the provision in the Duffy bill which would prohibit the issuance of an injunction when a radio program has been rehearsed, in order to prevent accidental infringement?

Mr. VALLEE. I think that is a little too technical and involved for me to answer.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Vallee, in connection with the $250 minimum, which seems to have excited all the members of A. S. C. A. P., that is, the attempt to remove the $250 minimum, do you think that this $250 minimum gives the right in law for attorneys of A. S. C. A. P. to use that as a basis upon which to figure their licenses or to execute their penalties?

Mr. VALLEE. It gives a chance to protect our revenues, does it not?