which we have brought to your attention are changed, then the proposition will be that we will decide on what position we will take. I only want to emphasize that we represent practically all the authors in this country, and if the authors of this country do not want this bill, and some other interests do, we ask you why do they want the things which we do not want. Mr. DEEN. That is true with all groups, Mr. Middleton. Mr. MIDDLETON. I understand, but at the same time it is just as well for all witnesses to put forth their position. Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Berman, do you wish to make a statement? Mr. BERMAN. I want to correct one statement which I think was made in connection with the questioning of a representative of the Authors' League, that it was stated yesterday it was in favor of the Berne Convention. We are unalterably opposed to it. I just want to make that very, very clear. Mr. DEEN. Did you hear Mr. Davis' statement? Mr. BERMAN. I heard Mr. Davis' statement. Mr. DALY. I would like to have the chairman read Mr. Davis' statement. Mr. DEEN. It is about 70 pages long. Mr. LANHAM. It is just one short paragraph that I want to read. He went a little more into detail about it, but this paragraph indicates what he said: There is the further advantage that this bill provides for taking us into the International Copyright Union and subscribing to the Berne Convention. I am sorry to say that that advantage now is much more theoretical than real. There was a time when we were heartily in favor of it, because it seemed to promise some real advantages. We are in favor of it still, but we do not think it amounts to much. Mr. DEEN. That is the point I make, that he is in favor of it. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe we should get into an_argument. Mr. LANHAM. As a matter of fact, we have Mr. Davis' statement, and he goes into it further and states with reference to what some of the gentlemen think about it. He states: "From that point of view the Berne Convention is not worth very much", and so forth. I think the printed hearings will show what those men said. Mr. DEEN. That is the point I made, that he said they were still in favor of it. My statement is correct. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if you please, I want to go on record as saying that the Authors' League, representing all the authors of the United States, is unalterably opposed to the thing at the moment, whether it amounts to much or not. We hope that one of these days conditions in Europe will change, when this supernationalism will abate, and those countries will be on fairly friendly terms, but under present international conditions, we feel that it is very unwise. Mr. LANHAM. Are there any further questions? Mr. DUNN. I understood you to say, Mr. Middleton, or I understood you to make the statement, that you admit into the organization which you represent men of every nationality. Did you make that statement? Were you the gentleman? Mr. MIDDLETON. I made this statement: That the Dramatists' Guild opens its doors and gives protection, so far as the ordinary terms of contract and equitable arrangements with managers are concerned, to all authors to all the countries of the world. Mr. DUNN. I wanted to make it clear. Thank you. Mr. LANHAM. We wish to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your kindness and courtesy in appearing before us this morning and giving us this information. Will the committee members remain just a moment to take up the matter of procedure? Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which I want to bring to your attention. The agenda for the next few days of hearings has been presented, and there is a telegram from a gentleman who is set down here for April 1 that has been received. I ask that he be given the privilege of a hearing later on. That is on account of the fact that Mr. Capehart went to California, and hoped to be back soon and arranged his trip to be back by the 1st, but he cannot make it. Now with the understanding that Mr. Capehart, who is set down for hearing April 1 on mechanical devices cannot get here, then I suggest that he be given a half hour at another time and be limited to a half hour. And I will take the responsibility for it. I suggest and ask that the committee allow him to be put down for the 8th. Mr. LANHAM. What is the schedule for the 8th? Mr. CHURCH. Newspapers of the United States, Elisha Hanson, and he has been communicated with by a gentleman here who is interested in this hearing on the 1st. Mr. Hanson has stated to him that he is perfectly willing to give up a half hour on that day. Mr. LANHAM. That being the case, if there is no objection, we will assign one-half hour on April 8 to the organization mentioned by Mr. Church, and we will make a new assignment. Mr. CHURCH. Thank you very much. (Thereupon at 12: 10 p. m., the committee recessed until tomorrow, Thursday, Mar. 26, 1936, at 10 a. m.) Mr. FAIRFAX NAULTY, Clerk, Committee on Patents, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 25, 1936. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. NAULTY: I am herewith enclosing copy of resolution which was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Patents in executive session today, March 25, 1936, expressing the profound sympathy of the members of the committee to Representative Ralph E. Church in the recent death of his father. Sincerely yours, RESOLUTION BRASWELL DEEN, M. C. Whereas the Honorable Ralph E. Church, the Representative in Congress from the Tenth Congressional District of the State of Illinois, is a distinguished and valuable member of the Committee on Patents; and Whereas the Committee on Patents has learned with profound sorrow of the death of Mr. Henry G. Church of St. Petersburg, Fla., father of Representative Church; and Whereas interment and funeral exercises for Mr. Henry G. Church will be held at Catlin, Ill., on Saturday, March 28: Therefore be it Resolved by the Committee on Patents, That we express our deepest sympathy to our colleague, Representative Ralph E. Church, in his sad hour of bereavement: therefore be it Further resolved, That a copy of this resolution be furnished Representative Church and that a copy be spread upon the minutes of the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives. Unanimously adopted in executive session, this the 25th day of March, 1936. REVISION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1936 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Fritz G. Lanham presiding. At this point in the record I wish to insert a telegram that has just been received from Mr. Marc Connelly, president of the Authors' League of America, because it has to do with a matter concerning which we had testimony on yesterday. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) Hon. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH, NEW YORK, N. Y., March 24, 1936. House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: I have just returned from California and regret being unable to testify to the unfairness of the Duffy copyright bill before your committee. I regard it as unsound legislation. It fails to provide adequate insurance for the enforcement of copyrights, discriminates against American writers to the advantage of foreign writers, and, above all, promises a decided and unfair advantage to the monopolistic exploiters of the material created by the very men and women the bill has been ostensibly drawn to protect. I hope you will make this telegram a part of the committee's proceedings. Sincerely, MARC CONNELLY, President, Authors' League of America. This morning is to be devoted to the Music Publishers' Association. The time from now until 11:30 will be used without interruption by the representatives of this association, and then the members of the committee will be permitted to interrogate the witnesses. Mr. Paine. STATEMENT OF JOHN G. PAINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, MUSIC PUBLISHERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Mr. PAINE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. William Arms Fisher, who represents the Boston Music Publishers' Association, and who has been asked to speak for the National Association of Music Publishers, which is a standard group of publishers, and who has also been requested by me to make a study of the various bills now before your committee in representing my own association, the Music Publishers' Protective Association, has advised me that he will require from 25 to 30 minutes. I would like very much at this point to present Mr. Fisher, president of the Ditson Co., and repreesnting these various associations. Mr. LANHAM. We will be glad to hear Mr. Fisher. A STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ARMS FISHER, PRESIDENT, BOSTON MUSIC PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is William Arms Fisher. I am president of the Boston Music Publishers' Association, former president of the National Music Publishers' Association, and am vice president and publishing manager of Oliver Ditson Co., Inc. Since at this moment there are before the House of Representatives three separate and divergent bills that seek to amend the Copyright Act of 1909, the board of directors of the Music Publishers' Association of the United States has asked me to make an analysis and comparison of these three bills in order to discover their bearing on the music publishing industry of the country, especially on the group known as the standard music publishers as distinguished from the popular music publishers, and that section of the latter group known as production publishers. The standard group are primarily educational publishers and supply the music teachers of the country its schools; they also publish high-class music for artists, the chief choral music of the country, and the bulk of the choir music used by all denominations, together with the best orchestra and band music, as well as textbooks. The popular group, well known as the Tin-Pan Alley publishers, publish music for entertainment-the songs of the hour and dance music. The two groups are naturally divergent in their aims and business methods, but both groups are directly dependent on composers and authors, without whom they would have no reason for existence. Both groups are compelled to be constantly on the alert to protect the basic copyrights assigned to them by composers and authors and the secondary rights growing out of and derived from them. Any disturbance of copyright law, or any juggling with its protective provisions touches directly the very heart of the music-publishing industry and at the same time affects the welfare of all the composers and authors in the country, and their families as well. The three bills now before the House Committee on Patents are1. The Duffy bill (S. 3047), which has already passed the Senate; 2. The Daly bill (H. R. 10632); 3. The Sirovich bill (H. R. 11420). I will take up these bills in the order named. The Duffy bill, S. 3047: The dominant feature of this bill is that its passage would bring the United States into membership of the International Copyright Union. This would involve a radical departure from the principle that throughout our history has governed all our copyright legislation, viz-that copyright is the creature of statute granted upon registration and publication, whereas under the Copyright Union copyright begins on the creation of a work whether ever published or not. With the International Copyright Union copyright is automatic and requires neither registration nor deposit of copies nor the printing of a copyright notice and date on the published work. In consequence no one would know which of the million foreign works is now copyright and what is not, and the door to endless |