Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

The CHAIRMAN. Have you studied this bill before us now?

Mr. BURCHARD. No, sir; I have only, a short time ago, gotten a copy of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. H. R. 10434?

Mr. BURCHARD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything in this bill that you are specifically opposed to?

Mr. BURCHARD. Well, it is not so much what is in the bill, but what was in the old bill and what may get into this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood from your testimony here, that you are opposed to the law as it stands now, and I am wondering whether or not you are opposed to this bill.

Mr. BURCHARD. As a general thing, that is an excellent bill, mighty well prepared, and very fair. There is only one thing that I do not think is fair, and I understand my colleagues here are not going to oppose the proposition, perhaps for reasons politic, and that is the division of the composer's rights when he assigns to a publisher. The idea of this bill, as I understand it, is that the composer may assign to the publisher all his rights for printing, for making records, for radiographing, and for anything, or he may separate them, and while under the old arrangement, as I understand it, the composer assigns everything that his music produces, to the publisher, and then the publisher in turn has the right to make arrangements with record people at 2 cents a record.

I

The CHAIRMAN. You are opposed to that postage-stamp rate? Mr. BURCHARD. Yes, sir; I am opposed to that postage-stamp rate and to any rate the radiograph men may make in the same way. think, considering the history of this business, we should set aside any theories; because as Grover Cleveland said, it is a condition of facts and not a theory that confronts us, when a poor composer comes to us and asks us to spend money and energy and time in promoting his music and making it pay-because that is true in our business the same as in selling spring mattresses, and bedsteads, etc.it is the work of promoting that makes music popular. A song does not spring into popularity only because it is a good song; it springs ito popularity because, for instance, Mr. Irving Berlin puts it on the stage in an attractive way and a fellow comes out and beats time and asks the audience to sing and learn it. We do ours in a more quiet way, by advertising and sending men to dealers and having the song played and sung in conservatories and recitals; and we claim, and I claim that when a composer comes to us, especially an unknown man, as they generally are in the beginning, and presents for our consideration a piece of music and asks us to promote it, he ought not to be allowed to separate any rights as you are doing here. He ought to say, "You take the whole thing or take nothing."

I was advised I had better not speak along that line, and policy may prevent its going in, but I think it is a fair thing for the publisher that whenever a composer gives anything to us or sells anything to us for us to work on and he, as our books show, gets threefourths of the profits in the way of royalties, it is only fair we should take the whole thing and gamble on it. There are gambles in the stock market, on the race course, and other places, but there is no gamble like the publishing of music.

Take, for instance, Irving Berlin or Jerome Remick and other publishers of popular music. I am told-and I think correctlythat ninety-eight out of a hundred publications they issue fall flat, and out of the two they have to make all their profits.

Some fellow comes along with a ridiculous think like "Bananas." He can not get a single one of the larger publishers to publish it. He finds some one else out of the general crowd to take that thing and make a fortune. The wisdom of our profession was against it, but the facts brought out were that the public like it and paid, and they won.

So, if we take that gamble, I claim, gentlemen, although I am stating what will not be considered I am afraid, I think that they ought to give us everything that goes with the proposition.

But do not let me go away without stating this, that you should not permit us to be wronged by an unconstitutional law, passed by your honorable body, in all its wisdom. I do not think you will do this, although it was done in 1909

Mr. PERKINS. Has that been passed on by any court?

Mr. BURCHARD. By the the Circuit Court of Appeals in the district of New England, Justice Putnam presiding.

Mr. PERKINS. What authority have we for considering it unconstitutional?

Mr. BURCHARD. Your own knowledge of the Constitution and your

own common sense.

Mr. PERKINS. That is not a last resort, unfortunately.

Mr. BURCHARD. The Constitution of the United States says Congress shall not pass any law impairing or abridging the right of private contract, yet the Congress of the United States enacts a law which says that the contract which we make shall be at a fixed price of 2 cents a record, and I do not think we need any court to decide that with a Congressional committee like this. I was on the point of taking it to the United States Supreme Court to reverse the decision of Judge Putnam, and I was advised it could be done, and that there was no question about it.

Mr. PERKINS. But you understand, do you not, that where the right is given by law, the law can limit that right? However, I only wanted to know what your authority was for stating that it was unconstitutional.

Mr. BURCHARD. My authority is the Constitution of the United. States, which says that Congress shall pass no act impairing the rights of private contract. But I stand like Martin Luther-" on this point I stand," and I stand there on the record of the Constitution of the United States and the plain record of that unconstitutional law written in 1909.

Mr. BLOOM. You refer specifically to the compulsory licensing clause?

Mr. BURCHARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. That is the thing you are talking about?

Mr. BURCHARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. Are you opposed to the divisible copyright?

Mr. BURCHARD. I am, but I do not think my friends in the busi

ness are.

Mr. BLOOM. If I had a divisible right in my copyright, would not you, as a publisher, have the right to buy all of the rights that I have in my divisible copyright?

Mr. BURCHARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. So there is no publisher who would be really hurt or injured if this bill should prevail and a divisible copyright act follow?

a

com

Mr. BURCHARD. I think he would be hurt in this If way: poser comes in and sells the right of publishing, and only the right of publishing, and then the publisher goes out and spends some thousands of dollars and sets his young men to work and gets the song or composition popularized-brings it to the attention of the radio and record people in that way, then the composer gets the benefit of all that missionary work and can shop around with the radio and record people for prices he would not think of getting in the beginning without the aid of the publisher.

Mr. BLOOM. But that is all a matter of contract. If this bill should pass as it is now, would you not make a contract with the composer that he is to get so much out of the music rights and so much out of the talking-machine rights, and all that?

Mr. BURCHARD. As a matter of fact, we do, but we have it all in our hands to promote.

Mr. BLOOM. Is it not all a matter of contract, Governor?

Mr. BURCHARD. Yes, sir; and in that case we go to Mr. Mills and say, "We published this thing and published it for two years. We have made it popular. Now, we want to put it on the records," and I believe the arrangement is that he makes some arrangement with the record people to put it out. But after we have promoted the thing, I say it is not fair to separate those rights, but I am not going to press that point and I am not going to intrude longer on your time.

Mr. PERKINS. I did not quite catch the governor's name and official connection.

Mr. BURCHARD. My name is Roswell B. Burchard and formerly president I have recently resigned-of the John Church Co. We are publishers of the Moody & Sankey Gospel Hymns. We have published 25,000,000 copies of the Moody & Sankey Gospel Hymns. However, in the course of time, these evangelists find there is lots of money in publishing that sort of thing, so Mr. Billy Sunday, when he publishes his songs through Mr. Rodenhever he publishes them himself. We are right down now, in our business, to hardpan.

There is another thing: I earnestly hope that you will enact a provision in this law which permits us to enter the Berne convention. for the protection of our composers in publishing abroad. We have always been up against that proposition, and it is in your hands to fix that, and I believe you will, so we will get an international copyright that is effective.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, we will adjourn at this point to 10 o'clock to-morrow.

(Whereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., an adjournment was taken until to-morrow, Friday, April 16, 1926, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PATENTS,

Friday, April 16, 1926,

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Albert H. Vestal

(chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Osborne, have you a statement that you wish. to make?

Mr. OSBORNE. I would like permission to file in the record the report of Mr. Silcox, chairman of the copyright revision committee, and also the list of industries whose rights were under consideration by that committee; and I will hand it to the reporter.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, that will be inserted in. the record.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

REPORT OF ACTIVITIES AND PROGRESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT REVISION, APRIL 22, 1925, TO MARCH 15, 1926

On February 24, 1925, at the last of the four hearings on the Perkins bill before the House Committee on Patents of the Sixty-eighth Congress, when it was apparent that there was a very divergent opinion on many provisions of that measure among those who are directly affected by the laws of copyright, it was voted by the Committee on Patents that a subcommitee should be appoined to act during the recess period to arrange, if possible, that the various groups should meet in conferences, in order that as many differences as possible should be composed before another effort at new legislation was attempted. A subcommittee of five was appointed: Hon. Florian Lampert, Hon. Sol Bloom. Hon. Randolph Perkins, Hon. James B. Reed, and Hon. Fritz G. Lanham.

The suggestion embodied in this action of the Committee on Patents resulted in the calling of a meeting at the offices of the Bar Association of New York on April 22, 1925, which resulted in the informal organization which has been known as the "Committee on Copyright Revision" and which now makes the report of its efforts and progress.

The Authors' League of America retained, in entering into these conferences, the right to introduce a new measure without waiting for all the disagreements to be settled, and they have now offered such a measure for consideration through Congressman Vestal. Therefore, the Committee on Copy-right Revision believes that it will be timely to report what it has done to promote conferences for the purpose of adjusting the differences of opinion of the various interests affected by copyright legislation.

Cooperation in the work of these conferences has been entirely voluntary. The meetings have been conducted with neutrality and friendly spirit and with the intention of making as much real progress as possible. The two succeeding chairmen have been selected because of their unprejudiced attitude, and the conferences have endeavored to carry forward earnestly the idea of constructive legislation.

The meetings of the general committee were at the call of the chairman, who from April to November was Frederic W. Hume, of the National Publishers Association, and since that time F. A. Silcox, of the United Typothetae of America. The general meetings were intended to be a place for outlining policies, for establishing contacts and for recording progress. It was understood that the actual adjustments would have to take place in smaller groups working on their own initiative.

In order to keep the records accurate and to see that all had proper notice of general meetings, a secretary to the committee was employed and funds were raised to cover this expense by voluntary contributions from members who were generously interested in the cause of copyright progress.

From the organization meeting of April 22 the following quotation is taken: "To construct a plan of orderly procedure, it will be necessary to make these groups of conferees as effective as possible and avoid unwieldly or large bodies in the discussions to be participated in." It was decided, after discussion, that the committee was a conference committee and not a confirma

tory committee, and that "in all this work it is thoroughly understood that no interest in any way hampers its privileges to make an appearance in further protest to whatever the decisions may be. There will be nothing binding or conclusive about these findings, but they will bring the groups closer together toward the solution of the problem, which can only be done by a friendly and unselfish attitude on the part of all parties concerned."

A list of the conferees is as follows:

The Authors' League of America, representing subsidiary organizations of the Authors' Guild, The American Dramatists, The Artists' Guild, and the Screen Writers Guild. Address: 2 East Twenty-third Street, New York City. The American Society of Composers, authors and publishers. Address: 56 West Forty-fifth Street, New York City.

The League of American Pen Women, Washington, D. C.

The National Association of Book Publishers, 25 West Thirty-third Street, New York City.

The National Publishers' Association (periodical publishers), 15 West Thirtyseventh Street, New York City.

Christian Science Committee on Publications, Boston, Mass.

American Newspaper Publishers' Association, 270 Madison Avenue, New York City.

Music Publishers' Protective Association, 56 West Forty-fifth Street, New York City.

Music Industries Chamber of Commerce, 45 West Forty-fifth Street, New York City, representing the manufacturers and distributors of musical instruments, including phonograph records and music rolls.

Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, 469 Fifth Avenue, New York City.

Motion Picture Exhibitors, Jenifer Building, Washington, D. C. National Association of Broadcasters, 1265 Broadway, New York City; also American Telephone & Telegraph Co.; also Radio Corporation of America. International Theatrical Association, 1540 Broadway, New York City. Motion Picture Theater Owners of America, 25 West Forty-third Street, New York Cty.

American Hotel Association, 221 West Fifty-seventh Street, New York City. Committee of artists, art publishers, and art dealers, representing American Federation of Arts, American Art Bureau, and Picture Publishers' Association, 142 East Eighteenth Street, New York City.

International Printing Trades Union, Washington, D. C.

United Typothetate of America, 461 Eighth Avenue, New York City.
Employing Bookbinders of America, 141 Broadway, New York City.

American Library Association (and allied educational organizations), 86 East Randolph Street, Chicago, Ill.

The first meeting under the new organization was held on Wednesday, May 6, 1925, and the report of the chairman showed that conferences between the different groups had already begun.

The second meeting of the general committee was on Saturday, July 8, 1925, at which time the state of progress was checked up and further subconferences planned. At this meeting about 40 were present. The chairman's report indicated that many conferences had been held during the time that had elapsed since the previous meeting.

The third meeting was on Friday, October 30, 1925, the chairman reporting that progress had been made and a vote being taken to continue the conferences until all possible agreements had been reached. It was also voted to hold the next meeting on December 1, 1925. It was urged that such effort would save time and expense for the interested parties and the valuable time of the Committee on Patents when the Congress reconvened.

The fourth meeting, on December 1, 1925, was held under the auspices of the new chairman, F. A. Silcox. At this time the Authors' League reminded the committee that it had from the beginning reserved the right to introduce a new bill embodying such features as they thought desirable as a result of such conferences as they have held, and that it could not be expected that any such new bill that they would introduce would completely represent the divergent opinions of the various members of the committee on copyright revision. It was voted again that it was important that these conferences should be continued in the spirit in which they had begun

The fifth meeting of the general committee was on Friday, March 5, 1926, at which time the Authors' League reported that they had prepared a draft of a

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »