Mr. BLOOM. Why do you think only music should be free? Why do you not make everything free? Why do you just go after authors and composers? Mr. NEWTON. Because they are the ones that are creating the trouble. Mr. BLOOM. They are not coming here. They are satisfied. They are not creating any trouble. Mr. NEWTON. No. They would not have come here if I had not introduced the bill; certainly not. We would not have had these editorials in the six New York papers on the composers' association if this bill had not been introduced. I appreciate that. Mr. BLOOM. You are saying something about the freedom of the air. That is your principal contention, is it not? Mr. NEWTON. You have not permitted me yet to go on with my own remarks. Mr. PERKINS. Suppose you let Congressman Newton go ahead and make his general statement; then he will be open to general questioning. Mr. NEWTON..The right of Congress to act upon this rests upon the grant of power given in the Constitution, and that is our sole right. Now, the grant of power in the Constitution, as the courts have held, was not for the purpose of benefiting the composer or the publisher, because the Government as such is not interested in the particular fortunes of individuals. The grant of the power in the Constitution was made for the purpose of benefiting the public through promoting science and the useful arts. I take it we start out with that general premise, that whatever right we have is derived from the Constitution, and we do have it for the purpose of serving the public. Now, the next step is this: That for the purpose of encouraging genius, as it was deemed advantageous at that time, there were some 12 or 13 States which formed this Union, which had copyright laws and had issued exclusive rights to authors. I think the first American to take advantage of them, and who promoted it, was the author of the spelling book, Noah Webster. Very early, then, in the history of the country Congress proceeded to act upon the proposition. A liberal construction has been given the grant of power by the courts in reference to the interpretation of the word "writing," all of them based on the idea of serving the public generally and in the public interest. Originally the dramatist wrote out in long hand, as has been suggested here; the play was put on, and there were no sales whatever of the manuscript itself. Some people would come in, note the performance, memorize the lines, and then go out and produce a like proposition, and the work of the author would be completely done away with; which resulted in an amendment of the law to take care of situations of that kind, all of it resulting finally in our present law, passed, I believe, in 1909, which was a comprehensive revision of the existing copyright laws or the codification of some of those laws. It is that particular act which my bill seeks to amend in certain particulars. Now, you have then this question, with the idea of promotion of the useful arts and sciences, for the benefit of the public. You stimulate that by offering this right to the composer or to the publisher of that. Then you have the other side of the question, which has been considered during recent years, and which was considered at the time the 1909 act was passed, and which Congressman Johnson called attention to this question of monopoly. We come to a point where in granting the exclusive right to the publisher, or, rather, to the producer of it-which in many instances means the publisher-in the granting of that right you run into the proposition of creating a monopoly, and monopolies are considered detrimental, of course, to the public interests. So you have those two propositions on the one side the tendency to monopolize on one side and the desire to stimulate these activities upon the other. Now, it is my contention that the existing law tends toward a monopoly, and that it has been used as such; and if my contentions are correct, then it seems to me to necessarily follow that the law should be so amended as to take away these monopolistic features. Mr. REID of Illinois. When you get to the point where you will let us interrupt you I would like to do it. Mr. NEWTON. I did not mean to say that I do not want to be interrupted at any time, but the interruption getting clear off and then repeating it with something else does not give a man an opportunity. to make his presentation. If there is any question I shall be glad to be interrupted at any time. Mr. REID of Illinois. I am on your side. I am for the bill, but I would like to have the reasons for it. How are you going to reconcile the two-to do away with the monopoly or do away with this incentive of the author? Mr. NEWTON. Not to do away with it altogether, but to so restrict it as to avoid the disagreeable features of the monopoly. That is all my bill seeks to do. Mr. PERKINS. Is not the object of the patent and copyright law to give a monopoly on the work for the man who does it? Mr. NEWTON. Yes. He is the man we want to reward in order that his genius may be stimulated for further efforts. We merely want to reward him according to what he has done. Mr. BLOOM. Then you want to reward him Mr. NEWTON (interposing). Well, you and I do not agree on that.. Mr. BLOOM. Suppose he does not assign his copyright? Mr. NEWTON. I have not advocated the right of assignment being disturbed. You have taken Mr. Johnson's bill and presumed that I stand for it before I have ever read it. There is nothing of that kind in the bill. You are assuming that I have taken a position that I have not assumed. Mr. BLOOM. Have not I a right to ask you a question? Mr. NEWTON. Certainly; but you have no right to assume a position for me that I have not taken. Mr. BLOOM. What I would like to do would be to get your idea. Mr. NEWTON. If you will give me an opportunity, I will give it to you, but if you do most of the talking I can not do it. Mr. BLOOM. I have not said a word. You did not want to be interrupted. Mr. PERKINS. Let us come to order and proceed. What proposed change do you suggest? Mr. NEWTON. This proviso, "That the copyright control shall not extend to public performances of musical compositions, where such performance is made from printed or written sheets or by reproducing devices issued under the authority of the owner of the copyright," and then extending it to the radio-the same provision with reference to the radio. Now, I want to say this, That I have not any pride in the remedy that I have proposed at all; none whatever. This work is my own work and it was my own idea. Some movie men came to see me about two years ago about some matters of legislation, and something had occurred in reference to legislation here that I, in a goodnatured way, jumped on them, and they commenced to tell me something of the trials and tribulations of the moving-picture theater operator, and among them they related the fact that the musicians could purchase the music but could not use it without submitting themselves to a fine at the instance of the publisher. I did not believe it. I did not think the law contemplated that. It was new to me. After they left I took down the copyright law and read it for the first time. I had never read the copyright law before. I saw there was a great deal to their contention at least and determined that on account of the abuses creeping in under it it ought to be corrected. It may be that my remedy offered here is not the proper one. All I want to do is to take away the abuse. I do not want to take away from any of these men the rightful products of their genius. I would not do that for the world. I think that Congress-and this is a statutory right; it is not a common-law right-clothed with the power of the people here, ought not to grant monopoly except under such restrictions as will not permit of their abuse, and when I have stated that I have stated my whole attitude toward this measure. Now, Congressman Johnson read from the report of the committee, wherein they reported on this legislation in the first instance, in reference to monopolies, and as he has read it, I will not repeat it, but I want to insert it in connection with my own remarks. Let our people pay tax upon the oil, sugar, tobacco they consume; let them render unto the trusts the things which the trusts exact, but let us keep music free from a trust. Now, the question is as to whether or not under the grant of power of Congress, and the action under that power, there has been what would seem to be an abuse of the benefits and the privileges under this law. If there has not been, gentlemen, then there is not anything to my bill at all and it ought not to be reported out. If it is, then a remedy ought to be proposed. If my remedy is not the proper one, then another remedy ought to be proposed; but the abuse should be corrected, if there is an abuse. Now, here we have a number of different agencies throughout the country that are engaged in what? In serving the public. I take it that that is the main purpose of the moving-picture operator-to serve the public. I take it that the hotels, with their orchestras, etc.- -a hotel is a public place designed to serve the public, and that is true of the radio broadcasting stations. Mr. REID of Illinois. Do you say the hotels should not pay? Mr. NEWTON. No; I have not mentioned that. I was merely mentioning these different agencies that do serve the public in various. ways. Then there is the radio broadcasting station, which is new; but you can not imagine the possibilities of the radio for diffusing of knowledge among the people generally. There is no way of controlling the receiver of the news. All he has got to do is to tune in, and the air brings it to him; and then you have an institution which can not be named or described, but the various social gatherings of lodges, orders, organizations from workmen to farmers. from schools to colleges, and the churches. All of these four or five different institutions, if we may call them that, serve the public in educating the public in reference to music, and that, I remind you, is the primary purpose of all this. Mr. ALLEN. In other words, your objection is that what belongs to the public the public should control and not let a few monopolize it? Mr. NEWTON. Exactly. Here is the moving picture. There is not a hamlet in the country hardly but what has at least once a month a moving-picture show of some kind. The possibilities of education are great. I do not agree with all the shows that are put on. I do not sanction all that are used, but the possibilities are there. They use music. It is incidental to their performances. Mr. REID of Illinois. It helps to bring in the customers, though. Mr. NEWTON. Yes; it does, Mr. Reid. That is true, and yet if you will take up this morning's paper, although I have not seen it and do not know what it says, I venture to say if you will take the advertisements of the movie column of this morning's Post or Herald and glance over them, how many of those announcements of the shows will contain any reference whatever to any musical number, or any music at all? What does that illustrate?" It illustrates that in the main the feature is the picture and not the music composition. Mr. REID of Illinois. Do the hotels announce they are going to have a certain compensation? Mr. BLOOM. Why do you not let me ask you questions? You do not let me ask them of you. Mr. NEWTON. Because he asks a question and then quits. Mr. REID of Illinois. But the hotels do not announce their music. Mr. NEWTON. Being just a mere Congressman down here, I do not get around the hotels in Washington much, for it is a very poor place for a Congressman that is here with his family. Mr. BLOOM. Let me ask you a question with reference to what you have just said. If the moving picture itself is the only thing you claim that draws the crowd, why do they not leave the music part out, and use the privilege that they have a right to use, and about which there is no kick, and not use the thing that is copyrighted and which the person holding the rights to does not want them to use-if it is not an important part of the show? Mr. NEWTON. Do you want to know one reason? Mr. NEWTON. Because the paid agents of the publishing association pawn themselves off as patrons of the theater and ask the theater manager to play some popular piece like "Marcheta" when it first came out, and so the moving-picture operator, with no knowledge of the law, goes to work and plays it with the purpose of pleasing a supposed patron of his theater, and then within two weeks thereafter there is a notice from the Publishers' and Composers' Association telling them that they have been laid liable under the United States law for a fine of $250 for this first performance, and that there being two performances, the only ones held during the whole week, $150 for the second. Mr. BLOOM. Do you mean to say they do that without notice? In other words, a man plays a copyrighted sheet of music and he has not any right to play it, then the association writes to this fellow and says you are playing our music, and if you wish to obtain the right to use it you may do so before you play it? Mr. NEWTON. They do that after he has violated the right, and they have soaked him $250 for the first performance, and $150 for the second and every other performance. Mr. BLOOM. Have you one particular case in which they have tried to do this terrible thing, as it is as you say it is? Mr. NEWTON. I am advised that there are men here in the room that have any number of such cases that they can give the committee. I want to say this, that after all the complaints coming to me with reference to this, from different parts of the country (and I have them), if they can not give specific evidence on this I do not want you to take my word for it at all, because mine is hearsay. Mr. REID of Illinois. That same thing happens every day with reference to city ordinances. They are violated every day. Now, are you going to change that because somebody ignorantly goes ahead and violates it? Mr. NEWTON. Well, it has been my experience that where you put a procuring witness in the box, and use him as a witness to prove a case against a person, the person who committed the offense, you never get conviction. I never did. Mr. REID of Illinois. Well, no; but you and I do not have this situation in our localities. We can not live in Washington without violating them. Mr. NEWTON. It is one thing to go ahead and detect a violation and another thing to go to work and instigate a violation and then make money by it. I want to say, in my experience as a prosecutor in a large city Mr. REID of Illinois. What city was that? Mr. NEWTON. Minneapolis. That I never took into court a single case of that kind where a person was charged with a crime that an officer or detective instigated and induced its violation. I never would get anywhere if I had taken it in court. Mr. BLOOM. This one that you referred to there seems to be the principal composition that is always brought up. This “Marquita "is that it? Mr. NEWTON. I never heard that from anybody, but I simply mention it because around my house they play it a lot. The use of that term means nothing at all. I just happened to mention that. Mr. BLOOM. That can be played anywhere, can it not? Mr. NEWTON. I do not have any idea. So you have what? You have these different motion-picture shows throughout the country that do serve the public. They serve them in the showing of the pictures, and they entertain them incidentally, and I admit that that has something to do with people coming there. They come primarily for the picture, but in connection with it they enjoy it more with the music that is used. But, mind you, the composer of that music, the publisher of that music, |