poser an adequate return for all use made of his composition and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies, which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests.

Again, the committee in its report on the act of March 4, 1909 (p. 8), quotes one of the most distinguished of American composers as follows:

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.

The very monopolistic condition which the law sought to prevent, it is claimed, to-day exists. The evidence will be presented to you by the representatives here present of the interests affected. An organization styled "The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers," with its headquarters in the city of New York, it is claimed, controls 90 per cent of the popular musical compositions. This society, it is claimed, is managed, operated, and controlled by its publishing members. Some 16 publishers of music who hold the copyright on 90 per cent of the popular musical compositions and members of this organization are using the authors and composers as a shield for the operations of this society, which is operated primarily for the individual profit of its publishing members with only incidental benefits at best to its other members. This is being accomplished under section 42 of the law which permits the assignment of the composer's rights. My information is that the average composer takes his composition to the publisher, who buys it frequently for a mere pittance and takes an assignment of all rights of the composer. The composition is then copyrighted by the publisher, who thereafter owns and controls the exclusive right to its use, and the few publishing members of the society in this way have acquired and to-day control the copyright on approximately 90 per cent of the popular musical compositions, and by combining their holdings in this society they have established practically a complete monopoly. The law intended to afford protection to the composer. In practice the law has conferred an exclusive monopoly upon a few publishers, and the intent of the statute has been perverted.

These few publishers, operating under the name of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, are to-day demanding of every public place in this country in which music is played tribute under the provisions of the copyright law, which law reserves to the copyright holder the exclusive control of the music when played in places of public performance for profit. A license fee is exacted. Having an exclusive monopoly under the law the society is at liberty to impose such charge as it sees fit. It alone can regulate the license fee. The entire United States has been divided into districts, representatives of the society being placed in charge in each district, and its demands are being enforced by judgments and decrees of the courts under the penal and other provisions of the law found in sections 25 to 29, inclusive. To meet this situation in the interest of the public a modification of the copyright law becomes necessary. To afford the public relief from this monopoly, and to at the same time afford proper and adequate protection to the composers, it is proposed by the bill I have introduced

to completely liberate sheet and record music upon its publication and sale by the copyright holder from further contribution. The precise amendments to the law contained in the bill I have introduced are as follows:

In subparagraph (e), page 4, line 5, after the word "copyright," I have stricken out the words appearing in the law, "except in case of public performance for profit."

Again, in subparagraph (e), page 4, commencing in line 13, the following is new matter:

And provided further, That when any author or composer or his or her administrator, executor, or assign shall publish or cause to be published for sale to the public copies of any copyrighted musical composition, the sale of any such copy shall free the same from further contribution by the holder thereof to the author or composer or his or her administrator, executor, or assign, in case of public performance for profit.

Again, in subparagraph (e), page 5, line 7, after the word profit," the following words appeared in the law are omitted: "unless a fee is charged for admission to the place where such reproduction or rendition occurs."

Representatives of the radio, hotel, moving-picture theaters, regular theaters, cafés, and other interests, including the dancing teachers are present, and I ask that a representative of each interest may be heard by your committee, as well as the representatives of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, who, I understand, are opposed to the pending bill. I ask a full hearing for all.

I have covered the main points. Later I should like to offer testimony from a publisher who could not get into this scheme out in Chicago; you may call him as a witness. I would like to have you send for me later and let me show how publishers who did not get into it are treated.

Gentlemen, many of the composers and authors are good men, big men, geniuses, but by the very nature of the organization to which they are opposed, but forced to belong, they are compelled to be the mouthpieces to come around and call on you in behalf of a monopoly which is against the interests of the public.

Mr. BLOOM. Don't you see they are coming around to call on you in behalf of their own product?

Mr. JOHNSON. Only in a small way, to get their own chestnuts, you might say. Nobody wants to deprive a man of the profits of his brain. Men like that we depend on to build our dreams, to develop

culture.

Mr. BLOOM. How else could they be protected?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the bill which I have offered here will protect them in their own rights, and relieve them of the necessity of assigning their copyrights. It is an old story. Everybody knows that from the time of Shakespeare, Addison, and Goldsmith that the authors, poets, and song writers sold their products for very littleafterwards to see them become popular and profitable for others. Mr. BLOOM. If you were a publisher, would you publish anything from any composer unless he gave you the copyright? What protection would you as a publisher have?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am a publisher.

Mr. BLOOM. If I should have a song and should come to you with a song and should ask you to publish it and retain that copyright in my own name, what rights have you as a publisher?

Mr. JOHNSON. I make a contract with you, if I could, preserving my rights, but preserving the rights of the public.

Mr. BLOOM. You are merely the distributer of the author or the composer when you publish that, and the author and composer retain the ownership of the copyright?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. BLOOM. Then, what protection have you as a publisher?

Mr. JOHNSON. If you print a speech and have it copyrighted and go to a printing office and have it printed, and then offer it, it is immaterial to you whether the printer has an excess profit from your brain.

Of course the printer is a printer whether he prints an art calendar for Christmas or the latest piece of jazz music, but these music printers have created a trust. I do not see just how they expect to get by with it. I am glad the committee is considering the matter. I will present my letters later if desired, and I shall be glad to be heard by the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELTON H. WATKINS, A REPRESENATIVE FROM OREGON

Mr. WATKINS. I am representing an Oregon district; but in view of the fact there are a great many people here from out of town, and they can be heard and thereby eliminate the necessity of their staying here, I can wait. I want to be heard in connection with H. R. 6250, and the Senate bill, which I understand from Mr. Johnson's statement is practically the same as his, but it is in connection with the idea that Mr. Newton's bill carries and which is embedded in Senate bill 2600. I feel that I am in town every day, and these gentlemen are here from out of town, so they ought to be heard. I am for that bill and appear more for the moving-picture fiends, and you might say outside of the publishers.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Do you think they ought to be paid in some way?

Mr. WATKINS. I will show you that they are paid in many ways. I will show you in what ways they are protected, and I will show you something else.

The CHAIRMAN. We will call you, Mr. Watkins, before we close. (Mr. Perkins presiding, the chairman having been called to attend another committee meeting.)

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER H. NEWTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. NEWTON. First, I want to express my appreciation of the opportunity the committee has given to all to be heard on this

measure.

H. R. 6250, which I have introduced, changes the existing law in two respects. If you will turn to the copyright act, section 1, subdivision B, you will find that on page 2 of my measure, line 5, I

have omitted the phrase "to acquire or adapt it if it be a musical .work." Then if you will turn to page 4 of H. R. 6250, lines 12 to 17, inclusive, you will find this proviso, which is new matter:

And provided further, 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.

That is new matter that I have introduced.

Now, at the time of introducing H. R. 6250 it never occurred to me, and I never dreamed of any attempt under our copyright laws, to levy a tribute upon the broadcasting stations.

It has seemed to me that the air, as we have been taught to believe, was free, and if any person buying a sheet of music, copyrighted or otherwise, wanted to transmit that over the free air, that no one could come in and say them nay. So that it never occurred to me that such could be done and would be done. After introducing the bill I was informed that that was being done, and so I said that whenever the bill came up for a hearing I would suggest an amendment. Following that Senator Dill advised me that he was interested in it, and he took H. R. 6250 and added to it a clause pertaining to the radio, which I think meets the situation. The Dill bill that I refer to is Senate file 3078. Page 4 of Senate file 3078, lines 16 to 25, inclusive, inserts after the word "copyright," on line 17 of page 4, in my own bill, the word "or" and the following language, which is taken from the bill:

By use of the radio or telephone. or radio receiving sets, or both or all of them; and no additional charges or fees shall be made by any owner of a copyright or by his assignee, or licensee, because that or any other musical composition is being furnished by, or for use by, radio, or because any person or corporation is engaged in furnishing or using musical compositions by radio, and that the right to use musical compositions shall not be refused to any person because such person is furnishing musical performances for or by radio. Mr. BLOOM. That is irrespective of publication? Suppose the musical composition is copyrighted but not published?

Mr. NEWTON. Well, in that case, in order to retain the copyright it has to be published, does it not?

Mr. BLOOм. Oh, no. You can copyright or I can copyright a musical play, or I can copyright a number of a dramatic performance. Suppose I do not issue that for sale to the public, but you come to a performance and you hear that and you memorize it, although it is copyrighted, and a public performance is given. Now, is it your contention that the broadcasting stations should have the right to use that because it is copyrighted?

Mr. NEWTON. I can see your point. I thought you used the term "published" not in the sense of its being printed and put out to the public that way; but I thought you used the term "published " in the sense that if it is publicly performed, that is a publishing of the work of that artist. It is in that sense that I use it. I see you use it in a different sense. I am not so sure about that. This is the first time it has been put up to me.

Mr. BLOOM. That is the trouble in all of these bills, and the contention of the people for or against them-they do not seem to know enough about the subjects.

Mr. NEWTON. I do not say I do not know about this. I do not know about your proposition, because it is the first time it has been put up to me.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Suppose you had an article in the morning Post paper that you had written and copyrighted, retained a copy of, and published it in the Post; do you think they ought to radio and broadcast that all over to the world?

Mr. NEWTON. Yes, I do; because when a newspaper puts out a story like that they have themselves broadcasted it. I see no objection to its being repeated. I can radio it in my home. If I want to go to a church circle sociable and take up that newspaper story, maybe an interesting article, and read it. I have the right to do so.

Mr. REID of Illinois. No; you did not catch my idea. You read it in the Washington Post this morning. You get that paper and pay for it. So far as the paper is concerned it is copyrighted. Do you think that to-night it ought to be radioed and broadcasted when it has been copyrighted?

Mr. NEWTON. I think after it has been published once

Mr. REID of Illinois (interposing). What good is your copyright law if that is true?

Mr. BLOOM. Do you think the articles of Arthur Brisbane and Dr. Frank Crane, and articles of all the other authors throughout the world, should be broadcasted the same day they are published in these papers? In other words, what is the use, according to your contention, of copyrighting at all? You can send to 20,000,000 people within a couple of seconds the greatest work of Arthur Brisbane or Doctor Crane and every other writer. What is the use of copyrighting?

Mr. NEWTON. You get your return from the original publication. Mr. BLOOM. What is the use of publication?

Mr. NEWTON. It is published in 12 or 13 newspapers of the country. They get some return from that.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Why limit it to 12 or 13?

Mr. NEWTON. It is not limited. The author has sold his composition to the syndicate with which he is connected, and they publish it simultaneously throughout the country, who furnish it with the same right through that syndicate. Now, it has been published. Now, it strikes me it can then be retailed around at will in the air.

Mr. REID of Illinois. What makes the air any different from anything else as a means of communication? Why should it be taken out of all laws, any more than the telegraph or the old-fashioned telephone?

Mr. NEWTON. Here is the means of a general wholesale publication of something that has already been made public.

Mr. REID of Illinois. The best means in the world; but why should they take the product of your brain because you elect to copyright and give it to me to publish and give it to the whole world without some corresponding compensation to you?

Mr. NEWTON. You have given it to the world.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Oh, no. We have given it through one medium only. Do you think all other mediums ought to have the same rights?

Mr. NEWTON. I would think so.