Birdie" score); Carolyn Leigh and Cy Coleman ("Little Me" score, "Hey, Look Me Over" and "Witchcraft"). It These are some successful works. I could mention hundreds of songs that never repaid the cost of publication. I could also mention some young writing teams in whom we have much confidence and hope our judgment will be vindicated. We continue our search for, and our investment in, new talent. is costly, but the more our copyright laws safeguard our property rights in successful songs, the more we can afford to risk our capital and our organization in promoting young writers and new works. The jukebox operators claim the right of free use of our successful works although they make far more money exclusively from the use of music in a single year than all those who are engaged in the production of music make in a decade. In conducting a music publishing business, we are required to pay for everything we use. We pay for the business machines that keep the records necessary to make the royalty payments for the works we publish. Many times, the royalties we pay far exceed our profit from a work. In fact, practically all publishers of music lose money on more works than those which turn out to be profitable. Jukebox operators are not interested in our failures; there is no reason why they should have a free ride on the works we help to popularize to say nothing of the writers who may have written as many as 50 works for every 1 that turns out to be a hit. If the operators of jukeboxes are required to pay royalties for the music they use, they may have some incentive to look upon their industry as one that must encourage the creation of musical works as well as being a voracious consumer enjoying continuous free meals. The largest manufacturer of jukeboxes has indicated that it expects to receive $60 per year per machine for 240 compositions in its library. There is no indication that any of this money will go to the writers of the works. But one thing is certain: the operators can afford to pay $60 for only 240 songs (unknown songs at that) or the astute Seeburg Co. would not engage in this venture. I refer to a speech made by Jack Gordon, president of the Seeburg Corp. (described as the "world's largest manufacturer of music machines") reported in the May 15 issue of Billboard. Mr. Gordon confirmed that "jukebox collections last year were about $500 million" which he pointed out was equal to "half the total TV billings." As against the modest Seeburg charge of $60, he pointed out that French jukebox operators pay $480 per year per machine to copyright owners for the use of music; British operators pay $300 per year per machine, and German operators pay $300 per year per machine. Yet the jukebox industry prospers in those countries, and they charge, if anything, less per play than in the United States. The $60 per machine to be collected by Seeburg will, of course, be in addition to the $85 million which the Seeburg Co., according to its president, expects to gross this year from sales of its machines to distributors. The distributors in turn sell their machines to "operators" who place them in locations where the $500 million annual take is collected. The proprietors of those locations will pay at least one-half of all receipts to the operator, plus $60 per year for the 240 Seeburg compositions. Yet they refuse to pay anything for bestsellers--the hit tunes which the public demands, but which others (than Seeburg) labored to create and popularize. I know this committee has already gone on record as favoring repeal of the inequitable provision of the 1909 Copyright Act, under which jukebox operators have claimed the right of free use. I hope this Congress will finally correct this injustice. Next, may I turn to the term of copyright. American copyrights are protected abroad for a period equal to the author's life and 50 years after his death. Of course, for most works, the question of term of protection is academic; they die during infancy from natural causes. I am talking only of those rare works which appeal to all classes of people-the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the man on the street, and those who live in the more rarified atmosphere— compositions which know no limitations of language or race and which penetrate all barriers. Such songs should really have as great a period of protec tion as physical products, but it is too late to argue that. In any event, a period equal to the life of the author who created the works, and 50 years after his death, is not too much to ask for. I know you are all aware of the necessity of bringing our copyright law down to date, and I have every confidence in the fairness of the recommendations that you will make to the Congress. I urge you to give the property rights of authors as much protection as you can. Personally, I believe that this is a better approach to the encouragement of authorship than a subsidy would be. Such encouragement must be given, for in our day the pursuit of happiness has taken on real meaning for all people and music is a major factor in channeling that pursuit along desirable paths. Mr. ABELES. These provisions I have mentioned will enable us in some degree to enforce our rights against the bootlegging. It has no possible application against any legitimate record manufacturers because the law specifically states that it is applicable only in the case of violation of the law. The only one that can possibly raise any objection would be a member of the "Association of Bootlegging Manufacturers" and I see they are not listed at all. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Edwards? Mr. Poff? Mr. POFF. I was interested in your testimony relative to section 110. Did I understand you to say that you had not previously seen the present draft? Mr. ABELES. No. What I meant by that was-you see, this was not the original draft. There were a number of prior drafts. We discussed them at all these meetings, but I never saw it prior to the time it appeared in this final form and, therefore, it was not the cause of any discussion. Mr. POFF. In your statement you will furnish later for the record, will you suggest some substitute for the record for “organization”? Mr. ABELES. Transmitter. Mr. POFF. Transmitter. Mr. ABELES. Yes. Original transmitter. You see, the idea is where they have a live broadcast or have a delayed or repeated broadcast that is all right, but not for a whole organization. You can see that. It may mean a hundred people. I am sure it is a misuse of the word that was not intended. Mr. MORRIS. On the question you posed to Mr. Wattenberg in relation to royalties, I don't know whether you are aware or not but most of the music that is licensed is cleared through Harry Fox. He is agent and trustee for most publishers. In no case, I can say probably 100 percent, is the statutory rate given, 2 cents. It is less in all cases. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Because they are negotiated for a lesser figure? Mr. MORRIS. Yes; that is right. Mr. ABELES. Might I comment on that? I represent Harry Fox's office. The record company will pay 2 cents for an outstanding composition but there are instances where, in the case of a composition the publisher is anxious to get started, he will make a deal with them for a lesser sum. In other instances it is an old song that has not been recorded for years and they will make a deal on that. But they will pay the 2 cents, as I said before, where it is a composition that they are desirous of recording. Now all legitimate record companies come to us for a license. They don't serve notice under the act. You might ask me why. The reason for that is under the act they have to make a monthly accounting and we change it to every 3 months. That is the reason. In any event, even though they pay the same amount as provided in the act, they come to us for the license. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank you both, Mr. Abeles and Mr. Morris. Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, sir. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now the committee would like to call Dr. Howard Hanson, representing the National Music Council. STATEMENT OF HOWARD HANSON, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL MUSIC COUNCIL Dr. HANSON. My name is Howard Hanson. I am the past president of the National Association of Schools of Music and of the Music Teachers National Association. I have been for 40 years director of the Eastman School of Music of the University of Rochester. I am a fellow of the American Academy, Rome, and a fellow of the American Academy of Science and National Institute of Arts and Letters, and the American Philosophical Society. I am appearing here primarily as the present president of the National Music Council, which holds a congressional charter and contains in its membership all of the major musical organizations in the country from the Musicians Union up or down to the American Musicological Society. I am also asked to present to the committee a group of letters from fellow winners of the Pulitzer Prize, all of whom support the proposed legislation. I have a very short prepared statement I would like to present, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that I do not need to say that I am not an authority on copyright, although I shall endeavor not to prove it. I have, however, listened attentively to many discussions of copyright problems. In a sense I suppose that I might be considered to be in the center of any debate on the subject of special interests affected by the copyright laws. I have been a composer of "serious" music for over 50 years. I have also been an educator for approximately the same length of time and have been for more than 40 years an educational adminis trator. As a conductor I have been the user of the copyrighted music of living composers. As a teacher I have taught many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of young composers, a number of whom have gone on to fame as winners of Pulitzer Prizes and other similar honors, and I am concerned for their future. As a matter of fact, the two composers who have been mentioned this morning, Charles Strouse and Gail Kubik, were both students of mine. I was very happy to be here to hear those names mentioned. In a sense I have been, therefore, both a "seller" and "buyer" of music. I have been both a producer and a user of copyrighted music. In my opinion the proposed bill on copyright represents a fair and realistic approach to the complex problems of copyright and a just balance between the equity of the creator in the product of his creation and the interest of the public. Regardless of the intricacies of law, the moral rights of a creator in the results of his labor would seem to be unarguable in a civilized country. A society which did not recognize such rights would be guilty of putting the lowest value on man's most important contribution, creation. For there can be no Sibelius symphonies without a Sibelius, no Gershwin music without a Gershwin, no O'Neill plays without an O'Neill. Any nation which denied this would soon sink into intellectual and spiritual decay and barbarism. I shudder to think of what would happen to our country if today's students of physics were studying from texts of the days of public domain-textbooks 56 years old. I should like to restrict myself to three areas covered by the proposed bill. The first is the extension of the copyright period. At the present time a writer may, if he or his publishers are not alert, lose his copyright after only 28 years. If the work were of no value this would be of no importance-hardly an ethical development. The second provision, which affects primarily the authors and composers of popular music, is the proposed abolition of the privileged status of the jukebox industry, a privileged status quite obviously the result of a strange fluke of law, by which a type of coin-operated machine, the jukebox, not in existence or even foreseen in 1909-was granted immunity from the the payment of royalties. Since this special privilege is so obviously the result of an historical accident, I had hoped that the jukebox industry would, itself, voluntarily relinquish this accidental immunity and, itself, agree to pay the author and the composer just compensation for the use of his material. I need not say that the chances that any of my symphonies would ever receive jukebox recognition is extremely remote, unless popular taste changes radically. I do not say in what direction. The third area is that concerned with the abolition of the "not for profit" clause in the old law. This, I agree, raises more complicated problems as it affects primarily the church and the school. In the case of the church the problem is particularly perplexing. Most churches are not affluent. In many the music is performed by volunteer choirs, without pay, although the minister, the organist, and the sexton usually receive compensation. Even here, however, it would seem to me more ethical, more honest, if the church were to pay a performance fee of $1 per year toward the compensation of the composers who write its hymns and its anthems. I can speak not as a composer but as a member of the board of elders of the First Presbyterian Church of Rochester, N.Y. The public schools, colleges, and universities are, in my opinion, quite another matter. Education is without doubt one of the most heavily subsidized segments of our national life. Millions-I suppose billions of dollars-of private and governmental funds are each year poured into our educational coffers. Here the term "not for profit," although perhaps technically accurate, has a hollow ring for the author and the composer, and puts education in the unenviable position of stifling the very creativity which it is theoretically supposed to encourage. Such a discouragement of creativity may in the final analysis result in the greatest harm to education itself. May I give one brief but striking example which has influenced me against the "not for profit" exemption. Some years ago we, as music educators, realized the need for the creation of new music especially adapted to the use of the public schools. Through the cooperation of a great foundation and the music educators of the public schools, we were able to launch a project which placed some of our most gifted young composers in the American high schools. Much valuable music was written, music of direct value to our public schools. Everyone was delighted with the results until the young composers realized that, because of the old copyright law, their music was literally written "not for profit." It was, in fact, written for the "profit" of the educator, for the profit of the public schools, for the profit of its students, but certainly not for the profit of the young composer who had written the music. The desire of some educators to permit the continuance of such an unethical practice seems to me to be pharisaical and, indeed, downright immoral. The subsidizing of the young research scientist presents few problems. The subsidizing of the young composer, on the other hand is, if not impossible, at least virtually impracticable. Since the young creative artist is not eligible for the same kind of subsidy available to the scientist, he must live upon the products of his creation. To deny this right is to embrace a completely materialistic philosophy. This is not the proper climate for a great country which must depend for its greater future upon its own creativity. To develop such a climate we must, I believe, see to it that creativity in the arts as well as in science and technology is recognized and rewarded. If we refuse such recognition we do so at our very great peril. In conclusion, I would like to present to the committee letters from my colleagues who have been co-winners of the Pulitzer Prize, the distinguished names of Aaron Copland, Walter Piston, Quincy Porter, Gail Kubik, Leo Sowerby, John La Montaine and Robert Ward. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you for your eloquent statement. If you want the letters to be made part of the record, we will do that. Dr. HANSON. I would like to submit them if I may. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Without objection they will be received and made part of the record. Again, thank you, Dr. Hanson. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, House Committee on the Judiciary, BELMONT, MASS., April 19, 1965. DEAR SIR: As a composer of serious concert music I am deeply concerned with the new copyright law drawn up by the Register of Copyrights, and which I understand is shortly to be considered by the subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. It seems to me that the proposed bill would go far toward alleviating certain unfortunate aspects of the present law. The provision in respect to duration of term of copyright would rectify an injustice by relating this matter to the lifetime of the composer. The proposed added protection for sound recordings is much needed, as is likewise the modification of compulsory licensing of recorded music. The status of so-called exempt performances would be given a more reasonable clarification by the new bill. Therefore, I wish to join my colleagues in voicing support of this revision of the copyright law. Respectfully yours, WALTER PISTON. NEW YORK, N.Y. Regarding the new copyright law. GENTLEMEN: As a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize I feel that it is my responsibility to my fellow creative artists to put on record my support for the new copyright law. The glaring injustice of the present law is so flagrant as scarcely to need amplification. The new law will at one stroke make the economic life |