right bill. The hearings during those 8 years were quite voluminous, and covered every aspect of this important subject of copyright. Those hearings are available.

I understand that it is the desire of those who are sponsoring this legislation, the various bills, to try to get legislation at this session of Congress, if possible. From the experience we have had in this committee heretofore, knowing what a complex subject this is, if we should hear the proponents of this measure and then hear the opponents of the measure the bill would be dragged along indefinitely, because I know the ramifications of such a discussion by experience.

My thought is, though I have nothing to do with the control of the procedure, that perhaps a more expeditious way of considering this is to hear those who object to this bill, assuming that the proponents of the bill are for it, and direct our attention to those features which are in conflict, giving the proponents the opportunity for rebuttal. It seems to me if we do not adopt some such policy as that, the hearings will just drag on and on indefinitely.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, the point I make is that the public who have come from so many miles to be heard ought to know generally from the chairman your plan of dates for their hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. We have done that already.

Mr. CHURCH. I certainly as one member would insist that persons introducing a bill be first heard, because you have the whole world to resist and oppose until you hear the promoter of a bill.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not see that it makes any great difference whether we start in the middle of the hearing or not.

Mr. CHURCH. The gentleman has intimated that I am not familiar with this procedure. I am familiar with the past hearings. I am familiar with the 16 years of legislative experience. I have never sat in a committee before where you hear the opponents first. I appreciate the statement in every way here today. There is no reflection against Mr. Buck for that information. But I do think that this committee should hear the people interested in the passage of this bill first.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize Mr. Perkins.

Mr. LANHAM. May I say that I have interrupted to add that my suggestion was made merely in the interest of conserving time, because the reference in this bill is not objectionable to anyone. think it is unnecessary to have long and tedious explanations of those

passages.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize Mr. Perkins.

I

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, several of the members of this committee, particularly Mr. Lanham and myself, have been sitting in these hearings for the past 16 years. The matter of copyright legislation is now on the books. The bills before us propose changes in that legislation. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Lanham that the more practical way is first to hear the objections to the changes and give the benefit of reply to those who suggest the changes.

This is not exactly as if it were entirely new legislation where proponents would come in and make suggestions or would come in with a new bill. The bills before us are merely changes in the copyright law, and for the sake of conserving time and narrowing the issues and giving those who propose the changes the opportunity of hearing the objections, I think the method the committee is proceeding with is much better than to hear the proponents first.

Mr. CHURCH. Let us hear the program of dates of hearings, then, at this first meeting before we go into the House.

Mr. PERKINS. Of course, for the benefit of those who are here to testify before the committee and to save their time, it would be well if the committee could outline the days and the hours when the various witnesses could be heard.

Mr. DALY. May I be heard on that, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Daly.

Mr. DALY. I want to say in reply to Mr. Church particularly that as I understand the situation here, the copyright law of 1909 is not satisfactory to anybody. With the many inventions and various changes since 1909, I think everybody agrees there should be new copyright legislation. That assumed tangible form in the Duffy bill and was introduced and passed. There were a number of protests, particularly from the society represented by Mr. Buck, who are vitally interested in it. They have serious objections to the Duffy bill, they being of the opinion that it did not give the protection that should be given to various artists of various kinds.

To endeavor to get really at the matter, two other bills were introduced in the House. Dr. Sirovich introduced one and I introduced the other. So we parctically have before us first the copyright bill of 1909, second, the Duffy bill, and third, these two bills.

In order that everybody might get a hearing and the committee might be enlightened on all the aspects of this case, Dr. Sirovich outlined a program covering 4 weeks, 3 days a week for 4 weeks. All those who opposed the Duffy bill were asked to come here. All those who favored the Duffy bill were asked to come here. There may be serious objections to either the bill Dr. Sirovich introduced or the bill I introduced, before we get through. But he has, Mr. Church, outlined a program outlining the 4 weeks.

Mr. CHURCH. I am familiar with that, as to the dates.
The CHAIRMAN. You have been given the dates.

Mr. CHURCH. You refer to the fact that we have hearings scheduled for 3 days a week for the next 4 weeks. But my people from Illinois cannot come down and spend their time here 3 days a week for 4 weeks, in addition to their mileage. I have asked the chairman to outline a plan whereby these people may get together today or tomorrow and determine the dates when they may want to be here. The CHAIRMAN. Let me explain that, if you will permit me to explain it:

The program that we have outlined is to have the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, the Authors' League, and the Dramatists' League present their side. After they have finished, which will be within the next week or the following week, we are going to have the hotel owners, the department stores, the radio people, the motion-picture exhibitors and distributors, and the various other organizations who have come to our committee and who have received their turn. We wrote a letter to about 200 individuals and organizations, asking what time would be convenient for them, and we had to establish the time that would be convenient for all.

Mr. MCLEOD. Right there, all of these hearings and all of these dates are not centered on any one bill but on the question of copyrights.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Malley is very anxious to ask Mr. Buck several questions.

Mr. O'MALLEY. I yield to my colleague here.

Mr. LANHAM. I just have a question or two, which I think perhaps will simplify the consideration of this particular bill.

Mr. Buck, all music upon which the copyrights have expired is in the public domain; is that not correct?

Mr. Buck. Yes, sir. They have free accessibility to it.

Mr. LANHAM. Anyone may use that music with free accessibility without the payment of any fees to the society or anyone else. Mr. Buck. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. The society deals only with copyrighted music.
Mr. Buck. That is right.

Mr. LANHAM. These authors and composers do not assign the copyrights to the society, but the society is simply their agent in protecting them in their rights with reference to the public performance. Mr. Buck. Yes; that is it.

Mr. LANHAM. If there were no society or no central agency through which the various users of music could get access to the copyrighted music, then it would be necessary, would it not, under our copyright laws for each broadcasting station, moving-picture house, hotel, and so forth, to search out and make individual contracts with the individual owners of the copyrights?

Mr. BUCK. That is right.

Mr. LANHAM. Would not that practically make it impossible for any radio station or hotel or other important agency using copyrighted music to operate at all?

Mr. Buck. It could not operate.

Mr. LANHAM. Then as a matter of fact, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers is a necessary institution to facilitate the use for the public of the music that has been copyrighted?

Mr. Buck. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. Some mention was made, I think, of a bootblack stand. Is there any bootblack stand paying royalties to the American Society?

Mr. Buck. Never in the history of this society has a bootblack stand, a hot-dog stand, or a barber shop been approached. That is the old "Propaganda" that is rambling around bere, that these PowerTrust fellows sent up here to put a little dust in your eyes. Mr. LANHAM. Or a boarding house?

Mr. BUCK. No, sir; never a boarding house in this Nation. Mr. DALY. Mr. Buck, as I understand you, the only ones you expect to pay you are the people who utilize the product of the brains of the members of your organization to make a profit.

Mr. Buck. That is right. We do not want any barber shop, we do not want any boarding houses; we would not dream or think of one. That is a device set up by these gentlemen who brought a bill here. This bill, gentlemen, does not improve the Copyright Act of this Nation. This bill here is to destroy the American Society. That is its objective fundamentally.

Mr. DALY. There is one point I would like to ask you about:

You mentioned the fact that there are 15,700 moving-picture houses in the country, if I have the figures correct; that an equitable fee in your opinion was 10 cents a seat in each house.

Mr. Buck. That is right.

Mr. DALY. I want to ask you this, if you think it is equitable that a place as little as what you term a "one-finger piano cross-roads moving-picture house", that is, the little moving-picture houses or the little neighborhood houses that are open not every day in the week, and sometimes only 4 or 5 days in the week and never in the daytime, should pay just exactly as much proportionately as the big house that is open 24 hours.

Mr. BUCK. Well, they do not. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to put into this record that houses that operate less than 3 days a week pay 5 cents a seat per year.

Mr. DALY. That is what I wanted to get at.

Mr. Buck. Five cents per seat per year if they operate less than 3 days a week.

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to ask you one question, and I will continue your interrogation tomorrow. Mr. O'Malley wants to ask you several questions and I want to yield to him. However, there is one question I want to ask you, to see whether my information is

correct:

This statutory fee of $250, which is designed to protect the author and composer from infringement of his copyrighted material, has been in the statute books since 1909. It is a fee that some would like to have abolished and eliminated because they claim it is instrumental in causing the great "racketeering" of your society, and is imposing upon the motion-picture exhibitors, the radio interests, and the hotel interests.

I was told that in the 22 years that this society has been in existence the total amount of money that has been collected through court proceedings for infringement of this minimum statutory fee of $250 amounts to $8,800.

Mr. Buck. In 22 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that correct?

Mr. Buck. Those are the accurate figures.

The CHAIRMAN. Meaning that the society collected from all the 48 States of the United States about $300 a year.

Mr. Buck. With over 20,000 licensees.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman O'Malley.

Mr. DUNN. That is not "racketeering" at all. That proves that is not "racketeering", to get only $8,000 in 22 years.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Buck, what are the conditions for belonging to the Ameridan Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers? What conditions are placed upon the members?

Mr. Buck. Any man who has written five compositions, published by a representative music publisher, entitles him to become a member. Mr. O'MALLEY. Who sets up the list of representative music publishers? Who is a representative music publisher under your organization?

Mr. BUCK. There are about 100 of them.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Are they members of the organization, too?
Mr. Buck. Yes, sir; you can join it if you are a publisher.

Mr. O'MALLEY. No writer of music who has not had five pieces published by a publisher who is a member of your organization can belong, is that right?

Mr. Buck. There is a qualification

Mr. O'MALLEY. That is one of the qualifications?
Mr. Buck. That is one of the qualifications.

Mr. O'MALLEY. You do not contend that there are only 1,000 writers of music in the United States, do you?

Mr. Buck. No, I make no such contention.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Then you have a qualification, have you not, that no writer of music who has not written five pieces that have been published by some member of your organization can belong and get your protection?

Mr. Buck. That is not an iron-bound rule.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Is it a rule? Is it a part of your bylaws?

Mr. Buck. It is part.

Mr. O'MALLEY. You have bylaws, have you not?

Mr. BUCK. Yes, we certainly do. We could not operate, sir, without them, but that does not necessarily make it so.

Mr. O'MALLEY. It is kind of a close association, is it not?

Mr. BUCK. No, it is not a close association. Any living man can join this organization who qualifies.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Who has had five pieces published?

Mr. Buck. Not necessarily.

Mr. O'MALLEY. What is the qualification, then?

Mr. Buck. A couple of men may come along and write a big hit, and we would take them in.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Explain how a man who has written a piece of music published by some small house in Chicago, or in Milwaukee, where I come from, can join your organization.

Mr. Buck. All he does is to put in his application. We do not bar

anyone.

Mr. O'MALLEY. What happens to his application?

Mr. BUCK. He is taken in, if he qualifies. We do not bar anybody, and never did.

Mr. O'MALLEY. If he qualifies. What is the qualification?

Mr. BUCK. Congressman, the American Society is the same as the American Bar Association. There must be some qualifications. Mr. O'MALLEY. What are they?

Mr. Buck. For a man to join an organization.

Mr. O'MALLEY. What are they?

Mr. Buck. In the first place, he must write songs for a living.

Mr. O'MALLEY. In other words, he must do nothing but write songs?

Mr. Buck. Not all together.

Mr. O'MALLEY. All right. I want to get that cleared up, I want to know.

Mr. Buck. I want to clear it up, and I want to give you all the information you want on it. William C. Woodin, Secretary of the Treasury, did not devote his life just to writing songs.

Mr. O'MALLEY. He was a big, important, prominent man.

Mr. Buck. He was also a very fine composer.

Mr. O'MALLEY. I am thinking about the little fellow who writes. a piece, gets it published by some small house, and then has an orchestration made. How do they get into your society?

Mr. BUCK. They certainly can.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Have you not had some who have applied and been refused?