STATEMENT OF SIGMUND ROMBERG, COMPOSER I Mr. ROMBERG. Gentlemen, I know your time is very short. would like to just bring out one point: For years we have been coming down to Washington begging you gentlemen to make it possible for us to join the Berne Convention; I happen to be an opera composer, and I stage productions, and my shows are being pirated in Denmark, in Sweden, in Holland, and all these countries who do not recognize any more American copyright. That is very important for my preservation and for the preservation of American composers who write productions, to join the Berne Convention. But so far, every time we are on the defensive here. We come down here to beg you to give us that protection, and we find we have to protect ourselves, because instead of giving us something we have every time to guard ourselves because somebody wants to take something away from us. I beg of you, if it is possible, to give us that protection to which I think we are entitled. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, Mr. Romberg. You are the author of plays like Maytime, Blossom Time, the Student Prince, The Desert Song, Nina Rosa, The Full Moon, and May Wine, which is playing in New York today? Mr. ROMBERG. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. If we enter the Berne Convention you would get no protection today in Germany, all your works would be thrown out completely and you would never have any consideration. Mr. KRAMER. I was just going to ask you, do they pirate your plays in Germany? Mr. ROMBERG. I am excluded from Germany. Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make this statement: Mr. O'Malley and myself, you know, when you hear of O'Malley and Dunn, you know where we come from. I want to state that Mr. O'Malley is one of the progressives and one of the most humanitarian gentlemen of the House. I want to say this about him. He and I yesterday got together. He saw me and of course I saw him. I am willing to listen to Mr. O'Malley, and of course I argued the point with him. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. O'Malley is really interested from a humanitarian point of view. He is sincere in his statements, I believe. But I believe this morning that Mr. Burkan and Mr. Buck have cleared the air somewhat. You have for me. For instance, statements were made yesterday and today about these "rackets", and so forth, going on in the State of Wisconsin. I put some of the questions to him that you have cleared today. I am mighty glad you did it. I just want to say in conclusion that you people are the ones that have been imposed upon, and the opposition, the ones who want to put this bill through, are the "racketeers." The CHAIRMAN. The meeting stands adjourned until 10 o'clock, tomorrow morning, at which time Mr. Buck and Mr. Burkan will appear. (Whereupon, at 12:02 p. m., the committee stood in recess until 10 a. m., tomorrow, Thursday, Feb. 27, 1936.) REVISION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1936 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10:15 a. m., Hon. William I. Sirovich (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Deen requested the privilege of interrogating Mr. Buck for about 20 minutes; but, since he is not here, we will proceed. Do you wish to make any statement, Mr. Buck, before any member of the committee interrogates you? Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. O'MALLEY. Yesterday, during the course of the hearing, the witnesses were allowed to interject into the record documents and papers and, in going over the stenographic transcript of the record, I find on two occasions when I desired to place into that record a certain newspaper article and a quotation from a letter, it was objected to. Now I would like to reach right at this point whether or not members of the committee who desire to place into the record certain things to support their contentions are to be denied that privilege, while the witnesses are to be allowed to place things in the record? The CHAIRMAN. It is the opinion of the Chair that in the hearings before our committee anything that is germane to the consideration of the bills that are before us ought to be admitted into the record; but anything that is extraneous, that does not pertain to the bill, should be eliminated. And in the future I am going to ask every witness to confine himself to a discussion of the bills that are before the House and matters that will clarify or amplify any sections of these bills. Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, continuing my parliamentary inquiry, I did not object to the inclusion in the record of anything that the witnesses, either Mr. Burkan or Mr. Buck, who were heard yesterday, desired to put in; but my request was objected to. So that at this point I will renew my request to place in the record a copy of the newspaper article bearing on the activities of the A. S. C. A. P. in my city. Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question there for information. Does Mr. O'Malley refer to the interview with the district attorney? Mr. O'MALLEY. That is right. Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, personally I see no objection in the world why that should not go in, except that interviews sometimes are not accurate and I think, in addition to that interview, we ought to have a statement from the district attorney as to its authenticity; because, otherwise, I think we might put the district attorney in the position of saying something that he perhaps might wish to deny or modify, and it would be a little unfair to him unless we also requested from him Mr. O'MALLEY. That is the district attorney in my district and I will take the responsibility for introducting it, and I believe his statements are quoted correctly. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will permit the entry into the record of the statements of the district attorney. (The papers above referred to will be found in the appendix.) The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Buck, you may proceed. Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, may I say something for just a moment? The CHAIRMAN. Who are you? Mr. HILL. My name is Billy Hill. I wrote Last Round Up; that is one of my songs. Can I say one thing for a minute? The CHAIRMAN. Just for a minute? Mr. HILL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead, sir. First give us your full name. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JOSEPH HILL, GREENWICH VILLAGE, NEW YORK CITY Mr. HILL. William Joseph Hill. The CHAIRMAN. And who are you? Mr. HILL. One of my songs was the Last Round Up; I wrote Wagon Wheels; The Old Spinning Wheel The CHAIRMAN. And you wish to make a statement? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I do. The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead, sir. Mr. HILL. I live at 45 West Eleventh Street, Greenwich Village, and I believe that is your district. The CHAIRMAN. That is the district I represent. Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, years ago I came to New York. Shortly after that, I was made a member of the American Society. I did not have 5 or 6 cents; I only had about 3, and my wife was very ill with a nurse in a hospital on Eleventh Avenue. She was going to have a baby. They would not bring her up to the operating room until I got there with the money I was supposed to bring. Nobody had ever heard of me; my songs had never been heard of; I came to New York friendless and nobody had ever heard of me. I worked as a bus boy; I worked at anything I could get. I went up to see Mr. Buck of A. S. C. A. P. and told him the trouble I was in and in 15 minutes I had a check for $250, and I was on the way to the hospital. My little girl is 3 years old now. They were turning off the gas on that same day and I will tell you the truth, if it was not for Mr. Buck I would have used that gas for something else. I mean it. I cannot tell you just what I mean, but that is just what I would have done. And that is why the Sirovich bill is so much more important to me than the Duffy bill. If you will please forgive me, that is all I have to say. FURTHER STATEMENT OF GENE BUCK Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman, it is rather embarrassing for me to have Mr. Hill make those statements, because we consider I consider personally things like that sacred, and I subscribe to the belief that the nicest things done in this world no one knows anything about. I want this committee to believe me when I say that. Billy is a highly emotional person, one of the great song writers of this Nation. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, so that I can go on with this, that I subject myself to any questions that any Member would like to ask pertaining to the American Society or its activities. The CHAIRMAN. Will you just cease for one moment, Mr. Buck? Mr. Deen is very anxious to interrogate you on any subject that pertains to copyrights and I am very pleased to yield the floor to Mr. Deen now for any interrogation he may wish to make. Mr. DEEN. Mr. Buck, I would like to ask you this question. Mr. DEEN. It has been stated to this committee that the amount received by your society in the past 22 years from the $250 damage provision was about $8,500. Mr. BUCK. Yes, sir; that is put in the record. Mr. DEEN. Well in view of that fact, Mr. Buck, what is the reason for the strong objection on the part of your society in having this provision removed from the existing law? Mr. BUCK. Because if you will go on back into the record of the debates before the act of 1909, the $250 provision, sir, in this law is a deterrent against piracy and one of the objectives of the gentlemen who have come before you, who have propagandized this Nation and this Congress and sensitized it, in over dramatizing this $250, is strongly objecting to me. The $250, Mr. Deen, was put in there as a deterrent because we men who create songs, it is so difficult and, further than that, do not think that that $250 just applies to the song writers of this Nation. It just so happens that the American Society is dramatized with it, but every film company, every one in this country, that applies to them. That was not put in there for the song writers of this country; that is put in there for newspapers, magazines, motion pictures, periodicals, and every user of copyrighted material. Mr. DEEN. Now, Mr. Buck, in that connection, would it not be equally fair to have a minimum damage of $250 for all automobile collisions, we will say, irrespective of the damage? Mr. Buck. I would be very glad to answer-do you mean in an automobile case? Mr. DEEN. Yes; in the case of an automobile collision. On the basis of your contention, what would be the objection to having a law with a provision of $250 for minimum damage between all automobile collisions? Mr. BUCK. I was deeply interested, Mr. Deen, when you made that observation, which I have before me, in your speech the other night on the air. Mr. DEEN. You understand I am asking for information; I am not advocating any such policy. Mr. Buck. Mr. Deen, I understand that. I want to try to answer that, although I am not a lawyer. Mr. DEEN. Neither am I. Mr. Buck. But to my mind, as an author and creator, it is so remote to me to putting a song, that is a piece of literature and cultural property, in the same category with an automobile that you would put in the ash can in a year. This Mr. Hein here wrote Home on the Range. It may live for 100 years. That is true with this intellectual property. I cannot find the reasoning The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buck, just one moment. Is it not a matter of fact that the greatest argument to be advanced for keeping in the $250 minimum as a deterrent, is the fact that in 22 years only $8,800 has been collected in the whole United States? Mr. Buck. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Why should anybody object to it when it harms nobody? That is less than $300 a year. Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But I can explain why, Mr. Deen, that was Mr. LANHAM. Is not this the fact, that an automobile collision is usually accidental, and piracy is usually willful? Mr. Buck. Yes, sir. Mr. DEEN. Mr. Buck, in connection with the chairman's statement there that it should be retained, if it does not bring the society in any money or if you are not getting anything out of it, then why be so concerned about it? Mr. Buck. I can answer that, Mr. Deen; that is the easiest thing to answer in the world. The $250 damage provision-that $250 is a deterrent against thieves who are stealing the mental and literary property of the creators of this Nation. Mr. DEEN. All right, Mr. Buck. Now, Mr. Buck, I would like to ask you a question that I do not know whether you have thought of, or not. In connection with the chairman's observation, I want to ask you this question: Our chairman is a very distinguished physician and surgeon, a very popular Member of the House and my personal friend. He has made a life-long study of the science of medicine. Now, Mr. Buck, the chairman of our committee and all other physicians in the United States receive their medical skill and knowledge from books which were written by authors and those books were copyrighted; is not that a fact? Mr. BUCK. That is right, sir. Mr. DEEN. All right. Now in that case, what would be the objection to all the authors of medical journals and medical text books forming a society and saying to the chairman of our committee "Doctor, you are performing for profit; you are using your medical knowledge and skill to make money", and to say to Mayo brothers and to all of the physicians and surgeons in the United States, "We are going to charge you, after you have paid for the books and after you have bought the magazine, we are going to charge you a certain percentage of your fees and of your income just as long as you use this mental property which may be perpetuated for 100 years, and it is valuable property." Now I want an answer to that. Mr. Buck. Mr. Deen, while we are both talking about the same thing, there is as much difference in it as the spring in a watch and spring in the air. Mr. DEEN. Show me the difference. Mr. Buck. For instance, sir, I have not heard throughout these United States of millions of piracies of medical books or of scientific |