our works being sold promiscuously to European countries without our knowledge. In other words, there might be a group of a dozen Lombardo records sold in Europe under an assumed name. Mr. Lombardo knows nothing about it until he learns from his friends over there that his own records are being played in Europe under another name, records which he has made for recording companies here. Likewise, actual broadcasts of ours have been sold in Europe, or rather, I mean recordings of our broadcasts, and in many instances in exchange for European recordings.

That matter of the exchange of European recordings and American recordings is one over which we have no control, and it is one of the reasons we are interested in the Berne Convention.

Mr. DUNN. Under the law of the various countries in Europe, if a production of an American citizen is played in one of those European countries, does he not in those countries have the right to sue the person using the products?

Mr. WARING. The person using the products has made a deal with an American product in most instances.

Mr. DUNN. If they have not made any kind of a contract, if they just pirate, just as you mention, the records are being played

Mr. WARING. He unquestionably has the right to sue. Is that right, Mr. Speiser?

Mr. SPEISER. I would say so; I do not think he would get very far. Mr. DUNN. What advantage would going into the Bern Convention be to the American author, composer and publisher?

Mr. SPEISER. May I answer that; it being a legal question I would like to take it upon myself.

The advantage would be quite obvious. If Congress would see fit to pass the Daly bill, we then could very easily say, "We will join your convention if you will give us international recognition of the performer's right."

Mr. DUNN. I am glad you made that statement; you gave me a point there. The Daly bill, in your opinion, is really of all the bills the best bill, do you think?

Mr. SPEISER. No doubt about it.

Mr. DUNN. You would be willing to put your endorsement on the idea of going into the Bern Convention if the Daly bill were enacted into law?

Mr. SPEISER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. Did you hear that, Mr. Daly?

Mr. DALY. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

Mr. LANHAM. May I ask one further question? Perhaps, Mr. Speiser, you could answer this question, you or General Ansell, better than the other gentlemen who have appeared before us, because it is quasi-legal, anyway.

Several years ago we had hearings before this committee on the bill known as the Vestal bill, and after long and rather exhaustive hearings, the various people, industries, and organizations affected by copyright legislation became so harmonized and reconciled that the committee could report and did report a bill. That bill, as you probably recall, passed the House with one very slight amendment and failed in the Senate because of the adjournment on March 4, the consideration had not been completed.

I would like to ask if in your judgment in view of the fact that the Vestal bill, which also provided for entry into the Bern Convention, was very carefully considered and passed the House, it might not be well to take that bill now as a basis of consideration and incorporate in it any new provision which it develops since that time might be required, and also any modifications that might be necessary in that regard.

Do you think it would be better to take such a bill and then take these three bills that have been presented, and then with that as a basis of consideration consider them collaterally and just work out a measure? Do you think that would be a more practical way of solving this problem?

Mr. SPEISER. I think it is the only way, Mr. Chairman. I think there is merit contained in each of the three bills before you. It would be idle to argue from a selfish standpoint that there is not merit in all three bills. I may point out that the objections to the Duffy bill, to the joining of the Bern Convention, may rest a little on racial prejudice at the time, a little on unfortunate monetary considerations or conditions that exist in South America and in some European countries. But they are not going to be permanent. We cannot legislate for 2 years or 1 year. We expect that when we join that union it will be because of the general recognition of all our rights.

I must of course say, it is obvious, that my answer is based upon a selfish motive. I take it for granted that Congress would embody in any bill that you gentlemen would redraw from all three giving rights to the performing artists. Of course, he is the only person now who has not those rights recognized. All others have already been recognized. That would be a more primary reason for us than seeking international recognition, because with the exception of the countries I have mentioned in my main argument, the recognition of the performing artist is not part of the international union.

Mr. LANHAM. From your recollection of the provisions of the Vestal bill-I do not know whether you are familiar with that or

not.

Mr. SPEISER. Oh, yes; I am familiar with it, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. Which was reported by this committee and passed the House?

Mr. SPEISER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. My question was intended to elicit information along this line, as to whether or not it would be a practical matter for this committee to take that bill which had passed as a basis for for its consideration, and use these other bills for the purpose of modifying it in such ways as it might be modified; and might not the work of the committee be reduced very greatly in that regard? In other words, so far as I now recall, at the time the Vestal bill was reported and passed the House there was no particular objection to it before this committee on the part of any person or any organization, not that it had everything that it wished, but in a spirit of harmony they did agree for that bill to be reported, and it passed the House.

General ANSELL. The Chairman mentioned my name. I have no doubt in the world but what that would be the part of wisdom for this committee to take into consideration the Vestal bill, but with

this caution: Many of the evils which I think this Congress thought to remedy had not risen to the point of destruction that they have risen now.

Mr. LANHAM. Yes; I suggested that in my question.

General ANSELL. You did. And no. 2 is, I think the committee. will find when they look over the Vestal bill, such is my recollection of it, that it was an ultra-conservative bill, too closely adhering to the act of 1909. It was not in my judgment the kind of a bill that the country at that time needed, and is much less the kind of bill that the country at the present time needs.

Mr. LANHAM. And yet, General, it did contain very many provisions for which men, women, and organizations have appeared before us in these hearings and argued very definitely.

General ANSELL. I grant you that, sir, that is true.

Mr. DALY. Might I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact, as I understand it, that the performing artist did not appear before the committee when the Vestal bill was under discussion? Mr. SPEISER. That is true.

Mr. DALY. Possibly the reason for it was that they had no organization at the time.

Mr. WARING. That is true.

Mr. SPEISER. They did not.

Mr. DALY. They were simply individual members and could accomplish or thought they could accomplish nothing by themselves. Mr. SPEISER. That is true.

Mr. DALY. Recognizing that only in union there could be strength, they have within the last year made this organization and now present their case to you.

Mr. LANHAM. Yes. Their problems have arisen, of course, since the consideration of the Vestal bill.

Mr. WARING. They really have not arisen, they just come to a head, that is all.

Mr. DALY. They have continued and now come to a head.
Mr. WARING. We have been suffering for a long time.

General ANSEL. The available mechanical reproduction system that is all-pervasive and I think, all destructive today, had not then reached the present point.

Mr. LANHAM. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We are glad to have had you with us, Mr. Waring, Mr. Lombardo, Mr. Crumit, Mr. Speiser, Mr. Tabak, and all the other gentlemen who have appeared here. We are honored by your appearance.

Mr. DALY. Just one thing before we adjourn, Mr. Chairman:

Mr. Speiser, if you should care to submit a brief or any further suggestions when you consider all the testimony given here today, and the discussion upon them, I think the chairman will agree that we would be very happy to get that, and would like it as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. SPEISER. I thank you in advance, and will take advantage of your kindly offer.

Mr. LANHAM. Thank you very much.

The committee will now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Thursday, Apr. 2, 1936.)

REVISION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1936

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PATENTS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Fritz G. Lanham, presiding. Mr. LANHAM. A brief communication has been received from Mr. Fritz Reiner, with reference to the matter we had under consideration yesterday and, if there is no objection, it will be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The letter above referred to is as follows:)

COMMITTEE OF PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS,

MARCH 31, 1936.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I have spent a lifetime as a conductor of symphonic orchestras, and have done considerable work in connection with grand opera. I should be very happy if your honorable committee will consider my views in support of the Daly bill, H. R. 10632, on which you are presently holding hearings.

I wish to point out that the talents of performing artists are being widely exploited for commercial purposes without authority. Among other things, such evils consist of the playing of home phonograph records over broadcasting stations, and in cafes, dance halls, and restaurants. These phonograph records were made for home purposes and the compensation paid to the artist was based upon such use.

Conditions are such that a single recorded performance made by the artist for home phonograph purposes now returns to compete with the artist and to plague him interminably. These inexpensive phonograph records made at a royalty of approximately 2 cents for the artist, are now replacing the artist over broadcasting stations. The wide use of these records curtail the artist's opportunity of obtaining a sponsor for a "live" broadcast and tends, by constant repetition, to lessen the prestige of the artist insofar as his listening audience is concerned.

Another evil the Daly bill is designed to eradicate is the unauthorized recording of "live" broadcasts made by way of radio receiving sets. This etherial performance is reduced to physical form by persons not authorized to do so by the artist. These new records are then sold as electrical transcriptions in this country and exported to other countries of the world for broadcasting purposes. Not only are these new records broadcast, but frequently they are re-recorded into phonograph records, motion picture sound tracks, etc. There can be no question of the soundness of the remedies which the Daly bill is designed to provide. To grant statutory protection to the performing artist is a most desirable thing. In my opinion, it is equally desirable that this protection be made effective and given some force. For this reason I respectfully urge that the $250 minimum damage provision be retained in the Daly bill.

I believe that I speak for my colleagues in the higher branch of musical art, when I urge this committee to give serious consideration to the plight of the performing artist, and the necessity of providing a sound basis for the regulation of the conditions brought about by the commercial parasites in the entertainment industry.

Very respectfully yours,

FRITZ REINER.