of music, but likewise we believe it would be the greatest thing in the world for the copyright owner to have a law that would permit him to secure his just dues and we are not qualified to say what his just dues are. We know nothing about the cost of manufacturing records. We are not in that business; that is something purely between those people. But we are pleading that it be set up on that basis and it is our opinion-and we never were any more sincere in all of our lives-that it would be for the best interests of the copyright owner; because if the society or the association should be dissolved even of its own free will, or should lose its grip on these copyright owners and they go back in the management of the copyright owners, look at the confusion there will be throughout the United States. It is just one of those things that possibly in theory sounds good; but, in practice, it will not work out. And I do not believe there is a Representative in the Congress of the United States today who wants that condition to exist; and I believe this is a question that can be decided and that it can be decided in a practical and sensible way if we will take into consideration the three classes of users and give thought to the last class, who are the people who deal primarily with the public-the poor classes of people.

Now, you and I have enough money to go to a night club and pay a cover charge, or we can go to a big hotel and pay 3 or 4 dollars for a meal, and they have a big orchestra there. You and I have enough money, but what about the fellow getting $10, $15, $20, or $25 a week who goes over to the little cafe and pays, maybe, 35 cents for a meal and listens to some music? And there is no other way in the world he can get that music, because the traffic will not permit a big set-up and a big orchestra. And he gets that through some kind of a mechanical device. Now if the copyright owners can be paid at the source on those devices, and properly compensated, then why is not that sufficient and why does not that clear up the whole thing we have been arguing about here for many years? And we, as an industry, would like to see the thing settled once and for all; because, frankly, gentlemen, if we are not protected as we were in 1909, or by a similar measure, we simply must go out of business. As we say in number four, there is the possibility of a law which might entirely eliminate our industry, or at least seriously handicap it.

In fairness, I do not want to say it would be entirely eliminated (I am not just that kind of a fellow), because there might be some way of working this out. I do not want to get up here and make a lot of rash statements. My observation has been there have been too many of those kinds of statements made to date. But I do want to call your attention to what we would be up against and what the public would be up against.

In the first place, in going out and selling these musical instruments, we would never know what to tell the man. There would be no way of knowing: If we were sincere and honest, we would tell him, "Now, after you buy the records and put them on your phonograph, you are going still to have to pay somebody else. We do not know what it is; there is no uniformity to it. The law does not require it; the law gives these gentlemen the right to charge whatever they see fit. They are within their rights in doing that.

We do not deny that." Then the man would not want one; he would not want to buy anything until he could find out. And you just cannot do business under those circumstances. You gentlemen are business men, are attorneys; some of you are manufacturers and some gentleman here, I think, runs a newspaper. You just cannot do business under those circumstances unless you want to go out and become a bootlegger and add to the confusion some more. There is just no way, as we see it, that it can be done.

Now we have millions of dollars invested in this business and this money was invested under the 1909 statute which protected us and protected the public and protected the secondary and incidental users of music. We not only have millions invested in our factories, but there are other millions of dollars invested in these devices in the hands of these incidental and secondary users of music today, these small taverns and small places in your district; in your district, and in the other fellow's district. They bought them under the 1909 statute. It was good enough for us in 1909; it must be good enough for us today.

Now we employ hundreds and hundreds of men and we have doezns and dozens of engineers, fellows who use their brains-you know, the brain worker; the fellow just like the man who writes a song, who devotes his life to invention on these things. They are working for us, hundreds and hundreds of them. Just as there are hundreds and thousands of composers of music, there are likewise hundreds of thousands of people in this industry with their millions invested-men working in our factory and in the other gentleman's factory, whom I think are just as honest and sincere and have just as much right to a livelihood as the man who writes a song. I think our engineers use their brains and devote their lives to it—you know, the poor inventor. I am talking more about patents now, than copyrights. You know something about the poor inventor who just dedicates his life to it and few of them ever make any money, just like few composers ever make any money. But they are still there; we take care of them. I could cite you instance after instance of the charitable work we have done for these people, plenty of it that I personally have done and our company has done and these other gentlmen's companies have done. I mean it is not a onesided affair; there are two angles to this, gentlemen.

Then think of the thousands of people who own these devices today, some that they pay for, but possibly the majority of them they do not-think of the confusion that would exist, which we maintain is not necessary, because we are willing to compensate, we want to compensate, but it must be done at the source. That is the crux of our entire story.

I again want to say that we are not trying to take somebody's property rights away and use them without paying them. We as an industry, I think that Mr. Buck here will admit, are the only industry that today have been consistently paying them. It may not be enough, but that is beyond our province; but we are the only industry that have stood behind paying them, because we only consume records.

The fifth point is, we are opposed to no group in the formation of a new copyright law, and it is our understanding that no group opposes us, and we make this statement after having discussed

the matter with several of the interested parties. Now we discussed the matter with your chairman, Dr. Sirovich. We have not discussed the matter with Mr. Daly, who introduced the Daly bill. We will. We discussed the matter with Mr. Buck, president of the association, and he is in sympathy with our position. There has been very little if any testimony to date in these committee hearings against us. This whole problem and this whole battle, if I may call it such, with apologies, is against what. Is against radio.

You know one of the greatest and most marvelous things that has ever happened in this world is radio, something that you pick out of the air. Radio possibly is more of an act of God; it is just something you hardly can conceive of. That is the fight. Go back over Mr. Buck's, Mr. Mills's, and others' testimony, and it is all directed against radio-broadcasting. I mention that in order to bring out the facts and in no way to take sides. It is not for us. When Mr. Fred Waring and his association were here, the Association of Performing Artists, there was nothing mentioned about us. I will not go over that, but you gentlemen listened to it, and it was all about that the broadcasting companies were taking a record. And, while we are not in the least complaining about it, the radio ruined the phonograph business, you might say. We are coming along here now and trying to exist and trying to get along, but radio came in and took a big revenue away from the composers, the copyright owners and artists, because they could not make records. Today they make a few records, but years ago they made millions of them. Our business in the same category, the phonograph business, is very small today compared to what it was years ago; yet we think the phonograph, from a musical instrument standpoint, is the finest thing in the world and far superior to radio. That is our opinion, and I think Judge Daly concurs with us, or he made such a statement.

Now, Fred Waring and his organization are against the abuses that the broadcasting companies have put the records to-I think A. S. C. A. P.'s testimony will prove that. I do not want to stand up here and tell you they are 100 percent for us. They are not. They no doubt would like to see us eliminated and they would like to have the right to go out here and possibly collect from everybody, secondary and incidental users of music, which we maintain is wrong.

I am going to skip no. 6, because it is nothing more than a statement. There is nothing in the Berlin or Rome convention, should this committee and this Congress in its wisdom decide to join the International Union, which prohibits your doing or giving us what we are asking for, and that is the control of mechanical music. I simply put that in there as a matter of record.

I have already covered no. 7, but I am going again to read it and just make one remark about it:

The utter impossibility and impracticability of compensating copyright owners on any basis other than by paying them on each record, which is at the source, as it applies to our specific industry and to the incidental and secondary users of music.

That, gentlemen, is the only position we take. We do not take the position of not wanting properly to compensate the copyright

owner. We do. We believe our industry is the only industry in which the problem becomes very simple for you gentlemen, and that is that the compensation shall be at the source. Because a man cannot play a phonograph without having a record on it, and the record manufacturer cannot make the record without paying the copyright owner. So, as far as our industry is concerned, it is very simple and it is the practical way of handling it. Let them be compensated at the source by payment of a royalty on the record. And how much that shall be is entirely between the copyright owner and the record manufacturer.

But, gentlemen, in closing, let me say this: Do not subject the public and the secondary and incidental users, and our industry, to a multiplicity of licenses. While today it may appear that the society, A. Š. C. A. P., is being properly managed, that they are not oppressing these people, still they have it within their right; the law gives them the right to do, gentlemen, whatever they see fit. And while you and I may have a lot of respect for Mr. Buck and Mr. Mills, remember that they may not be here 10, 15, 20, or 25 years from now, and their association may fall into the hands of people who will not be as good as these gentlemen would lead you to believe that they have been, and I think they have. That is something to take into consideration, because you do not want to be passing a new copyright law every year.

In closing, let me say that we propose the attached amendments to the Sirovich bill, and suggest a similar provision be included in any proposed legislation by this committee, or the retention of the 1909 statute. I want to read the proposed amendment.

Proposed amendment to H. R. 11420, dated February 24, 1936, the Sirovich bill: On page 3, strike out lines 16, 17, and 18, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Provided further, That musical compositions which have been lawfully adapted to mechanical instruments before this act takes effect shall be subject to the provisions of sections 1 (e) and 25 (e) of the act approved March 4, 1909, as amended.

On page 47, after line 11, insert:

(k) "To perform publicly for profit" does not include the reproduction or rendition of a musical composition by or upon a coin-operated machine unless (a) a fee is charged for admission to the place where such reproduction or rendition occurs, or (b) the reproduction or rendition occurs at a point, or is transmitted by any method or means to a point, other than the place where the coin-operated machine is located.

On page 48, strike out lines 1 and 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

* of musical works shall remain in full force and effect for the purposes and to the extent provided in section 1 (e) of this Act.

We have gone further, gentlemen, in this amendment than the 1909 statute. We, too, are against wired radio; we, too, are against those things that are eating in on our business, and we put in here that the exemption only covers the device if and when it can be heard any further-this in substance is what it means-if it can be heard any further than the four walls of the room in which the device is located. And I explained to you the uses of these devices, for the secondary and incidental users, and we wish it that way.

In closing, let me say that we again are willing to see that the copyright owners are compensated; but we say that unless it is done at the source there will be nothing but confusion, and, sooner or later, the law will have to be changed. Because we just do not believe it will work, and we believe anybody who believes it does or will is working against his own best interests.

I thank you.

Mr. LANHAM. Thank you, Mr. Capehart. Now, Mrs. Glasgow, of the American Penwomen, asked to appear for 3 minutes this morning. We had hoped to have her appear at the beginning of the hearing, but we have 3 minutes left now before the time for the committee to ask questions, and we will hear you at this time, Mrs. Glasgow.

STATEMENT OF MRS. BROWN TOWNLEY GLASGOW

Mrs. GLASGOW. Thank you very much. I feel very keenly that this is a great honor. I like a good show and I like opera and all that sort of thing, but I agree with Mr. John Shearer that this is the very best show I have ever attended. And never in my life have I been so thrilled as I was yesterday morning when I saw this assembly together. I came in here with my hope absolutely broken from the moorings and away down, and I left with faith. Now I am back this morning because my faith still lives.

I just want to say one thing in getting acquainted. I am a Kentuckian and so, whatever mistakes I make, remember that. Now, then, when I said to a lady yesterday that I am a Kentuckian, she said, "Can you read?" I said, "Yes; and some people say I can write a little."

I have an instance that is personal, and I want to know if it is my privilege to relate it?

Mr. LANHAM. You have only a very brief time.

Mrs. GLASGOW. Will you, then, give me the privilege of reciting a verse that I wrote to this committee?

Mr. LANHAM. If it is within the time, it is perfectly all right.

Mrs. GLASGOW. I wrote a little verse which I entitled "Brain Thiefs", because they stole the title of the first song I ever wrote, which was Shadows."

They also took my last book, called Society's Mountaineer and made from it a picture entitled "The Call of the Savage." It was my life's story, and it was a very serious thing as it happened. Now, then, I want just to give you this little verse, which is called Brain Thiefs.

They will steal your title if need they one,
Knowing all the time they are doing wrong;
But pass a perfected bill, and it would not be long
Until they would take winged flight and all be gone.

But you cannot steal the product of another's brain
And, if you do, you will be treated the same
As any other crook in the world's domain.

Do not try to steal the work of another's brain,
Using his ideas and signing your name;

For if you do, you are as much to blame

As the lowest criminal lugging his ball and chain.