to the public by any system of broadcasting; and the author of any copyrighted work, even after the assignment of the copyright in such work, shall at all times have the right to claim the authorship of his work, and the right to oppose every distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the said work which might be prejudicial to his honor or to his reputation, as well as the right to restrain the publication and/or the performance of the mutilated work. SEC. 5. The Supreme Court of the United States shall prescribe such additional or modified rules and regulations as may be necessary for practice and procedure in any action, suit, or proceeding instituted for infringement under the provisions of this Act. SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect from the date of its passage. STATEMENT OF HON. BRONSON CUTTING, A SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO Senator CUTTING. Mr. Chairman and Senators, you will remember that at the end of the 1930-31 session we had an elaborate copyright bill before the Senate, the so-called "Vestal bill", which had previously passed the House of Representatives. The bill was so complicated, contained so many amendments which were unsatisfactory to various interests, that it got into a hopeless tangle, and was defeated finally in the filibuster which ended that session. It has seemed to the friends of copyright legislation that the best thing to do is to pass some simple law which will merely enable us to enter the International Copyright Union, and with that idea in mind, at the request of Mr. Johnson and a number of other gentlemen, including Mr. Solberg, of the Library of Congress, I introduced the bill now pending before you, on the 6th day of June last. Since then, of course, a treaty has been submitted, which would carry out the same general idea. I am not clear in my own mind whether it is necessary to enact the bill and ratify the treaty, but it certainly could do no harm, in addition to ratifying the treaty, to enact legislation of this kind, which would make it perfectly clear what the United States is doing to modify the present law in order to comply with the terms of the treaty. Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I shall leave the discussion to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Solberg, and the other sponsors of the legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Before we go into the statements of those who desire to appear, I would like to call to the attention of the committee a letter from the State Department under date of February 24, which reads as follows: Hon. KEY PITTMAN, [Confidential] FEBRUARY 24, 1934. Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR PITTMAN: On February 19, 1933, the President sent to the Senate, with request for advice and consent to adherence thereto on the part of the United States, the international copyright convention as revised at Rome, on June 2, 1928. On June 10, 1933, Senator Cutting introduced a bill (S. 1928) to enable the United States to enter the International Copyright Union. The object of this bill is, of course, to bring the statute law of the United States into conformity with the convention. An identical bill (H.R. 5853) was introduced to the House of Representatives by Mr. Luce, on May 31, 1933. As of interest in connection with the convention referred to, and the accompanying legislation, I am transmitting herewith copies of a note dated December 20, 1933, from the British Ambassador at Washington. This note is the latest of a long line of communications setting forth what, in our opinion, is an entirely legitimate complaint on the part of the British Government concerning the treatment of British books under existing copyright legislation. The desires of the British Government would be entirely met if the United States should enact the legislation and become party to the convention referred to. The British note makes mention of— 66* * * powerful currents of opinion in the United States which have moved in favour of the accession of the United States to the Copyright Convention of the Berne Union, notably those referred to in the declaration made by Mr. Solberg, the former Registrar of Copyrights in Washington, on behalf of the United States Delegation to the Rome Copyright Conference of 1928 (Actes de la Conférence, pages 296–299), and those revealed by the support given to the bills which have been submitted to Congress for the purpose of enabling the United States Government to join the Berne Union.' While, of course, the objective of this Government, in proposing to enter the International Copyright Union, is the protection of American literary and artistic interests in other countries, I feel that the attitude of the British Government, particularly the possibility of injurious reprisals, should appropriately receive the consideration of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Needless to say, I am ready at all times to accord such information and other assistance as may be sought from the Department of State by the Committee on Foreign Relations. Sincerely yours, CORDELL HULL. (Enclosures: Copies of note from British Ambassador, Dec. 20, 1933.) Then there are other matters of the same character from the Department of State. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD JOHNSON Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I shall try to occupy only a small portion of the time this morning, out of consideration for the other two gentlemen who are to speak. A very good story comes to my mind of a distinguished clergyman who went to Yale University to address the boys at the chapel, and just as he was going up into the pulpit he said to President Hadley, "Oh, President Hadley, I fear I should have asked you before, is there any limit to the time which I may occupy?" President Hadley replied, "No, Doctor, no limit whatever, but I think I ought to tell you that there is a tradition here at Yale that after 20 minutes no souls are saved." [Laughter.] Gentlemen, in a matter which is one both of justice and expediency, it would not be complimentary to you if I placed first the consideration of expediency, since it might imply that you were more sensitive to such matters, largely commercial, though not entirely so, than to those of abstract justice. The Constitution of the United States, after providing in the preamble for the forming of a more perfect union, next describes the purpose of the Constitution as being "to establish justice." Daniel Webster said that "justice is the first concern of man on earth", and I therefore am going to appeal to you, first of all, in discussing this subject, on the ground of justice, and in doing so briefly to rally to my support the opinions of some of the most distinguished Americans who have heretofore recorded themselves in favor of this great principle of intellectual property. We are living in an age of an attack upon property, from Communist quarters, and from semi-Communist quarters, and we are likely to forget the fundamental character of property in the happiness of the people. Shakespeare put into the mouth of Shylock the saying: You take my house when you do take the prop The Constitution grants Congress the power, among others, of promoting science and useful arts "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." These words were singled out in the Constitution because they represent ideas, and they represented in the minds of the framers of the Constitution the supremacy of ideas in the national life. It must be borne in mind, however, that there is a difference between patents and copyrights. A patent secures a man rights in an idea. A copyright secures no such rights. It secures only the right of the expression of the idea. If I write a book today on a definite subject, anybody can tomorrow write another book on the same subject, so long as he does not use my words. I have always admired and been proud as a literary man of the record that has been made in this country on this subject. I think it would be a very ill day for America when people did not stand for their own rights, and I have great sympathy with the Confederate soldier about whom a story is told. After the Battle of Bull Run, as those who had participated were sitting about the bivouac talking things over, someone said to this soldier, "Why did you'ns come up here to fight we'uns, all the way from Texas?" He replied, "Well, I hear'n tell that there is some o'my rights I h'aint got, and ef there is any of my rights I h'aint got, I want 'em.” [Laughter.] That is good American doctrine, and so long as we all feel that way about our rights, I do not think there is much danger in the working of democracy. Let us briefly review the demand which has always existed for this principle of pure and simple copyright. It began in this country with Noah Webster, back in 1815, or somewhere near there, and in 1820 the first copyright bill was reported favorably in Congress by Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. There was at that time no public opinion back of it. There was very little interest in literature, and the thing went by default. Along about the 50's, with intermittent attempts to do something, it was taken up much more seriously, and in 1883 the American Copyright League, representing the authors of America, was organized. It included virtually every author of the United States, and they all went on record for a pure and simple copyright, which we have never had. We thought we abolished literary piracy in 1891. Measurably, we did, but we have not abolished literary piracy in the law, because we now put upon our English friends, our English cousins, persons with whom we have in our literature and law the deepest sympathy, an onerous burden, which they have borne for 40 years, and it is the price they are paying for our false reputation of having abolished literary piracy. In the meantime, what have they been doing for us? It is by the backdoor of England that we have been able to get into the Berne Conference, and the English have enabled us to do so and get all its benefits. Í submit that on the mere question of ordinary fairness, this deserves special consideration from us. They have been very patient, but there are signs of great restiveness in England, and properly so. I fancy that if 10 years ago any member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives had been asked whether England was about to desert its former policy of free trade, and establish a protective system, he would have hooted at the idea, but this has come about, and it may be that England, with heretofore splendid respect for literary property and a willingness to extend it to everybody within its gates, will find that the pressure upon it is too great to resist, and it may be obliged to retaliate upon us with a similar clause, manufacture and nonimportation clause, which would throw the fat into the fire, and which would establish a situation which would be regrettable for all American interests, as well as for our sense of international justice. Think of the men who have stood for this principle: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry W. Longfellow, John G. Whittier, George Bancroft, James Russell Lowell, all men who stood on the moral issue. They were not thinking about cheap books. We have had cheaper books since the international copyright bill was passed than we ever had before. They stood for right. People said, "Oh, let us leave out the moral issue. Let us not urge the moral issue." That was in 1890 and 1891. But we felt otherwise. We believed that the country was ethical and would approach the subject from that point of view, and we won on the moral issue. James Russell Lowell before a committee of the House of Representatives said: In vain we call old notions fudge, And bend our conscience to our dealing; Mark Twain was another stalwart supporter of our contentions. When he came down to Washington to lobby for the bill in the House of Representatives, he was received with great eclat.. People crowded about him, and he made a fine argument, and stuck strictly to the business of trying to get the new copyright bill passed. For instance, he said, as one man came up, "Oh, here comes Ficklebaum", some other name like Ficklebaum. "Now, Ficklebaum is going to vote for the copyright bill. He never stole any chickens-at least, he was never caught at it." [Laughter.] or In that way he held clearly and firmly to the idea that this is a moral issue; and it remains a moral issue. What I wish to impress upon the committee is that although we have the reputation of having abolished literary piracy, we have not done so, and this is an opportunity to do so with the least trouble, and at no expense. The copyright principle has also had the support of various Presidents of the United States. The bill was signed by President Harrison with great delight. I was present at the time. It was desired very much by President Cleveland-in his first administrationthat it should be passed during his administration, and he was extremely sorry that it was not. It had the sympathy of President Taft, of course of President Theodore Roosevelt, and of President Woodrow Wilson, the two latter being authors. I feel that it is almost wasting time for me to add more to the list of the distinguished persons in the United States who have supported the principle. Mr. Chairman, I have to present to the committee a resolution from the American Academy of Arts and Letters. This institution stands in the United States in the same relation to letters and the arts that the French Academy does in France. In fact, a member of the French Academy spoke of the American Academy of Arts and Letters as the younger sister of the French Academy, and we have been in very close relations with it, as well as with the other academies of the world. The American Academy at its annual meeting held on the 9th of November last, this measure having been carefully explained to them, and the bill itself having been placed before the directors, unanimously declared in favor of the measure, and appointed me, as secretary, to urge the matter upon Congress. I will not read the resolution, but submit it. The CHAIRMAN. It will be placed in the record. (The resolution is as follows:) THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND LETTERS, New York, N.Y. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, held in New York, on the 9th of November 1933, attention was called by the secretary of the academy to the pending bill of Mr. Cutting designed to admit the United States into the Berne Copyright Union. A copy of this bill had been sent to each member of the board of directors, and its provisions were summarized by the secretary, whereupon the academy unanimously voted its approval of the measure and authorized and directed the secretary to present its action to the President and to Congress, and to represent the academy in advocacy of the measure. ROBERT UNDERWOOD JOHNSON, Secretary. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, present at the meeting where this resolution was adopted were three prominent publicists of this country-Elihu Root, a man of sober judgment; Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, a very outspoken person on what he believes to be right, and Governor Wilbur F. Cross. So that the public sentiment of the present time does not lag behind that of the last generation. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat familiar with the public sentiment, as it has been 50 years since I first took up the work of assisting in this great reform. I also present a similar resolution in favor of the bill from the Indiana Club of New York, and I think it has significance from the fact that Indiana, where I spent my boyhood, has been particularly active in support of the principle of pure and simple copyright. Not only did President Harrison sign the bill but Dr. Edward Eggleston, the author of "The Hoosier Schoolmaster", spent many months in Washington laying the foundation for our future success. Mr. Vestal, who introduced the bill, as you know, which passed the House of Representatives and failed in the Senate, was an Indiana man. Every Indiana author endorsed the bill. It would be very difficult, if you threw a ball into a company of intelligent persons in America, not to have it rebound three or four times from the heads of Indiana authors. Indiana is a State which bas produced a great deal of good literature. Therefore I honor the Indiana Club of New York. The CHAIRMAN. The resolution will be received and printed in the record. (The resolution is as follows:) INDIANA CLUB IN NEW YORK, |