Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

My name is David Heilman, and I am the president of E-C Tape, Brookfield, Wis. I am here today to discuss with you the 1909 Copyright Act and in particular the compulsory license provision.

The 1909 Copyright Act was written at a time when the music industry's volume was a few million dollars per year. Today, this industry is $2.2 billion per year, larger than all sports combined in America, and larger than the movie industry.

The 1909 act was written, and I quote from the committee report: "To give the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition," and it has been a serious and difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate return for all use made of his composition and, at the same time, prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests.

It seems, gentlemen, that the courts have been determined to change what Congress desired and have now given to the copyright holders the right to control all manufacturing and distribution of licensee music fixed prior to February 15, 1972.

When the recording companies approached Congress in 1967 and 1970 to obtain protection for their new hits, you were not told that five companies and their affiliates control the majority of the major copyrights in the United States. These five companies are CBS, WEA (in Atlanta), EMI (London, England), Polygram, and RCA.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Excuse me, Mr. Heilman. When you say major copyrights, you are referring to music?

Mr. HEILMAN. I am referring to the musical composition, the underlying works, sir.

EMI alone owns 400,000 copyrights. You were told many times that they had but small publishing houses and were independent third party people.

Congress granted protection for new music after February 15, 1972, and now the courts and the Solicitor General have said that you gave protection to all musical compositions, even those fixed prior to February 15, 1972.

This has led to the absurd conclusion that one may make similar use, but not identical use of a musical composition. Now, think for a second. If I obtain from CBS the performance rights to Tony Bennett's greatest hits, and then approach the copyright holder for a mechanical license, that same copyright holder can charge any price for the use of the composition or say no to the performance licensee as the compulsory licensee, as determined by the courts, does not apply since this use would be identical, not similar use.

This gives the public the mechanical trust that was feared in 1909 and has become a reality today.

When Congress granted relief with Public Law 92-140, the suggested retail of records was $3.98. Now, it is $6.98. You were told that if the pirates or re-recorders were put out of business, prices would drop. Have you or your family purchased a $3.98 record recently?

If this committee does not question some of these illegal practices immediately, then you will help the industry raise the price of a 35-cent manufactured cost album to $8.98 within 3 years and a 50-cent manufactured cost tape to $9.98 in the same period of time.

The composer has been deprived of one-half of his royalties paid to the publisher, because the publisher has refused to accept the 2-cent compulsory licensee fee, and if I may digress for a moment, the 1909 Copyright Act was written to protect the author and composer. It says nothing of a man called a publisher. And now, the man who wrote that song never sees the money because the money automatically goes to the publisher by way of contracts.

You gentlemen just clarify the compulsory license provision for the musical composition fixed prior to February 15, 1972, by stating that one use of similar to all other uses and specifically in section 115, page 21, lines 21, of the bill 2223, drop the word "not" so that it reads, a person may obtain a compulsory license for use of the work in the duplication of a sound recording made by another."

This change will stop the mechanical trust from growing until your committee has had time to verify who actually controls the majority of major copyrights in the United States, allow the composer an adequate return for his work, and stop the rise of prices to the public.

I have attached to this speech a copy of my catalog of music that the public is currently being deprived of the opportunity to own, and I only hope you gentlemen in Congress, as the hit record in 1971 stated, “Won't Get Fooled Again."

Thank you.

[The documents referred to follow:]

"Won't Get FOOLED AGAIN".

By the "Who"-1971 My name is David Heilman and I am the president of E-C Tape, Brookfield, Wisconsin. I am here today to discuss with you the 1909 copyright act and in particular the compulsory license provision.

The 1909 copyright act was written at a time when the music industry's volume was a few million dollars per year. Today this industry is 2.2 billion dollars per year, larger than all sports combined in America and larger than the movie industry. The act was written and I quote from the committee report "to give the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition" and it has been a serious and a difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate retum for all use made of his composition, and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests. It seems, gentlemen. that the courts have been determined to change what Congress desired and have now given to the copyright holders the right to control all manufacturing and distribution of licensee music fired prior to February 15, 1972.

When the recording companies approached Congress in 1967 and 1970 to obtain protection for their new hits you were not told that five companies and their affiliates control the majority of the major copyrights in the U'.S. Those fire companies are CBS, WEA, EMI, Polygram and RCA.

Oongress granted protection for new music after February 15, 1972, and nour the courts and the Solicitor General hare said that you gave protection to all musical compositions, even those fired prior to February 15, 1972.

This had led to the absurd conclusion that one may make similar use but not identical use of a musical composition. Think for a second. If I obtain from CBS the performance rights to Tony Bennett's greatest hits and then approached the copyright holder for a mechanical license, that same copyright holder can charge any price for the use of the composition or say no to the performance licensee as the compulsory licensee (as determined by the courts) does not apply since this use would be identical not similar. This gives the public the mechanical trust that was feared in 1909 and has become a reality today.

When Congress granted relief with public law 92-140, the suggested retail of records were $3.98. Now they are $6.98. You were told that if the “pirates” or re-recorders were out of business, prices would drop. Have you or your family purchased a $3.98 record lately?

If this committee does not question some of these illegal practices immediately, then you will help this industry raise the price of a 35¢ manufactured cost album to $8.98 within three years and a 50¢ manufactured cost tape to $9.98 in the same period of time.

The composer has been deprived of one-half of his royalties paid to the publisher because the publisher has refused to accept the 2c compulsory licensee fee.

You gentlemen must clarify the compulsory license provision for the musical composition fired prior to February 15, 1972, by stating that one use is "similar" to all other uses, and specifically in section 115, page 21, line 21, drop the word not so that it reads "a person may obtain a compulsory license for use of the work in the duplication of a sound recording made by another”. This change will stop the mechanical trust from growing until your committee has had time to verify who actually controls the majority of major copyrights in the l'.S., allow the composer an adequate return for his work and stop the raise of prices to the public.

I have attached to this speech a copy of my catalog of music that the public is currently being deprired of the opportunity to own.

I only hope you gentlemen and Congress, as the hit record in 1971 stated, “Won't Get Fooled Again". Thank you,

DAVID HEILMAN.

[graphic][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

TOLL FREE NUMBER 1-800-558-0990 (24 HOURS) USE ANY CREDIT CARD.

All offers void where prohibited

by state law

MONEY ORDERS AND CHARGES SHIPPED IN 15 DAYS, CHECKS IN ?1.

[graphic]

EC TAPE SERVICE INC 1974

TRTIST Ruth

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ARTIST

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ARTIST

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »