Not much light is cast by the decision as to why broadcasting stations which are not in the advertising business as it is commonly understood have been established and are maintained at considerable cost. None of them makes any pretense of spending its money from altruistic or philanthropic motives, but the go on doing it, and the number of stations-worse luck-constantly increases and soon will be limited only by the number of available wave lengths.

Exactly what some of them get out of it is a mystery, for the publicity thus secured seems hardly to be worth the expenditure, especially as the returns are indirect and incapable of exact measurement. Trade rivalry of a not very intelligent sort apparently has something to do with the multiplication of stations. That there already are too many of them every listener-in knows, but there is no valid excuse for not letting anybody who chooses do what so many already have been permitted to do.

[The New York Times, July 9, 1925]

COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE QUEER

Some of the many questions to be considered by the committee on copyright revision are described as délicate and difficult. They involve reconciliation of conflicting interests and must be answered without much direct help from precedent, since they arise from investions made since the prevailing copyright principles were established. But there would be no problem if it were not for the fact that not so many years ago there was no recognition at all of a property right in a literary, artistic, or musical production.

The admission of such a right has been slow and grudging. Authors and composers-artists of every sort-have had to fight hard for admission that their work is even a little like other work in creating a value that belongs to themselves and to nobody else. Even now there is no serious thought of granting permanent ownership to the artist any more than to the inventor.

The latest of copyright quarrels has been due to the assumption on the part of broadcasting managers that they could take for nothing anything they wanted to use. They make the absurd contention that there is no profit for them in these appropriations that with noble disinterestedness they are giving to the public what is good for it to have, and that the public pays nothing. These statements are all grotesquely false, but for a while they were made with supprising solemnity as if they obviously were true.

That position has been abandoned by the broadcasters now, or at least considerably modified. In time they will have to do their business in a businesslike way, paying for what they take, and finding out some device for making their customers pay for what they want, as they should, directly instead of indirectly.

[The New York Times, October 24, 1925]

MUSICIANS DESERVE PROTECTION

In a long and well written statement sent out by the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, the history of copyright in this country is summarized briefly, and then is presented a plea for help from the press in preventing Congress from taking, at the demand and in the interests of radio broadcasters, action which would deprive the original producers of music of a great part of their financial recompense.

At first the broadcasters claimed the right to send out anything they pleased. The courts sustained the right of the composers, authors, and publishers of music to get pay for it when broadcast, just as, after another fight, they established their property rights as against the manufacturers of phonograph records. Now they fear the introduction in Congress of a bill which, while recognizing their right to be recompensed when their works are broadcast, will fix the maximum charge which they can impose.

To do that obviously would be anomalous and unjust-so obviously that it seems impossible that Congress ever would do it. Still, there is some danger owing to the fact that it would be to the interest of the public, or to what seems like the public's immediate interest, if the broadcasters could get all music free or at a small price.

Certainly there is not a reason why a maximum price should be placed on a musician's output or production. If he charged too much, he would find no purchasers, but, like other people, his right to charge what he can get seems indubitable, Music is not one of the necessaries of life, like coal or wheat.

[New York Herald, New York Tribune, April 11, 1925]

NO LEGALIZED PIRACY

In a decision that accords both with common sense and with justice the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit finds that the broadcasting of copyrighted music comes within the copyright act. It is "a public performance for profit" within the meaning of the statute.

The trial judge in this important Ohio case held that broadcasting was not a public performance, since it took place in the seclusion of a studio. A performance audible to millions, yet not public! The circuit court of appeals accepts the obvious fact that "the artist is constantly addressing a great and widely scattered audience, and is therefore participating in a public performance," and the performance is for profit. Broadcasting stations, in general, are not engaged in philanthropy; their motive is commercial, although the returns may not be immediately tangible. The phrase of the copyright act is correctly applied to this enterprise.

But the copyright law was enacted before broadcasting was invented. None the less the court holds that the radio situation comes clearly within the intent and meaning of the statute. It will seem to the layman a fair construction. Here is an instance of the law's progress such as Judge Hiscock noted last winter in his address to the bar association in this city. He remarked that courts are "adapting, so far as possible, the law of yesterday to the changed conditions and new problems of to-day."

Some of the broadcasters speak persuasively of "freedom of the air," and as a part of this freedom desire to use musical compositions without paying for them. This practice, if the law permitted it, would be nothing but a form of legalized piracy. In business ethics and in common honesty the copyright freebooting is indefensible and so it is in law at the present stage of adjudication.

[The Sun, New York City, April 11, 1925]

RADIO AND COPYRIGHT

The right of radio companies to broadcast copyrighted music without paying royalties has been denied by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision handed down reversing Judge Smith Hickenlooper. The original action was brought by the music publishing firm of Remick & Co. to restrain the Crosley Radio Corporation from broadcasting "Dreamy Melody," which is one of the publications of the plaintiff company. The plea for an injunction made by the publishers was denied by the United States District Court at Cincinnati, and the decision then rendered carried to the appellate court.

The court of appeals holds that while radio had not been developed in 1909 when the copyright law was enacted and this naturally raises questions concerning the application of the act to radio, the necessity of protecting composers and singers from the radio broadcasting stations is more than ever to be emphasized. The decision dwells on the fact that the protection of the rights of others against the radio can only be relative as long as Congress fails to make a definite enactment on the subject. The only method for the courts to adopt during this period of uncertainty is to treat the material under discussion as if it were of the same kind protected by the copyright law.

Delegations of composers, librettists, and dramatists have visited Washington urging on both Houses their belief that the laborer is worthy of his hire. They can not enjoy the fruits of their industry or talent until there is a law defining the status of the products of their minds.

The circuit court decision touches on some interesting problems of the controversy between the radio companies and the composers. The judges agreed that a performance of a work to be public under the law need not be in a theater or necessarily in a place in which all the listeners may communicate with one another.

The mere fact that so far as the listener is concerned a performance may be in his own home does not make it private as the radio broadcasters contend in support of claims to the right to their use of copyright material. So widespread and numerous is the audience which the artist addresses through the radio that the performance is in the highest degree public.

The fact that a song is broadcast without compensation is also urged as proof that a performance is private. The profit comes, among other forms, in the advertising which the radio companies receive. It could never be argued that the use of a song or any musical number on the radio is for a charitable purpose, even if direct payment is not demanded. These are important issues to the authors and composers who have been struggling to establish their right to share in any benefit accruing from the use of their works by the broadcasting stations. It took many years and much hard labor by writers and composers to obtain the enactment of a copyright law that embodied the elements of fair treatment for their protection before radio was perfected. The purpose of Congress then was to provide that a man or woman should have a reasonable chance to enjoy the profits earned by his or her intellectual capacity. It can not be that a new method of communication will be allowed to impair the fulfillment of that purpose.

[New York Evening Post, April 11, 1925]

Composers, authors, and publishers will rejoice at the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati, holding that the broadcasting of a copyrighted musical composition is an infringement of the copyright act. The radio came upon us suddenly, reaching a great popularity overnight, and promoters found it profitable to maintain broadcasting stations to advertise their wares. Competition was keen. To make their stations attractive the broadcasters used the best original productions they could find. The result was disastrous to the creators of these compositions and they invoked the protection of the copyright law. The first decisions were against them, but the decision of the court of appeals calls in question the promoters' contention that the radio, having been developed after the copyright law was passed, places the use of these compositions outside of the purview of that law, and declares they "are not by that fact excluded from the statute." Unless the authors can be protected in some way, original productions are bound to suffer materially. Poets and composers must live, and they are as much entitled to the rewards from their labors as hedgers and ditchers.

[Brooklyn Standard Union, October 24, 1925]

THE MODEST MUSIC MAKERS

“Our influence as writers of musical works is negligible. The influence of the broadcasters, with their direct contact with a tremendous audience believing itself under obligations to them, is incomparable." So, in a commendable burst of modesty, writes the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. Don't you believe it. There is no broadcaster, individual or corporate, with the prestige and influence of Irving Berlin, John Philip Sousa, Walter Damrosch, Harry von Tilzer, George M. Cohan, and the other allied and associated music makers who have combined to protect their copyright privileges. Neatly and handsomely they have won every tilt with the broadcasters before Congress and in the courts.

Of course, they have to keep on fighting. Their present anxiety is to prevent enactment of a proposed bill that would permit Federal authorities to assess the amount of copyright fee to be charged for broadcasting.

It's a bad principle. The less Federal meddling we have in business and artistic circles the better.

Perhaps after the composers win this new campaign they will be less afflicted with overwhelming modesty. The strength of their association and its successful war against piracy of their product are matters to justify considerable pride.

93693-26- -20

[The Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia, April 11, 1925]
RADIO "PIRACY" BARRED

Decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that copyright songs and music are protected from broadcasting is an important victory for the fraternity of song writers and composers. Unless an appeal to the Supreme Court shall be certified and the ruling reversed, the decision bringing radio "piracy" within the purview of the statute is final.

What arrangements the American Society of Authors, Composers, and Publishers will make with the radio stations pending possible action by Congress can only be conjectured. They have the whole field of classic compositions open to them for free broadcasting-the Bach fugues, the Beethoven symphonies, the delightful Mozart melodies, as well as those of Rossini and Donizetti, and the other masters of the old opera. Then there are the geniuses of comic opera, Offenbach, Von Suppk, Millocker, and their compeers, whose neglected scores are melodic treasure houses.

These could all be depended on to give rare pleasure and entertainment. But they will not meet the requirements of the young people, who desire to dance to the latest fox trot and two step, nor satisfy the taste that demands the latest musical craze.

[Philadelphia Record, October 12, 1925]

a

In an article dealing with the recent action of the Society of Authors, Composers, and Publishers in invoking the law against the broadcasting of copyrighted matter, the radio editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer refers to it as blow at radio broadcasting in Cleveland which many of those in touch with the situation believe may start a struggle between the society and radio broadcasters that will end only with the elimination of one. All this is quite as ridiculous as the writer's further statements that "enormous" fees are demanded, and that the Society of Authors, Composers, and Publishers is "an organization of popular music publishers. It is much more than that. It is a concerted movement on the part of all creators and producers of songs, novels, plays, etc., which the general public is expected to pay for in the ordinary course and which many broadcasting stations have been using to their own profit, without expense to themselves. It would seem to be no more than fair that an adequate fee should be paid for the use of all this matter, and that is all the society demands.

[The Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia, Monday, October 26, 1925]

RADIO AND THE COPYRIGHT LAW

Four million radio receiving sets in use and a business amounting to half a billion dollars a year in radio equipment is the boast which the industry makes in laying claim to be ranked among the leading commercial activities of the United States. The basis of this business is broadcasting.

Considering the magnitude of this buiness the reluctance of broadcasters to pay for the privilege of public performance of songs or music is remarkable. At first they claimed that broadcasting was private and not public performance, so that they were not liable to the composers or authors under copyright law. But the courts set this aside, and held that broadcasting is public performance for purposes of profit.

When the broadcasters began to perceive that they might reasonably be expected to pay royalties for the use of copyrighted songs or other music, however, they balked at terms. Failing to get Congress to legislate to give them free hand to broadcast copyrighted works, they now are preparing to ask for laws to fix maximum limits which owners of copyright may charge for broadcasting licenses.

Such legislation is indefensible for two good reasons. In the first place, it is price fixing with which Congress has no business in any commercial activity in time of peace. In the second place, such a law would be setting aside the principle of copyright, abandoning the protection which is essential to obtain fair treatment for the author or composer, and opening the way to other infringements.

It sells radio sets.

Broadcasting is not charity. It is business. If Congress is tempted to the contrary view, and undertakes to throw open to every broadcaster every copyrighted work at a maximum fixed price, then let it also throw open all patents on radio devices on terms similarly restricted to every manufacturer. Turn about would be nothing more than fair play.

[The Sunday Sun, Baltimore, Monday, October 25, 1925]

MUSIC WRITERS AND USERS

Attempts have been made and are perhaps to be repeated to secure congressional legislation establishing the right of radio stations to broadcast copyrighted music without recompense or on payment of a legally prescribed fee to the composer. The radio public has a personal interest in this issue. For one thing, it is made an involuntary party to the case for the radio stations by the fact that it is quoted as demanding to hear modern, popular songs and other music. But one greatly doubts if the public really expects the composer to go unpaid any more than it asks the singer or instrumentalist to perform without charge.

The right of the composer to be paid for his work is generally undisputed. The thrifty broadcasters themselves admit it, but they assert that the payment for a performance can be made in the form of advertising. This is quite true, as performers of music also admit. Some artists broadcast without charge for the sake of publicity; but they do it because they want to. The complaint of the composers is against being utilized without their own permission or against their will.

It is not as if modern composers monopolized the field of music. The vast body of classical and other music which lies outside the copyright limits provides unlimited opportunities for the boradcasters. Concert artists frequently invade it and give an old song the vogue of a modern production. And if the radio public could tell what it thinks, many complaints would undoubtedly be heard about the failure of the broadcasters to take advantage of the songs and airs about which the radio program makers can learn from any informed lover of music.

The broadcasters who plead poverty as an excuse for the hi-jacking of composers are not altogether ingeneous. They can refuse to buy the right to produce a given piece if they so desire, just as a public library limits its purchases of new books by its budget. And one imagines that the public will heartily content itself with such of the modern music as the broadcasters think worth reproducing at the composer's price. Certainly no one seriously criticizes the author who does not present to the public libraries as many copies of his popular books as would be needed to meet the popular desire.

[Editorial page of the Chicago Herald and Examiner, Thursday, October 29, 1925]

LIGHTS AND DARKS

(By James Weber Linn)

Again a bill is to be introduced in Congress to permit the use by radio broadcasting stations of copyrighted music without paying for the rights. Only this time the ostensible purpose is to be changed a trifle. Congress is to be asked to fix a maximum price which a copyright owner may charge for the use of his work. The broadcasters will have to pay something, should the bill pass, but not much.

When you consider the matter, it is easy to see why any copyright law which assures authors the financial privileges of their work is so hard to get passed. The readers of books are to authors 10,000 to 1; the hearers of music to composers, 100,000 to 1. Naturally the convenience of numbers tells. If one author is obliged by a copyright law, 10,000 citizens are, apparently, disobliged.

Again, in the case of the radio broadcasters, there is a curiously attractive argument against the composer. He asks the law to assure him a profit from the broadcasters; whereas they, great-hearted gentlemen, singing his song, are offering it free to all. Anybody may listen in, without money and without price. On examination a flaw appears, however, in this argument. Anybody may listen in who has bought a radio set, or who permits himself to be made aware of the