corporation which is doing the broadcasting. In other words. the broadcasters are as much after their profit as the composers, only their profit is acquired indirectly. Yes, this attractive argument is specious. Still, it is attractive. And when the case is based on it, and bulwarked by the fact of the convenience of 15,000,000 as opposed to the profit of 50, it becomes obvious that the Cincinnati decision in favor of composers' rights was an amazing assertion of principle over influence. That decision, amazingly principled as it was, settled the question whether broadcasters had to pay for the use of copyrighted music. But the new bill opens another question-whether they must pay what the composers ask, or whether they need pay only what they can get Congress to choose. This question, however, seems to me open and shut. A man who sells calico fixes his own price; so does a man who sells wheat, except in war time; why not a man who sells music? Of course, Congress may decide on a basis of social utility. The prices of certain commodities are fixed by the Government at certain times, because it seems more to the advantage of more people to fix them than to abide by the principle of fair sale in an open market. But that any one commodity, like music, should be singled out for discrimination in this fashion seems to me hopelessly unjust. There are fewer millionaires now among the composers than among the broadcasters. Until the balance tips heavily the other way, I favor abiding by the ordinary principles of justice. And besides, the music on which copyright has expired seems to one so much better than the copyrighted music 1 know that I think civilization or at least our national life is improved by keeping copyrighted music off the radio as much as possible. [The Indianapolis Star, November 4, 1925] MUSICIANS AND RADIO There was originally a singular reluctance on the part of lawmakers to give the writers of books a copyright that would protect them and allow them a profit on the sales of their publications. An idea seemed to prevail that anything printed belonged to the public as a free gift and that the author should have no further con "1 of h. work after the manuscript passes from his hands. When a copyright law s finally secured from Congress the protection extended to but a few years, after which the work was public property and anyone who pleased could republish it and ake the profits. Repeatedly authors were obliged to go before Congress before they could secure what they considered a rightful interest in writings they had produced. It was much longer before Congress was willing to protect the books of foreign authors, and while some American publishers made certain returns on the sale of British books they had taken the liberty to publish in this country, others failed to do so and for years there was much shamless pirating of foreign books, with entire disregard of the authors. But Next came the attempt of musicians, from operatic composers to song writers, to copyright their wares. This at the time had for its purpose the same privilege accorded to writers and book publishers, that of preventing trespass upon their rights to royalties and to exclusive publication. Such protection at that time often meant in the sale of copies sufficient compensation to the author. about that time mechanical devices, such as the phonograph, the player piano, etc., began to interfere with the sale of sheet music and it became necessary to seek for payment of royalties from these devices. About the same time motion pictures appeared and it was realized that royalties must be collected from public performances of music in amusement establishments. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which includes Irving Berlin, Walter Ďamrosch, George M. Cohan, and 500 other recognized writers of musical works, was organized for the purpose of looking after their common rights. After eight years of continuous effort, persistent public education and much litigation by the society in behalf of its members, with the courts uniformly sustaining them, the commercial amusements interests yielded to the right and the law, and to-day it is the exception when infringements occur in such establishments through unlicensed public performance of copyrighted music. Then came radio, and trouble was renewed. Some broadcasters contended that they were not included in the restrictions of the copyright law, since radio was not in existence when the copyright law was passed; also that radio was experi mental and that they could not afford to add to their expenses by paying for the use of copyrighted music. Besides, it was urged, they popularized the music and increased its sales. A Cincinnati court upheld their arguments, but the United States Court of Appeals reversed these decisions and ruled that radio comes under the provisions of the copyright law. Since that action was taken last April some broadcasting stations have observed the ruling and some have not. What is sought now is a law that will specifically place radio under the same rule that controls moving pictures and a bill to this effect is to be brought before Congress. The musicians are aware of opposition in that body through the influence of radio and other mechanical interests, but they hope for a backing of public opinion. [The Indianapolis News, Wednesday, October 14, 1925] The refusal of the United States Supreme Court to review a decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals that the radio broadcasting of a musical composition is a public performance for profit within provisions of the copyright law, is likely to take its place among the important steps in the development of a better national attitude toward the creators of copyrightable material. The principle that a musical composition played for profit should return something more to the owner of the copyright than the mere purchase price of the music has already been established, and the Federal courts have so far acted in the spirit of this precedent in their attitude toward the broadcasting stations. The United States has gone a long way in the century since it was a common practice to republish the works of foreign authors in this country without the formality of paying them for their works. There is now a considerable movement to provide for the copyright of the work of authors and artists before it is offered for publication. This is of doubtful wisdom because of the probability that the Library of Congress would become laden with a vast volume of manuscript, most of which would have no value to anyone, and some of which might be used as the basis of infringement suits inspired by dishonest motives. The Authors' League of America, and the guilds of free lance artists associated with it, have taken the initiative in protecting creative artists from the avarice of unscrupulous publishers and producers, and their organization is so powerful that it may now be said that artists have a firm grip on the situation. There is, of course, a limit to the ability of creative artists, regardless of their strength, to control the exploitation of their work. Nearly all of them reach the public through the agency of a publisher or producer, whose business in marketing salable wares. With this agency disposed to favor artists, as is now the case in many instances, the position of the artists is greatly strengthened, but they can not control the market. They can only compel the public to pay for the pleasure it derives from their work, and this they are proceeding to do. The movement is likely to result in greater incentives to creative effort and in greater rewards for success in the production of copyrightable material. It should result in time in a revised public attitude toward all primary artists, and in a brighter prospect for the cause of American art. [Cleveland Topics, formerly Cleveland Town Topics] Composers demand that they be paid fees for every radio broadcasting of their music and something of a wail goes up at the injustice which this works on radio audiences. This latter takes the form of curtailed broadcasting, the broadcasting stations being generally unable to pay actual money for the music which they intend later to give away at an already great cost to themselves for artists, overhead, and mechanical operation of their plants. The only people who can reasonably be found fault with in this connection are radio listeners who have come to expect, in addition to something for nothing, everything for nothing. As a matter of fact, there are only two reasons why radio has so far been free in this country. One is the inability of the people who donate radio programs to charge for them and the other is that radio has had a certain advertising value which seems, so far, to compensate the business men putting up the money for their outlay." To expect anybody connected with the radio industry to give anything to it, without hope of reimbursement, is apparent folly. There is no reason why they should be expected to. Owners of copyrighted music are clearly entitled to some return on their property. The artist who fiddles it into the microphone receives strictly union wages for his artistic contribution to a radio program; in fact he can talk like an artist and charge like a plumber. The bricklayer who "tunes in" won't even scratch his head while on or at a job without being paid for it. Songsmiths, we say, are entitled to their look-in, too. We all will welcome the day whan radio can be charged for adequately and put on a sound commercial basis. As it is now, owners and operators of radio broadcasting stations are carrying a heavy load of expense, bother, and surface ingratitude for the sake of advertising values which grow more and more dubious. That the fault-finding with radio programs is only on the surface is undoubtedly true. As a matter of fact, underneath the growling of listeners-in there is a foundation of lasting and solid appreciation of indebtedness to the firms who have made radio possible so far by paying the bills for it. Against the time of their tiring, however, any move to stabilize radio by making it remunerative should be welcome. October 10, 1925. [Zit's Theatrical Newspaper of Saturday, October 31, 1925] GIVE THEM AN "EVEN BREAK" When the next session of Congress convenes this winter a tremendous national issue will confront it. A long and bitter fight between creators of music and the users of it for profit is presaged. The users, as we shall call them, have arrayed an imposing battery of legal minds to point out to Congress that the writers or creators are getting more than their due under the present monetary return for the use of their creations by motion-picture houses, theaters, hotels, and other places where music is played. The writers or creators, on the other hand, are ably championed by the organization known as the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, which has, since 1914, succeeded in making the "writing men a power to be dealt with by their exploiters. According to advance prospecti, it is the design of the users of original musical material to hammer down the fee that they have at present to pay into this society to a minimum. What a society wants is a fair royalty. It declares itself a nonprofit organization founded and dedicated to the advance of the creator of music, lyrics, and the original publishers of them in the printed form. Thus far in its career the A. S. C. A. P. has made tremendous strides. It is responsible for the success of one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the last quarter of a century. It has succeeded in getting from radio broadcasters a fair return to the authors for the use over the air of published musical works. But the broadcasters and their allies-the hotel men, the amusement hall owners, and the dance hall proprietors don't seem to take the award granted the composers like sports. Perhaps it is just "good business." But this winter will see a bare-handed attempt to slip the fees they have been paying to the composers. Broadway is peopled, rank and file, by creative souls, more or less, and the support of these ought to go to the society which, in the light of their past wellearned success, will again "go to the mat” for the creator of things beneficial to our national culture and emerge successfully. [The Music Trade Review, October 31, 1925] THE COMING CONGRESS AND COPYRIGHT One of the big contests during the next session of Congress will unquestionably be over the new copyright bill with the music publishing interests and the broadcasters at grips regarding the question as to just how the copyright law covering music shall apply to its broadcasting. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which that tribunal refused to review the findings of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Remick v. Crosley, where it was held that broadcasting of music constituted a performance for profit, has served to give the composers and publishers confidence in their position and has likewise aroused broadcasters to fresh efforts to have the so-called burden removed. The composer of music is unquestionably entitled to protection for his work, for that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. If his works can be utilized in public performance, on the stage or in the broadcasting studio, without proper compensation, then that protection becomes simply an empty promise, for it leaves him only the income from the sale of printed music which, it is maintained, is seriously curtailed by public performances for which the public pays little or nothing. Radio broadcasting, as now constituted, is carried on for profit, whether direct or indirect. Private studios operate for the advertising prestige that accrues therefrom, often for the purpose of encouraging the sale of receiving sets. Other broadcasters charge fixed rates for service, and it is safe to say that none of them would continue unless there was some definite, even though indirect, return. To maintain loudly that the broadcasting is done wholly from altruistic motives, and for the sole benefit of the public is wrong. However, there are still those of us who remember the hectic days of 1909 when the present copyright bill was being threshed out and which brought forth a new act that really proved fully satisfactory to none of those most directly interested. It is logical, therefore, for the broadcasters and the composers and publishers, together with other interests in the field, to get around the table and endeavor to reach some amicable agreement satisfactory to all concerned. It is logical to assume that in any new copyright bill no faction will get all it is fighting for. The composers and publishers may not expect the full return that they might ordinarily demand for the use of the music, nor can the broadcasters or the mechanical interests expect to get off scot free. At best there will be a compromise, and such a compromise can be reached upon a more satisfactory basis by the interests meeting among themselves than if the fight is to be carried in all its details to the legislative halls in Washington. [The Muncie Morning Star, Thursday, November 5, 1925] MUSICIANS AND RADIO There was originally a singular reluctance on the part of lawmakers to give the writers of books a copyright that would protect them and allow them a profit on the sales on their publications. An idea seemed to prevail that anything printed belonged to the public as a free fight and that the author should have no further control of his work after the manuscript passes from his hands. When a copyright law was finally secured from Congress the protection extended to but a few years, after which the work was public property and any one who pleased could publish it and take the profits. Repeatedly authors were obliged to go before Congress before they could secure what they considered a rightful interest in writings they had procured. It was much longer before Congress was willing to protect the books of foreign authors, and while some American publishers made certain returns on the sale of British books they had taken the liberty to publish in this country, others failed to do so and for years there was much shameless pirating of foreign books, with entire disregard of the authors. Next came the attempt of musicians-from operatic composers to song writers to copyright their wares. This at the time had for its purpose the same privilege accorded to publishers and writers, that of preventing trespass upon their rights to royalties and to exclusive publication. Such protection at that time often meant in the sale of copies sufficient compensation to the author. But about that time mechanical devices, such as the phonograph, the player piano, etc., began to interfere with the sale of sheet music and it became necessary to seek for payment of royalties from these devices. About the same time motion pictures appeared and it was realized that royalties must be collected from public performances of music in amusement establishments. The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publlshers, which includes Irving Berlin, Walter Damrosch, George M. Cohan, and 500 other recognized writers of musical works, was organized for the purpose of looking after their common rights. After eight years of continuous effort, persistent public education, and much litigation by the society in behalf of its members, with the courts uniformly sustaining them, the commercial amusements interests yielded to the right and the law, and to-day it is the exception when infringements occur in such establishments through unlicensed public performance of copyrighted music. Then came radio, and trouble was renewed. Some broadcasters contended that they were not included in the restrictions of the copyright law, since radio was not in existence when the copyright law was passed; also that radio was experimental and that they could not afford to add to their expenses by paying for the use of copyrighted music. Besides, it was urged, they popularized the music and increased its sales. A Cincinnati court upheld their arguments, but the United States Court of Appeals reversed their decisions and ruled that radio comes under the provisions of the copyright law. Since that action was taken last April some broadcasting stations have observed the ruling and some have not. What is sought now is a law that will specifically place radio under the same rule that controls moving pictures and a bill to this effect is to be brought before Congress. The musicians are aware of opposition in that body through the influence of radio and other mechanical interests, but they hope for a backing of public opinion. [The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, November 29, 1925] RADIO AND COPYRIGHT The rights of intellectual property have always been rather grudgingly recognized in this country; it was a fight of years to secure the passage of an international copyright law. Now the popularity of radio has again raised the question of protection for the children of the brain. Broadcasting musical compositions without payment was defended on the score of service to the public, which must be entertained at any cost. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the National Association of Broadcasters should take the position that "a reasonable fee" should be paid for the copyright number used in serial concerts. If the fees are "exorbitant," it holds, the radio stations will be forced to discontinue. There seems to be no sufficient ground for anticipating this contingency. The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, which has been making earnest efforts to secure adequate compensation for compositions used for broadcasting, points out, first, that the sale of radio products is in large part secured through the valuable advertising given by broadcasting, and, second, that there are hundreds of thousands of uncopyrighted compositions available for which no fee can be asked. The society opposes the suggestion that the broadcasters should fix the fee, since the composer, like everyone else, is entitled to sell in the market he can command, and there is no obligation to buy if the price is considered too high. Any legislation by Congress on this matter should be carefully studied before it is approved. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals has already denied the right of radio companies to broadcast copyright music without paying royalties. But it points out that the protection of the composer's right can be only relative until Congress makes some definite enactment." Meanwhile the courts should treat the material used in broadcasting as if it were of the same kind protected by the law of copyright. To talk about the "freedom of the air" is futile. There can be infringement upon property by this medium as well as by any other. [The Terre Haute Star, Friday, November 13, 1925] MUSICIANS AND RADIO There was originally a singular reluctance on the part of lawmakers to give the writers of books a copyright that would protect them and allow them a profit on the sales of their publications. An idea seemed to prevail that anything printed belonged to the public as a free gift and that the author should have no further control of his work after the manuscript passes from his hands. When a copylaw was finally secured from Congress, the protection extended to but a few years, after which the work was public property and anyone who pleased could republish it and take the profits. Repeatedly authors were obliged to go before Con |