vertise their goods with. But, when we come to advertise our own property, you are going to legalize it, although we have got to give it up to them if they utilize that form of advertisement. That, we claim, is a denial to us of equal protection of law and an unjust discrimination, and a confiscation of our property right to advertise. I think that completes about all I care to say on the subject. The CHAIRMAN. Now, who will be the next witness, Mr. Buck? Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to present Mr. Arthur Hopkins, one of the foremost producers in this country, the producer of "What Price, Glory?" and who has managed Jack Barrymore and produced "Hamlet" and some of the finest plays on the stage.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hopkins.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR HOPKINS

Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Chairman, the producing managers' objection to this is on two points, the first is that radio can undeniably destroy our property.

This bill proposes, upon the single release of any part of our property, that all radio broadcasting companies have access to that property, indiscriminately.

Now, radio broadcasting has been a serious competition to our business. That was not the intent of it, I know, but nevertheless we have suffered from it, and we can not concur with any proposal that helps them further to beat out what little life there is left in us, with our own material, and I can assure these gentlemen if this bill passes, it means that they will have no access to any current musical comedy numbers, because no manager, under any circumstances would permit any of his numbers to be released until the property was dead.

On the other hand, under the present situation, the manager might well agree to a limited number of radio releases of parts from his show, the number to be regulated by what he thinks is helpful to him.

The next point is that nobody can possibly foresee what is going to be the value to broadcasting companies of the right to broadcast dramatical and musical entertainments. It is only 15 years ago when we thought we were very fortunate to get $5,000 for the moving picture right to our plays, where now we are getting $100,000 and $200,000.

It is only 20 years ago that Ben Hur was made as a picture, without the consent of the producer or author of Ben Hur and the Producers' and Authors' Society had to go to the court to stop them. Ben Hur within the last year has brought to the producers and the estate, the Wallace estate, a million dollars.

Now, I do not think the broadcasting people have any conception of what their earnings can be, and I do not think that it is at all remote that the person using their service will some day pay for it, and I see no reason why he should not, and when that day arrives I do not think broadcasters will then be concerned about costs. They will discover they are in the show business and not in the electrical business, and in the show business the man who

counts costs never survives. It is the man who is willing to spend and spend heavily; he is the only man who can possibly succeed; and it would not surprise me if at some future day a broadcasting company will pay $25,000 for the right to release, once, a musical comedy; and I hope that day comes, because that will be a good day for the broadcaster and a good day for us, and a good day for the public, because then the public will get real entertainment; and so it would be absurd on our part not to resist any sort of effort to foreteel what the injury to broadcasting can be or what the possible profit can be to us, and that is our position.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Buck, have you any more witnesses? Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have one more witness, and with your permission, a couple of gentlemen who waited here for 10 days or so and who had to return to New York, asked me to request you if they could possibly submit for the record a short statement. One statement is by William Hamilton Osborne, council member and counsel of Authors' League of America, and the other statement is by Paul N. Turner, representing the Actors' Equity Association, whose membership includes about 15,000, being practically all those actively practicing the profession in the United States, and with your permission I would like to insert them in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand you offer these statements for the record?

Mr. BUCK. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection?

Mr. BLOOM. No, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAMILTON OSBORNE, COUNCIL MEMBER AND COUNSEL OF AUTHORS' LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Authors' League of America places itself upon record as opposed to the passage of these measures, S. 2328 and H. R. 10353, which provide for compulsory license of musical compositions at stated fees, in favor of radio broadcasting concerns.

The Authors' League of America is the national organization in this country of authors, artists, dramatists, and screen writers. The Authors' League neither buys nor sells rights of any kind, it owns no rights, it dictates no prices, and in nowise does it control the output of its members. It is not affiliated with any other organization in this country. Its membership consists of nearly 2,000 individual creators of copyrightable material of recognized standing and it is supported solely from the payment of dues by its members.

It is not my purpose to oppose this bill from the viewpoint either of the musical composer nor from the standpoint of the creator of dramatic works, for the sole reason that both those interests are amply represented on this hearing.

In addition to the argument advanced by others, opponents of the bill. I desire to say:

First, as a preliminary objection to the bill, it is clear that while the bill extends exclusive broadcasting rights to the musical composer it withholds such rights from the literary author. Of this

later.

Second, the principle of compulsory price-fixing is unconstitutional and destroys creative work.

So far as the first preliminary objection is concerned, it is very clear that these copyright measures now before you recognize for the first time an exclusive broadcasting right.

So recognizing it, the bills confine it to musical compositions (p. 1, lines 7 to 9).

The present copyright act of 1909, so far as ordinary literary products are concerned, extends the exclusive right only to print, reprint, publish, copy, vend, translate, and to dramatize. The right of performance, exhibition, production, and other representation being confined to dramatic and musical creations. The result is that under the act of 1909 now in force, the right of radio broadcasting was not conferred upon the copyright owner, either expressly nor by implication, where the work was an ordinary literary creation (section 1 of the copyright law, subsections (a) and (b)). The bills before you fail to confer the exclusive right to broadcast in connection with all save musical compositions. These bills confer such exclusive right to broadcast solely in the case of musical compositions.

The result is that if these bills become a law, having expressly singled out musical compositions as the sole objects of exclusive broadcasting rights, the work of the ordinary literary author will be thrown into the public domain.

At the hearings yesterday an authoritative statement was made that 80 per cent of the broadcasting was of music and that 20 per cent consisted in other literary production. With the growth in popularity of radio broadcasting, it is quite likely that the proportion of material not musical will increase, because such popularity will encourage the creation of prose material adapted for radiomonologues, very short stories, short dramatic sketches, children's stories, and essays of a popular kind. To confer by express enactment an exclusive right in favor of one class of composition is essentially a vital mistake. This will be developed further in connection with the second point, above-mentioned.

For the purpose of considering the second objection, it is wise to draw a parallel between two very popular forms of entertainment, the motion picture and the radio.

The first motion pictures presented waves dashing upon rocks or a fire engine speeding to a fire or a race horse at the track. When these pictures were exhibited, none of us foresaw the possibilities of the new industry. From those original attempts to Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" is a far cry covering a period of more than 10 years. The introduction of this new element resulted in the rise of hundreds of creative geniuses who think and write only in the terms of a dramatic picture instead of in the terms of the spoken or written word. When the motion picture photo play was promulgated the author of literary works was confining himself to magazine fiction, the writing of books, and plays. He was receiving, except in unusual cases, a moderate remuneration. The situation affecting his achievements to-day, has resulted in the living fact that his motion picture creations and his motion picture rights are usually worth more than all his other rights put together. An author who earns $2,500 from a magazine serial, $5,000 from a book,

$7,500 from a play, may sell his motion picture rights for $25,000. If he writes directly for the screen or assists in putting on a picture, giving it the benefit of his creative effort, he will receive a very large remuneration in the shape of a lump sum or salary. Outside of radio, there is no universal entertainment so widely popular as the motion picture. Its benefit to the public at large and its tremendous popularity, is due solely to the author whether he be literary writer, scenario writer or diector. This populaity of the motion picture would never have been attained except for the fact that the author is paid what his creation is worth. Had motion pictures fixed or attempted to fix a compulsory fee of $100 or $1,000 for the material which they desired to use, the motion picture would still be in swaddling clothes.

Radio is still in its infancy. Only seven years have passed since broadcasting for entertainment was begun. Its possibilities are far greater than the possibilities of the motion picture, because it is the universal entertainment of the home. The surface has not been even scratched. Within the next 10 years a new form of literary genius will abound by hundreds, probably by thousands. Just as thousands of people now write in terms of motion pictures, so in the future will thousands of authors direct their attention to radio. But not if a fair remuneration fails to eventuate. Magazines can not exist unless they are paid fair prices; books will go out of existence unless the publisher deals fairly by the individual author; every stage will be dark unless the creator can make a living. Greater than all these forms of entertainment is the radio. It is easier to see than to read. It is far pleasanter to hear than to read. It is wonderfully convenient for a household to stay at home and to be served with high-class creations without the trouble of going to a crowded place and without the trouble of performing a musical composition upon a piano and of reading humor or drama from a book. But if the radio is to be developed for the public, its development will depend upon the creative genius and upon no one else. Fairly paid, the humorist, the essayist, the playwright, and the short-story writer will speedily adapt his genius to the limitations of the microphone. If he is the subject of a compulsory license fixing, there will be no incentive for him to go into this practically unlimited field. The laborer is worthy of his hire. It is a living fact that entertainment is one of the most important, essential commodities of the day. The owner and manufacturer of any other commodity may deal with his commodity as he chooses. The right of private property in the author must be kept as sacred as the right of private property in the ordinary citizen. Otherwise, there will be no newspapers, no books, no drama.

The universal, instantaneous nature of a radio performance bids fair at one full sweep to usurp and immediately destroy all the other rights of an author. By the present act, his works may be broadcasted without pay of any kind; certainly no broadcasting rights or rights that include them were given by an act passed in 1909 before such rights came into being. Certainly the bills before you by implication and exclusion throw into the public domain everything not a musical composition, and even as to musical compositions they throw into the public domain everything in existence

before the proposed passage of the bill. The result can best be illustrated by example: Suppose that I were the author of short, pithy, humorous skits, of use to newspapers or magazines and of use in book form. A fair sample would be the George A. fables or Mr. Dooley. Under these bills, the instant that a magazine was published containing those effusions that instant they could be broadcasted over radio. People by the tens of millions would get immediately the material which might at that instant have been read in magazine form only by thousands. Carry this to the limit. of its possibilities and you will destroy all incentive to create, as well as all incentive to buy magazines and books; as well as all incentive on the part of publishers to purchase creations which at any moment may become valueless because radio has forestalled the printed page. Any legislation which grants an unusual privilege to one industry will destroy the others. From the standpoint of such industries, why is it fair to establish a compulsory license and license fee at a fixed rate in the case of radio and to establish none in the case of magazines, books, the stage, the motion picture? The profits of a large radio corporation manufacturing and controlling its own sets, the sale of which sets depends upon its radio program, far exceeds the profits of business houses engaged in the other industries named, and yet to create good will for such a firm, the result of these bills will be disaster for the other interests. All the named industries cater to the public. In order to live they must charge the public for a magazine, a book, and admission to a theater or for a radio set. The Radio Corporation does not for one instant purpose that radio sets shall be sold at cost nor that patent rights shall be the subject of a compulsory license system.

My views expressed above as to the specific failure of copyright legislation taken in conjunction with these bills, to afford exclusive broadcasting rights to the author are the views also of certain other counsel expert on this subject. It may well be that other lawyers may disagree. But the very fact of disagreement makes it necessary as I view the matter to provide in some bill that the author shall have such exclusive rights. A complete copyright revision bill recognizing such rights, being H. R. 10434, has been introduced in the House by Congressman Vestal, and hearings before his Patents Committee on that complete revision are set for April 15 and 16. Pending the passage of that bill and pending its consideration, it seems to me unwise that a proposed piece of legislation should now be entertained which casts serious doubt upon the ability of the creative genius to enjoy his own creation as contemplated by the Constitution of the United States.

STATEMENT OF PAUL N. TURNER, REPRESENTING THE ACTORS' EQUITY ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Paul N. Turner, representing the Actors' Equity Association whose membership includes about 15,000 actors, being practically all those actively practicing the profession in the United States. Our objections to the bill are both general and particular. Our general objection is to any legislation which gives to the maker of literary and musical brain products lesser rights in what