Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. HANSON. So far as my asociation is concerned, we are perfectly willing to have this copyright law so drawn that the rights are reserved to the owner of the copyright, and then just make him comply with the present law, as you say, so that if broadcasting is permitted that must be stated.

Representative BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, I want to say right here that the people that are talking about this present bill, S. 3228, and comparing it with the old law, section (e), and saying that this is just the same, do not understand the bill. The bill is exactly the reverse of the present law.

This is what you will have under this bill. As soon as you want to copyright anything you will have to have in your hand your application for a copyright, and, immediately, you will have to file with the Librarian, or in the Copyright Office, a notification that you do not want this broadcast. I want to have this settled because every one is saying that this is exactly the law at the present time.

Mr. HANSON. As I say, we are perfectly willing, if this committee's judgment is to follow the present law exactly in detail, to follow the law, reserving all rights to the owner of the copyright, and then let him specify what rights he will permit to the public, when he wants them permitted.

Representative BLOOM. The idea is this. You said that the 550 newspapers that you represent approve this bill

Mr. HANSON. No; I said they approved of the main principle of this bill, which is to protect the public, and to protect themselves so far as the broadcasting of music is concerned. We do not come in here and say that we would approve this bill exactly as it is written, with every comma where it is, every "i" dotted where it is, and every "t" crossed where it is crossed.

Representative BLOOM. The intent of the bill is that if the author wants to reserve the right of broadcasting it must be done immediately upon copyrighting.

Mr. HANSON. That is all right. Then just simply have him, if he wants to give the right of broadcasting, give it when he gets his copyright or at any other later time.

Representative BLOOM. And then you will agree with me that in this one respect at least this bill is different from the present law? Mr. HANSON. Yes; to that extent it is different from the present law.

Senator DILL. That is a matter that can be provided for by amendment.

Representative BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, everything that seems to affect the right and justice of this bill is said to be a mere trifle.

The CHAIRMAN. We can discuss that later. I would like to have these witnesses make their statements. Of course, I am glad for you or any other member of the committee to ask such questions as you think will be useful in eliciting information or their opinions, but I do not think we need to go into a discussion of the details of the bill unless the witness desires.

Mr. HANSON. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, all we desire is to protect the owner of the copyright, protect the broadcaster, and protect the pubic, and we leave the details of that to the judgment of this committee.

Representative BLOOM. In other words, you want a compulsory licensing clause in this thing somewhere?

Mr. HANSON. We want a clause in here that if in the judgment of the owner of the copyright he is going to permit broadcasting it shall be permitted in a way that is a benefit to the public generally, which gives him the right to copyright.

Representative BLOOM. With reference to section (d) in this, as well as section (e) of the present copyright law, you want to go on record, representing the 550 newspapers in your association, that they are willing to have compulsory licensing for all copyrighted material in newspapers and magazines and everything they publish in their papers?

Mr. HANSON. With the same saving clause that is in the law now, that if they permit broadcasting the rate can be fixed by Congress. Representative BLOOM. For everything?

Mr. HANSON. Why, of course.

Representative BLOOM. And you would be willing to go further and fix it on all patents on radio, including bulbs and everything else? Mr. HANSON. I know nothing about that, sir. I am not interested in the manufacturing end at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the next witness?

Mr. KLUGH. The next witness, Mr. Chairman, will be Mr. Hedges, representing Mr. Strong, chairman of the radio committee of this same association which Mr. Hanson represents.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. HEDGES, REPRESENTING WALTER A. STRONG, PUBLISHER CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, AND CHAIRMAN RADIO COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. HEDGES. With leave of the chairman I would like to introduce into the record a survey of newspaper broadcasting, showing the interest of the newspapers in this particular question. This survey was made during the spring of 1925, and there have been a few changes, mainly additions to the number of newspapers, but the general situation that there are 132 newspapers actually broadcasting still obtains. That number has been increased, I am informed.

Representative BLOOM. Is this the same organization that Mr. Hanson represents?

Mr. HEDGES. The American Newspaper Publishers' Association. It is the same organization. Mr. Hanson is their counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement that you produce may be placed in the record.

(The statement referred to is set out in full at the conclusion of Mr. Hedges's testimony.)

Representative BLOOM. Could we have at the same time a list of all the publishers in the association that you represent?

Mr. HANSON. I shall be glad to furnish such a list if you desire it. It may take some 10 days. Our annual meeting is to be held on the 19th of April, and I shall get the complete list at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. It is understood that that information will be furnished.

Mr. HEDGES. The radio committee of the American Newspaper Publishers Association will make a report at this coming annual

meeting. A report has already been prepared by the chairman of the radio committee. It covers several pages, but there is one portion of the report that pertains particularly to this question under consideration by the committee. I wish to read some excerpts from this report which will be made by Mr. Strong at the coming meeting:

One of the most important matters pertaining to radio which affects the interests of publishers is the proposal to revise the copyright law to bring reproduction of musical compositions by radio within the scope of the "mechanical reproduction" clause and to fix a stated maximum fee for the use of musical compositions by radio broadcasting stations.

The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers is actively fighting this proposal, which is contained in a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Dill, of Washington. The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers apparently realize that when and if the proposal becomes operative they will lose the support of the individual composers, inasmuch as payment would be made directly to the copyright proprietor for the use of the composition. The logic of those supporting the measure is sound and their position is so apparently fair that the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers is trying every means possible to block the bill. I understand that the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers have by subtle means conveyed the impression that a revision of the copyright act would endanger the interests of newspaper publishers, because it would establish a precedent for the fixing of maximum fees which one may receive for the use of his copyrighted works. Denial of this is made by the broadcasters, and in reply the music interests threaten to tear the whole subject wide open and to compel a revision of the entire law, making its provisions more in their favor than at present by marshaling their strength to knock out the "mechanical reproduction" clause, which in turn would disturb the entire music industry.

Altogether it is a difficult problem, but one which should be courageously faced by the publishers. The situation is rapidly growing worse. Station WLS was levied a fee of $2,500 for the current year for the privilege of using A. S. C. A. P. music under rather drastic conditions. I am told that WQJ is to be assessed a similar sum and WEBH, because of newspaper connections was let out at $1,600. WJJD is fighting the assessment which is said to be $2,000. That station claims to be an educational institution broadcaster, because of its Mooseheart ownership, but the A. S. C. A. P. demands a review of advertising contracts. The fees charged this year may be boosted next year. At WEBH's rate they are paying about 35 cents a number. WMAQ which broadcasts very little popular music, is paying at the rate of 20 cents a number. WLS will be paying about 50 cents a number.

The report from which this excerpt is taken, following its preparation, was sent to all the members of the radio committee of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association. All letters received from members of the committee have expressed their approval of the sentiment contained in the report.

Representative LANHAM. I wished, Mr. Hedges, to ask this question yesterday of Mr. Tuttle, but he had to leave before concluding his remarks. I should like to ask you this. On the second page of the bill the amounts are left in blank, which should be charged. From your experience with the radio business you must have some idea what those amounts should be at least, in your judgment and from your experience. Would you give us the benefit of any suggestions you care to make along that line?

Mr. HEDGES. As far as I am concerned, my position is exactly the same as that taken by the National Association of Broadcasters, that we do not want to impose our opinion on this committee regarding rates. In the mechanical reproduction clause of the copyright act I believe 2 cents is prescribed for phonograph records. That 2 cents is not paid on all records; that is the price on which they bargain. A copyright owner has the privilege of asking the maximum or accepting a lower price. Therefore we believe that any figure that is deemed to be fair-as far as I am concerned, I believe that 20

cents a number is fair, but it is different from a phonograph record. Once you pay them 2 cents on a record you can play your record over and over until the record is worn out, but once we play a number on the radio it is gone.

Representative LANHAM. Is there not this difference? In the first place, the reason we want your idea is because we are, of course, inexperienced in radio, except to listen in occasionally. Is there not a difference or two between the rate charged for a phonograph record and the rate charged for broadcasting, and does not a different element enter?

Suppose each member of the committee buys a phonograph record to use in his home. The composer gets 2 cents on each of those records, and we play them in our respective homes for our guests. But when the radio broadcasts that selection we all listen in, and our respective groups are all hearing that broadcasting. Now, of course, you could not make a charge of 2 cents for every group that hears that broadcasting, because that certainly would be prohibitive. You could not say that there is an analogy there and that because we are all listening in it ought to be 2 cents for a radio performance because it is 2 cents for a phonograph record.

Mr. HEDGES. I will accept the responsibility of being pinned down to a figure. As far as our station is concerned, WMAQ of Chicago, I regard the rate that we are paying as being rather high-20 cents per number-but I do not regard it as exorbitant. We would be perfectly willing to continue on that sort of basis. We recognize the right of a copyright owner to receive compensation. But we pay 20 cents for a number, and it lasts three minutes, and we have not the privilege of playing that number again, because we have to pay another 20 cents. Mr. LANHAM. Of course, I was asking for your opinion simply because we have no specific information on that subject. Carrying that idea one step further, is there not this additional difference, that where we play for our respective groups a number on the phonograph, the element of advertising does not enter, whereas when a newspaper broadcasts, say, from some remote control station, such as a hotel orchestra, the element of advertising does enter in, does it not?

Mr. HEDGES. Yes. May I continue on that part of it? I want to state that our station devotes most of its time to educational talks. We have connection with the Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. Consequently we do not play very many popular numbers, and therefore our rate would be high. But, as say, we do not object to that. On the other hand, there are stations whose programs are composed almost entirely of music, and if they paid 20 cents a number that would be altogether too much.

I believe that the American Society has figured out a scale that varies for different sized broadcasters, and that scale ranges all the way from 7 cents a number for the smaller stations up to 12 cents a number for stations of 5,000 watts, and if you use the same factors all the way through it would be around 50 cents a number for the higher powered stations.

Representative LANHAM. I have just been informed that some one else is going to handle that feature of it in the testimony before the committee. My only reason for asking you was that I thought we ought to have some information from those who are actually in the

business and have had experience and ought to know what would be a fair price.

Mr. HEDGES. Then, with the permission of the chairman, it would be perfectly acceptable to me to have that portion of my statement stricken from the record.

Senator DILL. Oh, no; I do not think we should do that.
Repersentative LANHAM. We might as well let it remain in.

Senator DILL. Mr. Hedges, I want to ask you this question. As I understand the testimony given here by various men who have appeared before the committee, you would prefer to pay even a higher rate if you had the assurance that that rate was not to be increased rather than have the risk of being suddenly brought up on your toes as Judge Tuttle said yesterday?

Mr. HEDGES. Yes. We want it on a permanent basis.

Senator DILL. So that you would know what you had to pay and could figure on that?

Mr. HEDGES. Yes.

Representative LANHAM. May I ask one additional question there? You speak of putting this proposition on a permanent basis. The word "permanent" has come into these hearings a number of times. And yet it seems to me that this whole question is one which is constantly in a state of change. Radio is relatively a new thing. For instance, at these joint hearings, is the first time, I think, that the radio people ever came before us with the contention that they ought to pay something to the society or the composer, the assumption having been heretofore that when a piece of copyrighted music is bought in the store the right to use that piece of copyrighted music in any way was inherent in the purchase of the music. So there at least we have seen a change since the hearings of last year with reference to this subject.

They said then that radio was in no way commercial, that it received no profits and no compensation. Now at this hearing we understand that sometimes they make as much as $150 an hour broadcasting advertising matter. So the thing is constantly in a state of change. It has changed very much during the two years or more in which we have been holding these hearings. The situation has changed entirely.

Now, is the situation such that we can with this chaotic condition establish something that is absolutely permanent when the conditions in the industry are changing so rapidly and so constantly?

Mr. HEDGES. I feel that some of the chaos would be straightened out by the passage of such a bill as this. Furthermore, we have also felt that radio has just about served its term of apprenticeship. Representative BLOOM. Referring to what Mr. Lanham says, suppose we should make this a permanent charge and then you should find some way of adopting the Canadian method or the British method and you should charge listeners-in, as Mr. Hoover has suggested and as Mr. Sarnoff has suggested? They say that some day they hope to find some way of remedying this evil. If a charge should be made to the listeners-in, then if we make this a permanent price and the law regulates the price, how are you going to overcome that difficulty?

Mr. HEDGES. I think that is crossing a good many bridges. I do not know of anyone who has been able to suggest a practical way by which the listeners may be charged.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »