Representative BLOOM. But supposing that Fannie Hurst, who copyrighted an article herself, objected to that, what right would the newspaper have?

Mr. HANSON. Fannie Hurst would have the privilege of permitting the broadcasting of it, or of declining to permit it to be broadcast. Representative BLOOM. Why not make the bill so broad that it will cover everything?

Mr. HANSON. I have no objection

Representative BLOOM. You are speaking for these 550 newspapers, and that is the thing they would like to have done?

Mr. HANSON. I would have no objection, and I am sure they would have no objection.

Representative BLOOM. But you answer for the 550 newspapers in your association that they would like to have the same thing apply to everything in writing or in print the same as in music?

Mr. HANSON. With the privilege that this bill gives to the music composers, that if they refuse to have the music broadcast it shall not be broadcast. This bill does not compel the broadcasting of music where the writer or the owner of the copryight declines to have it broadcast.

Now, the American Newspaper Publishers Association is not coming in here trying to get something with one hand and trying to hold back something with the other. If this Congress should see fit to enact a provision for the broadcasting of news, or for the broadcasting of literary material, and to give to the owner of the copyright the privilege of withholding the right to broadcast, I do not think, in fact I know

Representative BLOOM. And fixing a price?

Mr. HANSON. Yes, fixing a price.

Representative BLOOM. Congress fixing a price on everything? Mr. HANSON. Fix your price.

Representative BLOOM. On everything?

Mr. HANSON. Fix your price if you want to, and we will have no objection, because we ask nothing for ourselves that we would not concede to the other person. As the newspaper publishers see it, the whole proposition is wound up in this one paragraph which gives to the owner of the copyright the privilege of refusing to have his material broadcast if he feels that it will injure him to have it done. Representative BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, would the committee want to go into this question of the right to refuse now?

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure the committee would prefer to have him make a statement, and then we will go into these other matters. Representative MCLEOD. I should like to ask a question there. Is it not a fact, Mr. Hanson, that this legislation pertains to a specific class, the composers and publishers of music?

Mr. HANSON. As I understand it, this legislation affects only music. Representative MCLEOD. And therefore it is, in that sense, class legislation?

Mr. HANSON. Not at all, because this legislation is an amendment to the copyright law and it deals only with the provisions relating to mechanical reproduction. That is already in the copyright law.

Representative MCLEOD. Other than the composer and the publisher of music, whom else does it classify?

Mr. HANSON. No one that I know of.

Representative MCLEOD. And therefore in that sense, I say, it is class legislation?

Mr. HANSON. It is not class legislation any more than any other legislation.

Mr. MCLEOD. Then it is classified. Put it that way.

The CHAIRMAN. This proposed bill is drawn on almost exactly the lines of existing legislation

Mr. HANSON. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. The act of 1909, with reference to the mechanical reproduction of music by means of phonograph records, etc.

Representative BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, may I state that it is not exactly the same. It is just the contrary.

The CHAIRMAN. I said almost.

Representative BLOOM. No; it is just the contrary.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we can discuss that matter at some other time.

Representative ВLOOM. That is what I want to take up with the gentleman. This is just contrary to the other law.

Mr. HANSON. As we see it, this merely extends, or revises, or amends, or whatever you want to call it, those provisions of the law of 1909 regarding the mechanical reproduction of music.

I am sorry we differ, Congressman. As I say, the newspaper publishers, because of their contact with the public, want full protection for themselves and, through themselves, for the public, so that where music is permitted to be broadcast protection will be given to all. And that is all that they desire. They ask no particular privilege for themselves that they are not willing to grant to other people.

Representative BLOOM. You say this law and this bill are the same. Let me point out to you wherein the bill is entirely different, in my opinion. This bill says that the owner of the copyright upon copyrighting may reserve the right to broadcast and shall give notice in the Copyright Office?

Mr. HANSON. Yes.

Representative BLOOM. Now, is not that just contrary to the present law?

Mr. HANSON. I really do not know whether it is or not. I assume not. Read the law, will you, please, and then we will know.

Representative BLOOM. I thought you knew the law; that is why I was asking the question. I am waiting here for somebody who is supposed to know the law. There is no use going into it with you unless you do know the law. If you want me to tell you about it I shall be glad to do so.

The present law says that you do not have to file anything unless you want to give the right for people to make reproductions on mechanical instruments. That is right, isn't it?

Mr. HANSON. Yes.

Representative BLOOM. They may reserve the right to themselves? That is the present law?

Mr. HANSON. And now this law, as you say, says that they must reserve a right against broadcasting.

Representative BLOOM. Yes; immediately-immediately. In other

words

Mr. HANSON. Well, that is a small matter, Mr. Congressman. Representative BLOOM. Oh, no; I say that is a big matter.

are per

Mr. HANSON. So far as my asociation is concerned, we fectly 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

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 curent 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