The CHAIRMAN. Suppose a general revision bill was reported which has in it the same law and the same proposition as is proposed in this bill. Do you mean to say that you would not have the opposition then on the floor of the House to the general copyright revision bill?

Mr. WEIL. I think that some of those objections can probably be overcome because there seems to be a feeling on their part that they want to study the matter as an entirety and not deal with these items separately.

You see, at the present time, as you have been told, the situation in the amusement field has, broadly speaking, entirely altered. There was a time when the field could be divided into more or less water-tight compartments. You had your theater group, your motion-picture group, your music group. I could amplify, but that is enough for practical purposes. Then you had your radio group.

Well, now, as a result not so much of the changes that have taken place, but as a result of changes that are foreshadowed and fears that that may or may not be correctly entertained by the different groups, we find that instead of their being in these distinct compartments, that there is a tendency for them to combine and branch out into all the different fields of amusement activities so as to round out their organizations and have under their control for their own protection and naturally, for their profit-activities in all the different fields.

Now, that means that any group can not necessarily take a definite position on any given proposition without considering it and weighing it in the balance by regarding all their different activities. Where in the past there was only one activity involved in the case of any given group and where we found hard and fast opinions, at the present time, with the spreading out and enlargement of interests, you can talk to them and reason with them with better chances of success in coming to an amicable understanding by pointing out to them that a given interest may outweigh another one. For that reason they might favor legislation which otherwise they might

oppose.

That is not hypothetical. That is based on my own experience, because we have had various discussions in the interval; and, while I have not had any discussion with the mechanical people as such, I think that the same arguments which have been advanced elsewhere might have the same potency there, especially in view of the great changes that have taken place in this field, some of which you have heard about from Mr. Burkan and from Mr. Buck.

I think there has been a better feeling. For example, Mr. Burkam, I believe, spoke about my having represented Electrical Research Products (Inc.). That is correct. That is correct. I am their counsel. I negotiated the contract to which he referred and various other contracts which refer to a similar subject matter. That contract was a contract with members of the Music Publishers Protective Association and took in practically all of them with the exception of one or two very important ones, who stayed outside. And a second contract took in the foreign rights of practically all of those publishers, with one exception again in addition to the prior exception.

Then we have had to negotiate contracts abroad, because practically every country has a society to deal with these matters. We

find that the publishers, because this is primarily a publishing proposition, have organized in societies abroad; and we have to deal with them and make our contracts there.

The whole situation is in a very confused and-if I may say sotemporary state. The contracts only run for three years from now, because nobody knows what is going to happen after that time and nobody is willing to commit himself for any longer period.

But there are two things that I would like to call your attention to in view of some of the inferences which might be drawn from testimony here and I do not say that this was intended to cast any reflection upon my clients, but there is always that possibilityone of them is that Electrical Research, that is to say, Western Electric have no personal interest in these contracts that they made with the music publishers. The contracts were made for the benefit of their licensees, the motion-picture producing companies.

In the second place, Electrical Research did something that shows the attitude that they have taken, the broad attidude that they have taken, and which also shows the broad attitude that the motion picture companies have taken, because obviously Electrical Research, since it does not act for itself, but acts for the motion picture companies, would only take a step of that kind with the consent of their motion picture licensees. That is to say, we found that the first contract that we made was operating rather unfairly to the publishers, who were not going to make enough money under it. So we voluntarily guaranteed to them a minimum this last year in a very substantial amount. I think it was approximately double what it would have otherwise have been, approximately double what they were entitled to under the contract; and we paid that double amount just in the interest of fairness and good will.

That will give you some indication as to the fair and broad-minded way in which the motion picture industry treats these matters. I think that this was almost a unique thing to have happen in the relations of as important businesses as are involved here; and I merely mention it to show you gentlemen that we try to think broadly and try to think constructively and that we are not engaged in penny pinching nor are we trying to get the last ounce of blood out of

anyone.

Mr. LANHAM. Is it your judgment that a bill of general revision would have little more opposition on the floor than a bill amending some particular section, as this bill purports to do?

Mr. WEIL. That is my considered judgment, unless there are other provisions in the general bill that would conflict with the principle of this bill. We would have no objection to the inclusion of this bill in a general revision.

Are there any further questions, gentlemen?

A suggestion has just been made to me that I may have gone too far in my remarks about the radio interests. I did not intend to convey the suggestion at any point that they have taken or would take any steps in connection with legislation that were in any way unfair or anything of that kind and that are not perfectly legitimate. I am not advised as to their attitude. My remarks were simply a guess on my part drawn from their general known attitude in connection with this matter of copyright legislation.

Mr. MEIXELL. I would like to present Mr. G. D. Beattys of the Aeolian Co., who appears in opposition to this bill.

STATEMENT OF GEO. BEATTYS. REPRESENTING THE AEOLIAN

CO.

Mr. BEATTYS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am somewhat in the position of Mr. Buck, having been before you gentlemen here a good many times. In the remarks that I am going to make, I may have to refer to some of the arguments that I have made before; but I will have to ask your pardon for that.

I am going to speak principally about music rolls, because I represent the Aeolian Co., which is a manufacturer of rolls. And then I am going to speak only of the compulsory feature and nothing else. Now, I want you to understand that I am going to speak of that feature regardless of the 2 cents. I do not care whether it is 2 cents or 3 cents or 5 cents; no matter what it is. There is that compulsory feature left after you get through with the 2 cents or the amount that is left in the case.

Mr. Buck spoke this morning, and I was interested in what he had to say. Of course, I heard it before, some of it. But there is one thing that he did not speak about. He did not overlook it, because I don't believe he cares much about it. But it is simply this one general

feature that I might call attention to.

I know this committee understands that when you have a song and you start to bargain for it, you can bargain for it, if you are the composer of the music, we will say; and you can sell it for whatever you want to. But when you get through with that and approach the Copyright Office to get a copyright, then immediately there enters into the situation a public interest.

This committee can not make a law on copyright without bearing in mind the fact that your only authority to do that is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In other words, you can not make a law unless you consider the public welfare.

Now, that is the paramount object. I think I can show to you the fact that even though you have got a copyright, and even though you have a right to bargain, nevertheless there are paramount interests in here of a public nature, and that your copyright is subject to paramount rights of the public; and we are the public in this case. I want to make that clear just as a basis of my argument.

Now, I am not going to talk a thing about the 2 cents, but there was an atmosphere here which has always been created in dealing with this 2 cents as though it was a postage stamp and that it was a terrible hardship on the music publishers to be compelled to accept 2 cents. Well, I am not going to talk on that except to say this: Do not get the idea that they have been oppressed because of this 2 cents. I want to tell you that thay have got thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars out of our industry; and it is the backbone of their business; and if the 2 cents had been stopped, they would have gone out of business because what we did and gave to them, the phonograph and the music, was the whole thing.

I gave some figures here some years ago, and they are still on the record. I will just merely refer to those as affecting the Eolin Co. They talk about the artists that sing the songs getting large sums and they getting only 2 cents. Well, now, I took a 5-year period and I told you gentlemen-you were not all here as members of the committee-but I took a 5-year period and I found that for every

roll that we sold in the five years we paid the artists to play those rolls a certain sum of money. I am guessing what it was. I think it was about thirty-odd thousand dollars for artists that we paid in that 5-year period. How much did we pay to the music publishers who got the 2 cents? Over $300,000. Don't forget that we gave these poor music publishers ten times as much as we gave to the artists that played for the rolls. So, gentlemen, let us not get the idea that those 2 cents have been a terrible hardship for the music publishers, because it has been the backbone of their business.

Now, having said that, I am going to leave that thing entirely. But here is one thing that I do not understand. I do not understand Mr. Buck's statement that when the 1909 law was enacted there was no need for it. I have looked into the record and I find that, of course, there was a serious time in 1908.

Now, don't get the idea again that all of these composers were not here, because I looked up the records, and I just want to say this: That here was Victor Herbert, who said he represented the American Federation of Musicians, 60,000 of them. An officer of the American Copyright League was here. There was our friend George Haven whose obituary notice has only been in last week's papers; Thomas Nelson Page, and Henry Van Dyke were here. Even Mr. Burkan was here and a hundred other names of prominent people are mentioned here.

I called attention to that because I want to go on now after what Mr. Buck said, in telling you something in just a word about the Sixtieth Congress, that made this law, that is being jumped on here. All right. Times have changed some. But that was the joint committee of Congress and the Senate. Senator Smoot was chariman of the Senate committee. Mr. Currier was chairman of the House committee. On the committee was Mr. Brandigee, of Connecticut, as you all know, one of the brightest legal minds that ever entered the Senate.

Now, there were those men who were looking at the very task that you gentlemen are looking at. I want you to understand that. Times have changes; yes. But the fundamental issues that were presented to them are right now before you gentlemen. Times have not changed in that respect. The conditions that existed then

exist now.

I have here their words but I am not going to quote them. It will take a little time. I am going to give you just a digest of them. They certainly gave much time and thought to this subject.

Now, to be sure, that can be helpful to you gentlemen. The decision and the brains of those people are entitled to respect if nothing else in this very connection here.

You are not a

You gentlemen are a coordinate body with them. court of appeals as far as they are concerned. You have got the right to repeal any law that they made, but you should not interfere with the work that they did along a fundamental feature without careful consideration and without good and sufficient reasons.

They talk about that Sixtieth Congress; and I want to make that very plain, what they did.

If the conditions are the same now as they were in 1909, there ought to be no change, then, in the fundamental principle that I am talking

106215-30-4

about, the compulsory license, unless you are satisfied that the public interest is benefited by doing so.

Now, they considered-and I am using their language; these are their words: They said it was a difficult and serious task to combine protection to the composer with protection to the public. That is what you are doing. They said, "It is serious and difficult.'

They said, "We must give an adequate return to the composer"— that is what you are saying that "We must prevent the promotion of oppressive monopolies. That is what they said.

Here is what they said: They said that their first thought was"Well, now, why should not the composer be allowed to do anything he wants to in order to control and dispose of his brain and his rights?" That is what they said. "But," they said, "that was our first thought. But these hearings developed the fact that if we did let them do this, the probable effect would be prejudicial to the public welfare; that if you gave rights which were too broad, then you might not promote the interests of the public welfare.”

They said, "Some one company might secure control of copyrights of the popular music." Well, now, if that was interesting then, I want to assure you gentlemen that it is very much more interesting now. Why? Because popular music now is the whole thing, when it was not then. They didn't have any jazz then and dance music. Popular music now is very much more important than popular music was then.

And we must have access to it; access to this popular dance music must be secured. Now, listen, when it is new. When it is new. It does not last long. It soon passes away and is gone. And we have to get access to it while it is popular. We have to get all the special hits as they come out.

I want to read to you what our chairman here said to me when I was talking two or three years ago, if he will allow me just to say that and won't object to my quoting him. He said to me:

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beattys, the main reason you are opposed to eliminating this mechanical clause from the bill was that it would give some company an opportunity to form a monopoly and to put all other companies out of business? I am going to speak of that a little bit later just briefly.

Now, suppose we were to enact this sort of a statute, permitting the producer of a piece of music to bargain and sell with your company, for instance, the right to reproduce by mechanical rolls, and so forth, and then include a provision that would give to every other manufacturer of mechanical rolls the right to use that piece of music at the same price that the Eolian Co. paid for it when it bargained and bought it. Then you would not have any monopoly, would you, and you would carry into effect the very fundamental proposition that the producer ought to have the right to bargain and sell his product? Is not that a fair proposition?

I have this feeling-I may be wrong about it. I may trust too much to human nature—but I have this feeling: Perhaps there is nobody who is interested in this business who does not want to try to get on a fair and equitable basis as affecting everybody concerned the public and the people who are interested in these various concerns, and it seems to me that a provision along this line could be worked out to solve this whole proposition.

Now, there, you see, was the compulsory feature. The chairman of the committee knew that that was necessary to consider, and he had the right idea about it. He had the very right idea about it, that there ought to be this compulsory feature.

Now, what was the result of that statement to me, after I argued for about two hours there?