Amend section 23 by inserting in the clause marked "Fourth" (p. 18, line 4), between the words "of" and "all," the following: "any device, contrivance, or appliance mentioned in section 1, clause (g) and". Hoping that these proposed amendments will meet with the approval of the committee, I remain, Yours, very respectfully, HORACE PETTIT, For Victor Talking Machine Company. Jos. W. STERN & Co., MUSIC PUBLISHERS, Dr. D. P. LEWANDOWSKI, Care of Raleigh Hotel, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR DOCTOR: We herewith authorize you to represent us and speak in favor of the copyright bill at the meeting of the committee. Honorable Senator Kittredge, or any other honorable gentleman who will do anything to further the passage of this bill, will earn our everlasting gratitude and will be working for the advancement of an industry which has been sorely oppressed by piracy and injustice. There is an excellent opportunity now to show fair play to a body of citizens who have been working at a disadvantage and fighting for years for their just rights and for proper and adequate protection from the Government. With best wishes, we remain, Yours, very sincerely, Jos. W. STERN & Co. To the Committee of the Senate on Patents, Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota, Chairman. GENTLEMEN: I appear before you this morning in the name and as the representative of the firm of Jos. W. Stern & Co., music publishers, of New York, and in their behalf I wish to state that the bill on copyrights S. 6330, to amend and consolidate the acts representing copyrights, which is before you this morning, is of the highest importance, for the protection of the authors and composers and music publishers, to protect their copyrights. The old law is very vague and unsatisfactory. The proposed new law would help music publishers and composers very much. There has been a great deal of piracy going on and their best "hits" have been copied and pirated. The new law makes such piracy a criminal offense, punishable by fine or a year imprisonment. If passed, as we hereby most humbly pray that it should be so, it will punish the pirates, because the fine alone can not stop their unjust deeds, and they laugh and pay their fine, but a year of imprisonment will certainly change all for the best. The said pirate would not risk a year of prison at all times. A pub Then again, the new law provides that no phonograph company or any makers of musical instruments, as well as makers of self-playing pianos, can deliberately use the work of the brain of the composer as well as the property of the publisher without permission to do so or paying some remuneration for the same. Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an opera. lisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and copyrights it. Along comes the phonographic companies and companies who cut music rolls and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the composer and publisher without any regard for the said publisher's or composer's rights. They sell thousands and thousands of the "hits" of the publisher, which he has worked hard to make, without paying, as stated before, a cent of royalty for them. The new law proposed remedies this, but of course the phonographic companies are fighting the new bill tooth and nail. In this brief outline I shall include another important statement to show how much work and anxiety of the brain a composer must use to write something in poetry or music, and what anxiety and worry he endures until the said "hit" is an accomplished fact. Sometimes his entire family depends upon the publishing of this brain work, and when it is accepted and the publisher issues the same for the public's appreciation, behold, in the next few days every sort of instrument is playing this man's composition. I for one have suffered this injustice and piracy. Therefore I feel how dreadful it is in general to suffer and to be deprived of remuneration for the just and intelligent inventive brain work which a man produces by his genius. This is, gentlemen, an excellent opportunity to show fair play to a body of citizens who have been working at a disadvantage and fighting for years for their just rights and for proper and adequate protection from the Government. I conclude by appealing most earnestly and respectfully to the honorable gentlemen of the committee to do their utmost to forward the passage of this bill, and I am convinced that they will earn everlasting thanks and gratitude for creating a law which will earn for them recognition and will carry their name to history for having worked for the advancement of an industry which has been sorely oppressed by piracy and injustice. Believing that my most humble indorsement of this new law and the desire of the firm of Jos. W. Stern & Co., who have authorized me to address this body in their behalf, will soon be upon the statute books protecting copyright, I have the honor to remain, Very respectfully, yours, 34 EAST TWENTY-FIRST STREET, New York City. D. P. LEWANDOWSKI, M. D. A. W. ELSON & Co., EDUCATIONAL ART PUBLISHERS, HERBERT PUTNAM, Esq., DEAR SIR: As I do not expect to be able to be present at the first hearing of the copyright bill which is now introduced in Congress, I write to ask whether the suggestions that are made on the accompanying sheet can be placed in the hands of the committee. I should like to appear in favor of these suggestions at any subsequent hearing that may be given by the committee on the bill. I have arranged the suggestions in the order of importance from my own particular standpoint. As this may reach you during or after the hearing before the joint committee of the Senate and the House, I have mailed a duplicate of this to the chairman of the committee. Very truly, yours, A. W. ELSON. Suggestions of additions and amendments to the copyright bill introduced before Congress May 31, 1906, entitled “A bill to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright." Section 5 (subsection J).-That the words "and negatives" be added after the word "photographs," so that subsection J shall read: "Photographs and negatives." Negatives are made the subject of copyright under the present copyright law, and there seems to be no valid reason why they should be omitted in the new copyright statute. It would very much simplify the copyrighting of all photographic reproductions if negatives were made the subject of copyright, and for the purpose of registration two prints of the negative copyrighted should be filed in the copyright office. I would therefore suggest that the following words be added to section 11, seventh line, after the word " edition," "or if the work be a negative, two prints made directly from it." Section 13.-In this section typesetting and the lithographic process are singled out from all other processes connected with the manufacture of printed books, and given distinct protection from foreign competition over all other processes in making books that are copyrightable in the United States. Any such discrimination is unjust, and if this section is retained, the protection should be broadened to include any other processes besides lithography. I would therefore suggest that section 13 be amended as follows: After the words "lithographic process,' "in the seventh line, and after the same words on page 6, first line, nineteenth line, and thirtieth line, there be inserted the words "or any other process or method," and after the words " a process," in the same line, the words or method." That the word "lithographs" in the second and third lines of the same page be erased, and the word "illustrations" be inserted in place of it; and on the same page, in the third line of that portion of section 13 on that page that the words "where' and "either" be erased. My preference would be to see the whole section dropped out, but failing in this no undue preference should be shown any one or two methods connected with the manufacture of books. Section 39.-In its present form could be made clearer if it is intended to secure to an author of an original work of the fine arts any copyright which he may have obtained under the statutes on his work. On the other hand, if the section is intended to secure to an author or artist any potential copyright in a work on which he had not duly secured statutory copyright, then such provision, it would seem, would be unreasonable and unjust to the purchaser of the work; and I would therefore suggest the following wording for this section: "The author of any original work of the fine arts being the owner of such a work and having copyrighted it according to the provisions of this act or any previous United States copyright act, and who has marked upon such original work such notice of copyright as may be required by the act under which the work was copyrighted, shall not be deemed to sell or transfer said copyright upon selling or transferring the original work of art unless an agreement in writing covering the transfer of said copyright be signed by the author. Section 37.-Is open to the same criticism as section 39. It might be corrected by the following changes, viz: That in the third and fourth lines the words "which is the subject of copyright" be struck out and the word "copyrighted" substituted for them. Section 8.-In providing the conditions under which a foreign author or proprietor of any work may obtain copyright on such work within the United States, section 8 grants certain privileges to a foreign proprietor which are not granted to an American proprietor of a foreign work; as, for example, an American proprietor of a foreign painting who desired to copy and publish it in this country. I would therefore suggest that section 8 after the words "provided, however" in the fifth line and through subsection (a) read as follows: "That copyright secured by this act shall extend to the work of an author who is a citizen or subject of a foreign state or nation only when such author or the proprietor of the work (a) shall be living within the United States at the time of the making and first publication of the work or shall contemporaneously with publication in some foreign country publish the work within the limits of the United States." HERBERT PUTNAM, Esq., Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C. A. W. ELSON, 146 Oliver street, Boston. NEW YORK, June 4, 1906. DEAR MR. PUTNAM: I regret to find myself, after the strain of breaking up my home, totally unable to attend the meeting of the Senate and House committees on the 6th. In fact, it is out of my power to go to Washington this week for either the formal or the informal discussions. It seems to me that my time of active work, relative to copyright, is about ended;; and possibly I ought to resign from the presidency of the American Copyright League. I am no longer the president of the National Institute of Arts and Letters, Professor Sloane having become my successor. I think the later draft of your bill is in excellent shape as a basis for consideration by the joint committee. Respectfully, yours, EDMUND C. STEDMAN. LEO FEIST, MUSIC PUBLISHER, Hon. HERBERT PUTNAM, Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Very many thanks for your courteous communication of the 29th instant, and I assure you that I appreciate the compliment paid in the sending thereof. If all is well, Mr. Witmark and myself will be at the conference. Earnestly hoping that the bill will be passed in its present perfect form, believe me,. Very truly, yours, LEO FEIST. WILCOX & BULL, COUNSELORS AT LAW, Hon. HERBERT PUTNAM, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. PUTNAM: I beg to acknowledge, with thanks, various circulars and documents relating to the new copyright bill, including the proof copy of the bill as printed May 19, and the printed copy of the bill as introduced May 31, with notices of the first hearing before the joint committees of the Senate and House, on Wednesday, June 6, at the Library building, and of the preliminary conference to be held to-day, all of which have had my careful attention. ter. I congratulate you that the bill has taken this definite form and is now to be given a preliminary hearing so that it will be in shape to be urged for passage next winThe bill is a monument to the industry and broad intelligence and information of those who have been actively concerned in drafting it, and particularly of yourself and Mr. Solberg. I am proud to have had any share, however slight, in outlining it, and shall be glad to take part as actively as possible in urging it upon Congress and commending it to the people at large. As affecting the interest of my client, the Consolidated Lithograph Company, which is a large producer of lithographic and other prints, engravings, etc., especially for use as posters, the form of the bill seems satisfactory to me and I have no doubt it will be so to my client. This refers particularly to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, defining the subject-matter of copyright and the form of applications for registration. These provisions are in the highest degree liberal and enlightened. The Consolidated Lithograph Company has suggested that I attend the hearing in Washington to-morrow. I should like to do this, at least for the purpose of showing the interest which we feel in the measure and to assist in impressing the committees of Congress with its importance, though I know that after this hearing the bill will simply lie over for further consideration and for action at the next session. But it seems impracticable for me to be in Washington_to-morrow, and I think that I can be of more service at a later time, when I hope that the company will still be disposed to send me there. Very truly, yours, ANSLEY WILCOX. P. S.-Will you please send me an extra copy of the bill, or two if you have them to spare? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. CUTTER, ESQ., OF THE FORBES LIBRARY, NORTHAMPTON, MASS. Mr. CUTTER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I claim to represent no association, nor to represent myself personally. I claim to represent only the public libraries of the following cities: Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Louisville, Pittsburg, Newark, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Springfield, Mass. Also the libraries of the following universities and colleges: Yale, Cornell, Colgate, Wisconsin, Michigan, Amherst, and Brown; the New York State Library and the Connecticut State Library; the Western Massachusetts Library Club, comprising a membership of forty libraries, and the Connecticut Library Association, representing the organization of libraries in Connecticut. I wish to speak a few moments on that provision contained at the bottom of page 24 of the Senate print of the bill. Mr. WEBB. What section? Mr. CUTTER. Section 30; the third subsection of section 30, at the bottom of page 24, line 25, including all after the words "United States"-in other words, that portion of the bill which prohibits importation by public institutions of a certain class of books. You are well aware of the fact that existing law allows public libraries to import two copies of any book without any restriction as to what the book shall be. There are certain points that will make the suggested legislation a great hardship to the libraries. Mr. CURRIER. Pardon me just a minute. Can you import two copies of an unauthorized edition? Mr. CUTTER. Yes, sir. Mr. CURRIER. Can you do that to-day? Mr. CUTTER. Yes, sir; we can now. Mr. CURRIER. A fraudulent reprint, for instance? Mr. CUTTER. Yes, sir. Mr. CURRIER. There is absolutely no restriction, as you understand it to-day? Mr. CUTTER. There is no restriction at all, as I understand, on library importations; but there is in this bill in regard to it. Mr. CURRIER. I was asking about existing law. Mr. CUTTER. Yes; I understand that libraries can import any books that they wish. Mr. CURRIER. I had the contrary opinion, but I may be mistaken. Mr. CHANEY. You object to that entire part of the bill, do you? Mr. CUTTER. Yes; I object to it principally for this reason: In importations for large libraries, such as those that I represent-it does not apply to small libraries which import only a small number of books- a case of books will come in from abroad, books that are not copyrighted in this country, English books. One book in that case might, by a mistake, be one which was copyrighted here, printed in England, and containing no notice of its copyright in the United States of America. If that fact was discovered it would send all of that box of books to public store; it would place all the box of books, as I understand, in danger of 'being destroyed; and it would place the librarian who did the importing in danger of having to show the Secretary of the Treasury, under this law, that he was not guilty of trying to import that book illicitly. Mr. CURRIER. Under what section of this law? Let that go in the record right here. Mr. PUTNAM. Sections 28 and 29, I think. Mr. CUTTER. Section 28 is in regard to the condemnation, on page 21 of the Senate print. Sections 26 to 29 include the penalties that I have referred to. Our objection to that is the fact that libraries in these days must have at their disposal as quickly as possible the printed thought of foreign countries. If there is any delay in our obtaining the box of books (and those who have had experience, as I have, for thirteen years in importing books for libraries in this country, know that there is often six months delay in getting a box of books through the customhouse where there is the least question as to any of them) it would mean, practically, that our reason for buying the books at that time had disappeared. We want the printed English thought as quickly as possible. Mr. CHANEY. Do you think that is necessary to the efficiency of a public library? Mr. CUTTER. I do. Mr. CHANEY. That you should get those books immediately? Now, my other reason is a commercial reason; and in order to state it I shall have to go somewhat into ancient history. About the year 1901 certain publishers of this country formed an association called the American Publishers' Association, and, in conjunction with the American Booksellers' Association, entered into an agreement to control absolutely the selling price of books in this country. It was an agreement among the publishers that they would not furnish books to booksellers who would not agree to sell the books at a standard price-in other words, a trust proposition. Mr. CHANEY. We have heard of trusts before. [Laughter.] |