SIR: At the meeting of the Joint committee held to-day, counsel representing one of the talking machine companies made a statement to the effect that Hon. Herbert Putnam, Librarian of Congress, in the preparation of the copyright bill had called into conference only such interests as he wanted, and with whom he was in league, and intimated that the Librarian has acted in an unfair manner.
When recess was taken and the gentleman was leaving the building, I called him aside and emphatically took exception to the remarks referred to. As one attending but not partic.i.p.ating in the last two conferences held, I think it no more than fair and just and my duty to express to the joint committee the fact that Mr. Putnam"s course throughout the conferences was fair, just, and equitable to all interests represented, and that every interest concerned was invited to present its views.
The interests were varied and frequently antagonistic, and Mr.
Putnam was decided in his expressions that every representative should be heard to the fullest and freest extent, and that after the wishes of those interested was ascertained he was confident an equitable bill would be the outcome; that while it might not be satisfactory in every respect to each, yet he felt positive that with the a.s.sistance of the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, and the cooperation and counsel of the American Bar a.s.sociation, and the Bar a.s.sociation of the City of New York, no interest or line of industry, whether represented or not, would be unjustly or unfairly treated. His att.i.tude in all of the conferences was in the highest degree dignified and impartial.
To my positive knowledge the trade journals, as well as the newspapers, contained full information concerning the copyright conferences and the proposed copyright bill as long ago as February, 1906; yet the gentleman referred to claims that the conferences were star chamber proceedings for the benefit of selected private interests. No interested concern could have failed to become acquainted with the fact that the conferences were being held, and no one seeking admission was denied opportunity to present his views.
This statement is made solely for the reason that the unjust, unfair, and undeserved criticism of Mr. Putnam, known to me to be absolutely true, has stirred my deepest indignation, and I present this protest to the committee and ask that the reflections upon Mr. Putnam be stricken from the record.
Sincerely, yours,
LEO FEIST.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK W. HEDGELAND, ESQ.
The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent?
Mr. HEDGELAND. I represent the Kimball Company.
I wish to state, gentlemen, that three or four days ago I first learned of the introduction of this measure. I have heard what the advocates of this bill have said with reference to there being one side to this question. There are really four sides to this question--the public, the composer, the manufacturers of the automatic musical instruments, and the inventors that have made that industry possible.
The bill as drawn practically gives the monopoly of all this capital that has been invested, the genius that has been displayed and made this field possible to the composer, to the publisher and composer, in its entirety. Now, the brains and effort that have made this market open to the publisher should be recognized in this bill. The bill should not be a retroactive one, to punish the inventor and the capitalist for what they have done in the past to provide a field for the composer.
Mr. CURRIER. It will not be retroactive.
Mr. HEDGELAND. It must be equitable; and as to any rights that are conveyed in that bill to the publisher or the composer, it must put these industries on an equal footing. Otherwise it is creating one of the worst features of trusts that one can conceive of.
In a recent suit it has been claimed that these instruments discourage education in music. Such is not the case. In a recent test case it was proven and never contradicted that learning, both vocal and instrumental, has increased year after year, and that the sale of these staff notation copies has been increased rather than diminished by the automatic musical instruments. Now, those things all being taken into consideration, I think this industry deserves very careful equitable consideration on your part.
I have had no time to prepare the different phases of this matter, and would like, if the committee will give me permission, to file a short brief from the manufacturers" and inventors" standpoint.
The CHAIRMAN. You may have that privilege.
Mr. HEDGELAND. With that, gentlemen, I will not take any more of your time.
_To the joint committee of the Senate and House_:
In obedience to the privilege extended me on my short address June 9 by your honorable committee I now file the following brief:
There are, without question, four vital interests involved in the copyright legislation now before your committee, as applying to mechanical reproductions of musical compositions, as set forth specifically in section 1, paragraph (g), and section 38; this bill, H.R. 19853, also bristles in many sections with conditions that might easily be construed as applying to mechanical industry, and calls for careful a.n.a.lytical legal investigation.
The interests of equity involved are: The inventor; the composer; the manufacturer of automatic instruments and their controllers; the public. I shall take up the equities in the order named.
_The inventor._--Being an inventor, and the majority of my inventions being on automatic musical instruments and devices for making the controllers (which patents largely outnumber any contributed by any other individual to this art), I am well fitted to state the part these devices have taken in the advancement of music. Automatic musical instruments date back six decades or over. The barrel organ, with its cylinder and pins, was used to accompany divine worship in English churches before pianos adorned the homes of the congregation, and they have been constantly manufactured up to the present time, and are known now as orchestrions. Twenty-three years ago, at the inventions exhibition held in London, England, automatic reed organs (aeolians) were exhibited by the Mechanical Organette Company, of New York, and, mechanically, I had charge of the instruments on exhibition. There were also exhibited piano players of French and German manufacture and the Miranda pianista, an English pneumatic player. Both aeolians and piano players have constantly been manufactured up to the present time, inventive genius constantly laboring for perfection in operation, ease of operation, and reduction of cost to place them in reach of the ma.s.ses. It is a fact beyond dispute that barrel organs are as old as or older than pianos or reed organs.
I have labored twenty-three years in this industry and contributed between thirty and forty patents to the automatic-instrument industry, and have invented and patented machines that would record on controllers for automatic musical instruments the conceptions of pianists and authors, when played on an instrument by them, and I have yet to acquire a competency for my labors. The inventor"s labors are always discounted by the following conditions:
First. Capital and machinery to market and manufacture the invention.
Second. State of the prior art as brought out in the Patent Office search.
Third. The liability of infringement and the slow and tedious and expensive process of stopping it, taking testimony from Maine to California, etc. I have a case of flagrant infringement which was prosecuted four years ago and has not yet been adjudged by the circuit court--as is usual in such cases, temporary injunction being denied, which the composer or author could and does readily obtain.
_The composer._--The composer or author of musical compositions rarely, if ever, follows composing or copyrighting alone as the means of making a livelihood. In all my experience I can not recall a single instance where this has been the case. With practically no exceptions, the composers of musical compositions are engaged in various other walks of life, and this line of work is more or less incidental to the occupations they follow. As an ill.u.s.tration I will name a few of them: Band masters, professional pianists, organists, choir leaders, teachers of music, piano salesmen, music salesmen, and many other callings. The amount of time or application spent in framing musical compositions is oftentimes but a few hours and in the majority of cases in otherwise idle hours. For instance, the testimony of George Schleiffarth, given under oath, which appears later in this brief.
He states: "I have composed 1,500 pieces in thirty-seven years and have netted only $5,000 for these thirty-odd years." This is an average earning of $3.33 for each piece he copyrighted, or a yearly income during these thirty-seven years of $135 per year from his copyrights. It is patent to anyone that he did not procure his livelihood by this means. This is not an exceptional case, but rather a fair average of them.
I do not believe a single case can be produced where a musical composer has earned a livelihood by his compositions alone. This is a very different case with the author of a book with whom the composer shares like privileges under the copyright act. In the majority of cases the author follows writing as his only means of livelihood. This cla.s.s of work occupies a great deal of time, expense, travel, and study of the subjects forming the foundation of his work. The composers rarely treat their compositions as a serious business proposition, but rather as a side issue of net gain on what they realize from them. The publishers of the country are banded and organized together for mutual protection and enrichment to profit by this condition at the expense of the composer, the policy to fight royalties in favor of outright purchases for nominal amounts being general.
_The manufacturer of automatic musical instruments and their controllers._--The equitable interest of the automatic instrument manufacturer consists really of two cla.s.ses, namely, their rights as legitimate manufacturers to a self-made industry; and the part they have taken in the musical education of mankind, and the right they have to continue uninterrupted in an industry and art in which they have been so potent a factor, without molestation.
First. All manufacturers of automatic musical instruments or their controllers have vast interests involved. Capital and time have been heavily spent in creating an honest, legitimate and, beyond question, legal business. They have acquired patent rights, built at large expense special machinery to make a more perfect and less costly product. In short, have exercised and exhibited the same ambition and enterprise that is put into any business where price and merit is the determining factor of success.
Second. The manufacturer of self-playing instruments has done much to extend and create cultivated musical taste in the community.
This has at no time been at the expense of the composer, but, to the contrary, has increased not only the sale of sheet music but has not diminished the study of music, as the following witnesses testified under oath in the recent copyright case: White Smith Music Publishing Company _v._ Apollo Company, which testimony was never reb.u.t.ted or disputed as to fact.
Mr. George Schleiffarth, witness called on behalf of defendant, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
"I have been writing music for thirty-seven years. I have written about fifteen hundred copyrighted compositions, several comic operas, and innumerable musical sketches of all sorts. I have also published some music personally and have now compositions with nearly all the leading publishers in the United States. My best-known compositions are "Doris," "Ambolena Snow," "Douglas Club Two-step," "Who Will Buy My Roses Red?" and the comic opera "Rosita," which has been playing for about twelve years, * * * and as the composer is anxious to be known, I have often asked my publishers to allow the reproduction of my compositions on graphophones and self-playing devices.
"Q. 5. Is it your actual observation that the demand for the sheet music is created and stimulated so that the sale thereof is increased by having the musical compositions played by the piano players and other self-playing instruments, and that the cutting of the perforated rolls for a given musical composition and the selling of such rolls with and for the piano players does increase the demand for the sheet music?--A. As I am not in the sheet business on such a scale that I could judge to what extent it has increased, I still claim, from knowing the amount of music sold in the United States to-day, especially in the popular composition line, it is stimulated by all self-playing devices. For example, I would sit at a piano player and play a catchy melody; six or eight people standing around me will immediately ask--or some of them will--"What is this tune you are playing?" and I know from personal knowledge that many copies, especially of my own compositions, which are cut for self-players, have been bought in sheet-music form on account of my playing them on the machine.
"Redirect:
"Q. 22. I inferred from your statements in that regard that you received usually what you regard as very small compensation or price for a great many of your compositions thus sold. Will you give some instances of this sort, ill.u.s.trating the disparity between the price you received and the popularity, in sales, of the pieces respectively?--A. My first great success, "Careless Elegance," which I published on royalty twenty-eight years ago, and which is still selling to-day, netted me $11. My great song, "Who Will Buy My Roses Red?" which sold 100,000 copies, netted me $83. My great composition, "The World"s Exposition March," $5.
"The Cadet Two-step" (50,000 copies sold), $4. And so I may go on ad infinitum. Out of 1,500 compositions I have probably earned $5,000."
"PETER C. LUTKIN, witness called on behalf of the defendant, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
"Q. 4. Have you in mind the rate of growth in respect to pupils in attendance in the school of music for which you are dean, for five or six years back; and if so, will you kindly give us the facts in general?--A. I have the statistics for the past five years. The attendance in the school of music for the year 1898-99 was 248; for the next year, 297; the next, 348; for the next, 366; for the present year, 460. The figures for the present year are an underestimate rather than an overestimate, as the year is not yet closed; actual number is 453 to date, but will probably run to 475.
"No cross examination."
"JULIUS W. PETERS, a witness called on behalf of the defendant company, being sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
"Direct examination by Mr. BURTON:
"Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence, and occupation.--A.
Julius W. Peters; age, 45; residence, 4465 Oakenwald avenue, Chicago, Ill.; bookkeeper for Chicago Musical College.
"Q. 2. In your capacity of such bookkeeper, have you been intrusted with the keeping of the attendance of that inst.i.tution?--A. I have.
"Q. 3. Will you please state what those records show as to the rate of growth of the attendance of pupils at that inst.i.tution during recent years, giving, if you can do so, the rate from year to year, down to the current year?--A. I have taken this report from the year 1896-97, and our years run from September to September, The increase from 1896-97 to 1897-98 over the preceding year was 9.6 per cent, in the following year 10 per cent, in the next year 10 per cent, in the next 23-3/4 per cent, and in the next year 12.9 per cent.
"Q. 4. Can you give, from the indications so far in this year, the approximate rate of increase?--A. I should say it would be at least as much as last year, which was approximately 13 per cent.