Now, the present statute uses the term "visible;" but the reproducing group said (if I am wrong, Mr. Bethune will correct me): "We do not care that it shall be visible in the sense that he who runs may read it. We do not care, even, that it shall necessarily be on the front of the painting. It may be on the back of the painting. It must not be on the frame, because the frame is a detachable thing. People's tastes as to frames differ, and one collector likes one, while his successor may prefer another, and he will change the frame, and with it goes the notice. It must be on the thing itself"—that was their contention—"but it may be on the back."
Now, if it is on the back, is the word "visible" descriptive? We wanted to get some word that would indicate that it might be put in some place where it could be found by somebody looking for it, and that was the requirement of the reproducer that somebody with a sincere desire, not with a malicious intention to appropriate it, but with a sincere desire to find out whether it was copyrighted or not, might find out with a reasonable search intending to look for it. That was satisfactory to them and that was the endeavor in using the word "accessible."
Now, it is that little doubt which Mr. Bethune has suggested to you. Would it cover the back? And would it cover and prevent a case of covering it up? The notice might be covered up. So he has suggested the addition of the words "and uncovered," but the use of the word "accessible" rather than the word "visible" was to endeavor to express what we understood to be agreed to, as the agreed intention.
Mr.Bethune. I think it will express it if "uncovered" is added.
Mr.Putnam. I should add that the reproducers definitely objected to the privilege on the part of the photographers, and so on, the print publishers, etc., of putting the notice on the mount; but of course it was understood that they had that privilege at present. They have that privilege at present, but the reproducers never thought that that was reasonable, and did not concede it to be reasonable.
Mr.Bethune. Now, reproducers are open to fraudulent attempts to sell to them copyrighted works by simply removing the notice of copyright, and section 25, in the draft of the bill, imposes simply a penalty of $100 as a minimum and $1,000 as a maximum fine for the removal of this notice. We think that the punishment should be imprisonment as well as fine. We want to protect ourselves from that fraud, which is very frequently encountered.
Mr.Chaney. So that that paragraph of that section as it stands is satisfactory to you?
Mr.Bethune. Section 25, sir?
Mr.Chaney. Yes.
Mr.Bethune. No. We want, as well as a punishment by fine of not less than $100, the words inserted "or imprisonment" or "and imprisonment," both for a specified term; it is not material how long it shall be.
Mr.Webb. Have you suggested your amendment to this section 14 that some word instead of "accessible" should be used? Did you suggest "visible"? Was that your idea?
Mr.Bethune. That was the word which we did suggest, but "accessible" is satisfactory to us if "uncovered" is coupled with it.
Mr.Webb. You want it to read "accessible and uncovered"?
Mr.Bethune. Yes.
Mr.Webb. Would that apply to a magazine picture—a picture in a magazine that had the notice on the back of the original? You could look for it, and it would be uncovered.
Mr.Bethune. In the case of a magazine, as I understand, it would be covered by the copyright of the magazine.
Mr.Webb. Well, that is all right; I did not understand how that would be.
Mr.Bethune. Those are the principal features——
SenatorMallory. I would like to ask you with reference to that suggestion which you were referring to in regard to publication in the matter of a work of art, or a plastic work or drawing. Is there any definite suggestion that you could make, any definite change, so as to convey your idea? I think I know what you want; but it seems to me it is going to be pretty difficult to use an expression there that will convey the exact idea that you desire. Now, in the matter of a work of art, as long as it remains in the hands of the creator of it, one would think it would not be necessary, but it was suggested to me by the chairman here that even the maker of the work of art might want to copyright it, although he did not intend to sell it; he would want to prevent people from infringing on it.
Mr.Bethune. Precisely.
SenatorMallory. And yet there would be no publication; he could keep it in his own library.
Mr.Bethune. He has the right to copyright it at any time he pleases, before publication.
SenatorMallory. I know that; but the point is, What does the word "publication" here mean? And I would like to know, if you have given the thing any thought, if there is any suggestion you could make?
Mr.Bethune. Yes, sir; I think the term "publication" should be explained. I do not think we can define altogether what "publication" is; but we can state that certain things shall be included within "publication."
SenatorMallory. What is your suggestion?
Mr.Bethune. I think that sale, whether a public or private sale of the painting, and the public exhibition of the painting, should be construed as a publication.
Mr.Webb. You suggest inserting after "original" "before publication, exhibition, or offering for sale?"
Mr.Bethune. No, sir; I should let "publication" stand there, but I should qualify or partially define in another section what "publication" is——
TheChairman. Is there not danger in making such definition?
Mr.Bethune. No; I think not, if you state what it shall include, or rather what shall be included in it.
TheChairman. Suppose we define publication in the manner you suggest, would there not be difficulty in cases not covered by that definition?
Mr.Bethune. I think not, sir.
TheChairman. Might not the courts construe that definition as covering all classes of publications?
Mr.Bethune. Not if the statute specifically states that those expressions are not meant to be an exact definition of all that publication includes, and I think that can be very easily done.
TheChairman. We would be very glad to have your suggestion on that point.
Mr.Bethune. I should be very glad to submit it if you will be kind enough to permit me to do so.
There are some other matters which I do not care to take up your time with now, and will do so in writing.
Mr.Chaney. Is your idea of expressing and defining "publication" for the purpose of limiting the word "publication?"
Mr.Bethune. Not altogether; no, sir. I think that both the reproducer and the artist should know the exact situation at the very outset. If the artist exhibits a painting in a gallery and people pay fifty cents or nothing to go in and look at the painting, although there is a restriction, perhaps, made by the artist upon copying that painting, when the painting goes to that exhibition he should know at once, and the reproducer should know, that that being a public exhibition is a publication of the painting, and if the copyright notice is not on it then the artist has lost entirely the right to copyright it entirely.
Mr.Chaney. You are aware of the fact that if you undertake to define "publication" you do limit it to whatever you say it is?
Mr.Bethune. I do if I attempt to fully define it, but I should not attempt to so define it. I should attempt to say that certain things should be embraced in the term "publication."
Mr.Chaney. Do you not thereby exclude everything else?
Mr.Bethune. No, sir.
Mr.Putnam. If Mr. Bethune will permit me, Mr. Chairman, the attention of the committee may not have been called to the fact that there is a definition of the date of publication where copies are reproduced for sale or distribution. That is in section 63. It is limited to that because, after discussion, the conference did not seem to be able, or none of our advisers seemed to be able, to suggest a definition for "publication" in the case of works of art, for instance, of which copies are not reproduced. It seemed to those who were advising us a dangerous thing to attempt.
Mr.Bethune. I think it would be, and I would not undertake it, but I think you will save trouble and expense to both the artists and the reproducers if you will say that the sale, whether private or public, and the public exhibition, shall be a publication of the painting.
Mr.Webb. That is what I asked you a while ago—if you did not think, speaking of "publication" here, that it would be sufficient if you were to let it read "public exhibition or offering the same for sale," either public or private sale?
Mr.Bethune. To be included in the term "publication."
Mr.Webb. But can you think of any other instance where publication would mean something else than those things?
Mr.Bethune. No; I can not for the moment, but I think there is danger, as the chairman has just stated—there may be many things which do not occur to me now, or would not occur to this committee, which should be contained in a definition.
Mr.Webb. I think you would complicate it very much if you used the word "publication" generally, and then undertook to define "publication" also, and intended that "publication" should cover more points than you specified.
Mr.Bethune. Why, sir, this bill starts in and says that all the works of an author may be copyrighted. It then specifies some of the things, and it then says that the things specified are not all that may be included.
Mr.Webb. I understand that; but you, a man who is expert in these matters, can not state to us what other points would be covered than public exhibition or offering the same for sale.
Mr.Bethune. I am not a reproducer; I am a lawyer, and the reproducers may be able to advise me.
Mr.Chaney. A lawyer is an originator always. [Laughter.]
TheChairman. You spoke earlier in your remarks about the decisions of courts on this subject.
Mr.Bethune. Yes.
TheChairman. And the lack of uniformity of the decisions relative to publication. Is not that fact due to the conditions which you now describe, and which have been suggested by different members of the committee—because what may be publication in one copyrightable article may not be publication in another?
Mr.Bethune. Yes, sir. For that reason——
TheChairman. Now, then, if the courts, with this attempt to define publication, have found difficulty and have differed, is it not because of the different character of the articles that have been involved in the litigation before the courts?
Mr.Bethune. No; it is the same article that I have in mind. There is one Massachusetts case, a Federal case, where, in the case of a public exhibition of a painting, the circuit court of appeals in the first district held that that was a publication of the painting.
Mr.Campbell. Was the exhibition given for hire, for profit?
Mr.Bethune. Yes; my recollection is that it was a public exhibition for hire. Subsequently another case——
SenatorMallory. It held that that constituted publication?
Mr.Bethune. That that constituted publication.
SenatorMallory. It did not define what publication was any more than that?
Mr.Bethune. No; it simply decided that that particular public exhibition was a publication of the work.
TheChairman. In other words, it decided that in that case special acts constituted a publication?
Mr.Bethune. Yes, sir. Now, the Federal courts in New York State have held the contrary view in respect of a public exhibition of a painting for hire (in the Workmeister cases). Those cases will probably go up to the Supreme Court, but they may not.
TheChairman. What was the argument or the reasoning of the court in the latter decision?
Mr.Bethune. The Massachusetts case was distinguished, if my memory is correct, on the fine point that in one case there was a reservation—in the one case the artist made some reservation in respect of the use of the painting when he loaned it to the exhibition, and in the other case he did not; but it is just those fine points which we want to eliminate.
SenatorMallory. From what you say, I think it would be well for us to avoid the word "publication" and state just what we want without using the word "publication" at all, if we are going to give rise to diverse decisions and litigation. I think we had better express it, perhaps, in the language which you have—"after sale or exhibition for hire" and "public exhibition."
Mr.Bethune. Well, there you do limit it.
SenatorMallory. Just express it in those words.
Mr.Bethune. There you do limit distinctly what would be, in effect, publication, though you do not call it so, and that we do not want.
TheChairman. We would be very glad if you would submit your proposed amendment to the committee later.
Mr.Putnam. Mr. Chairman, I understand that Mr. W. A. Livingstone, representing certain reproducing interests, and Mr. McDonald, representing the National Photographers' Copyright League, wish to have a note recorded—not to argue a point, but simply to have a note recorded in the minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. LIVINGSTONE, ESQ., OF DETROIT, MICH.
Mr.Livingstone. Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to state two things in contradiction of the last speaker. I stand here for a large reproductive interest, and consequently we are speaking also from the standpoint of the reproducer. We dissent very strongly from his opinion and we support the bill in respect to notice as it now is.
That is all we wish to say now.
Mr.Webb. You want the word "accessible" kept in just as it is now?
Mr.Livingstone. Yes, sir.
Mr.Webb. What do you understand that to mean?
Mr.Livingstone. I understand that to imply that that notice must be easily get-at-able in the painting or other object.
Mr.Webb. Well, "accessible" means "get-at-able."
Mr.Livingstone. Yes, sir.
Mr.Webb. But you have not got "easily accessible" in here. You have got "accessible," simply, whether with difficulty or whether with ease.
Mr.Livingstone. In the case of a painting or work of art it is very easy—you can hardly conceive of a case where, if the notice is accessible at all, it can not be obtained.
Mr.Webb. Well, why should you object to the word "uncovered"—"accessible and uncovered?"
Mr.Livingstone. Because if you include the word "uncovered" you then impose some other conditions which are the result of that term, as, for example, you may compel the notice to be on the face. I will give a concrete illustration that is easily understood. Suppose you have a very small miniature which is very delicately painted. You can not put that notice across the face of the miniature, and yet you can take the miniature in your hands and turn it over and find the notice in an accessible place with ease.
Mr.Webb. Do you think, though, that "accessible and uncovered" means putting it on the front of the painting or photograph? Could it not be on the back and be still uncovered on the back?
Mr.Livingstone. The painting may be hanging on the wall.
Mr.Webb. It would still be uncovered.
Mr.Livingstone. Oh, not necessarily; no, sir.
Mr.Webb. As far as the painting itself is concerned, I do not know why you all quibble between "accessible" and "uncovered," and I did not know what was the real difficulty between you on this word "accessible." The word "visible" has been suggested.
Mr.Livingstone. Another case would be this: In certain kinds of sculptures you could not possibly put that notice upon the face of the sculpture without a serious marring of it, without a serious impairment of its commercial value. The law even now takes cognizance of this, and permits you, in those cases, to put it on the bottom or on the back. It may not necessarily be uncovered, but it is accessible.
STATEMENT OF PIRIE MACDONALD, ESQ., OF THE PHOTOGRAPHERS' COPYRIGHT LEAGUE.
Mr.Pirie MacDonald. We wish to stand for the word "accessible" as it has been evolved by the Librarian, and we would wish that in case the word "uncovered" is used it be very strictly defined; that it be defined as to when this picture should be uncovered. If, for example—and remember, please, that I am speaking merely for photographers, and not as a reproductionist—suppose I were to make a photograph of someone, and were to properly and duly mark it with the notice as prescribed by law (for example, a photograph of yourself), and you were to decide that you objected to the notice as being a defacement, and you were to take it on yourself not to take the notice from the picture (because that would be prevented by the proposed law) but to cover it up. It is your property, unquestionably; and it gets to the hand of a reproducer and he says, "This is not uncovered." Therefore I suggest that in case by any chance the word "uncovered" is used, it be very strictly defined.
Mr.Putnam. Mr. Chairman, there are a great many people here who are interested in behalf of the provisions in the bill proposing protection against the mechanical devices for the reproduction of music to the ear. There are many here who are opposed to the provisions of the bill, and those who are its proponents are in favor of them. They are, of course, very desirous to near the arguments advanced by those who are against them, and, if it be your pleasure, I would suggest that it would be only fair to hear from the opponents of those provisions as soon as possible. I have called as many as I knew of the participants in the conference who cared to say anything at this stage in favor of the bill. One additional participant to those who have spoken, representing the directory publishers—I think that association is not here—states, in a letter:
I take this opportunity to say that our association fully indorses the bill as presented to Congress, with the single exception of the final paragraph of section 13.
I take this opportunity to say that our association fully indorses the bill as presented to Congress, with the single exception of the final paragraph of section 13.
That is the paragraph requiring that in the affidavit as to manufacture the place in which the work was done and the establishment shall be specified. I simply ask that that go into the record as coming from the American Directory Publishers.
TheChairman. What reason is given for that request?
Mr.Putnam. I understand the reason to be that it would be an undue burden upon the publishers.
TheChairman. In what respect?
Mr.Putnam. I think perhaps the publishers ought to answer that. It is a specification on which they alleged to the conferences might be inconvenient and difficult in some cases. In the case of directories, the directory publishers said that they were in the habit of having their work done at a great many establishments. Of our general legal advisers, as you have asked me, I feel that I ought to state this: The chairman of the advisory committee of the American Bar Association is not here to state it himself, as he stated it to us: but he was of the opinion that it was not relevant to the affidavit. But I do not see that at this point, sir, this question can be discussed, because the persons who are opposed to this provision are not fully represented here.
Of those on the list of participants that cared to be heard at this point I know of no others, except that Mr. Sullivan, who represents the International Typographical Union, not caring to make any argument or statement, but possibly caring to do so later, if he may, would like to say just a word in behalf of the general principles of the bill, or on behalf of the bill as a whole—the feeling of the Typographical Union as to the bill.
STATEMENT OF J. J. SULLIVAN, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
Mr.Sullivan. Senators and Representatives, I do not desire to take up any of your time just at this hour, as there are many gentlemen here from out of town who wish to be heard before the committee. I therefore desire to be heard at some future time, as I understand you will have a session of this committee to-morrow; and on behalf of the organization, the International Typographical Union, which I have the honor to represent, I particularly protest against any modification of section 13, known as the manufacturing clause of the copyright law.
Mr.Chaney. Is that in this bill or the present law?
Mr.Currier. This bill.
Mr.Sullivan. I refer to section 13, known as the manufacturing clause of the old act and copied in the new one. Speaking also on behalf of my associates from New York, representing 7,500 typographers, we protest against any modification of this law.
Mr.Putnam. You must make it clear whether you refer to this bill or to the existing law. Are you satisfied with the bill?
Mr.Sullivan. I refer to the revised bill.
Mr.Putnam. You are satisfied with the bill as it stands?
Mr.Sullivan. The Senate bill.
Mr.Currier. You are referring simply to section 13?
Mr.Sullivan. Section 13; yes. That is, the old section.
TheChairman. Do you approve in all respects the bill as introduced in the Senate and House?
Mr.Sullivan. No, Senator; I respectfully beg to differ in this respect—that either through inadvertence or slight mistake in the draft of the bill that has been submitted to the Representatives taking part in these conferences there are six lines bracketed.
Mr.Putnam. They are not bracketed in the official bill. They were left out of the bill as introduced.
Mr.Sullivan. I respectfully request that section 13 of the bill as presented to the Representatives taking part in the conferences here be revised in the Senate bill so as to include the paragraph that is bracketed in the draft of the bill sent out to the delegates.
Mr.Putnam. Well, Mr. Sullivan, I want you to be clear about this. The bill as introduced into Congress did not contain those brackets. That was a draft sent out some time ago, and the bill as introduced in Congress has not those brackets.
Mr.Sullivan. (after examining the official copy of the bill). That is on page 9; that is all right.
Mr.Currier. It is right as it is, as we understand?
Mr.Sullivan. It is right as it is. That is all right, then; we have no objection, Senator, to the bill as it stands. I only wish to say at this time that that bill has already passed the lower branch of Congress.
Mr.Currier. You refer to section 13?
Mr.Sullivan. Yes, sir; and Representative Currier knows it has also passed his committee. We respectfully submit the resolution to your hands, and I desire to be heard on it to-morrow.
Mr.Putnam. Mr. Chairman, with your permission Mr. G. Howlett Davis, of New York, desires to be heard as representing inventors who have allied themselves particularly to these devices for the reproduction of music to the ear. Mr. Davis's suggestion was that as the composers had been heard as the creators of the music in the first instance, one who is engaged as an inventor in the production of these devices should first be heard on the other side.
Mr.S. T. Cameron. May it please the committee, Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who are representing the interests of the talking machines of the country.
TheChairman. Whom do you represent?
Mr.Cameron. I represent the American Graphophone Company of New York.
TheChairman. Do you desire to be heard by the committee?
Mr.Cameron. Yes, sir. I wish to say at this point, however, sir, that with all due respect to the Librarian, it would seem to me that there is no good reason existing why he should depart from the mode of procedure in connection with these talking machines that has been taken in all the rest of the bill—that is, that those who are the proponents for the changes in this bill that are of a very radical nature and very radically different from existing law should present to the committee their reasons for such changes, before hearing from the opponents of the bill.
Mr.Putnam. I had no intention, Mr. Chairman, of departing from that mode of procedure. I understood that two gentlemen in behalf of these provisions had been heard, Mr. Sousa and Mr. Herbert; and I had also been informed that the other interests, including those of the publishers, did not care to be heard at this point; they were content to have the provision before you as the affirmative. I desire now that the opponents of the bill should have the fullest opportunity, at the earliest possible moment, to present their views to the committee. The opponents have not advised me as to whether they had agreed upon any method of presenting their case. I simply had this suggestion from Mr. Davis which I laid before you, and the fact that Mr. O'Connell, representing ten manufacturers of automatic piano players, also wishes to be heard.
Mr.Paul H. Cromelin. Mr. Chairman, as the representative of the Columbia Phonograph Company, I should like to know whether it is the purpose of this committee to sit to-morrow. I had promised certain gentlemen in New York City to telephone them between half after 12 to-day and 1 o'clock, so that they can leave on the Congressional Limited and be here to-morrow, if it is your intention to-morrow to hear the opponents of this bill.
TheChairman(after consultation with other members of the committee). We will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr.Cromelin. And may I ask also, Mr. Chairman, if it is your intention to continue these proceedings this afternoon?
TheChairman. We will continue this session until about half past 1.
Mr.Cromelin. Thank you very much.
Mr.Albert H. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire whether the committee is willing to sit also on Saturday to continue the hearings?
TheChairman(after further consultation). It is the purpose of the committee, if possible, to finish its hearings to-morrow.
Mr.Walker. I wish to suggest to the committee that this bill is incomparably the most important measure that has been before any Committee on Patents of either House of the American Congress at any time since the civil war, and I think it is the most important measure that ever was before any Committee on Patents of the American Congress since the enactment of the patent law in 1836.
TheChairman. It is not the purpose of the committee to deprive anyone who desires a hearing of that privilege. On the contrary, the committee will sit so long as anyone desires to be heard, within any sort of reason.
Mr.Walker. If the Senator will permit me one moment, I am prepared and have been preparing myself through a rather long lifetime to elucidate the subject of copyright law; and I appear before the committee in the interests of the American people and also in the interests of the authors.
TheChairman. How much time do you wish, Mr. Walker?
Mr.Walker. I wish at least two hours, and I can take it at any time at the convenience of the committee, at any day.
TheChairman(after further consultation with the other members of the committee). We will hear you, Mr. Walker, one hour to-morrow morning, if we are unable to reach you to-day, with the privilege of submitting in writing your views if you so desire.
Mr.Walker. If the chairman will allow me to make the suggestion, if I were to be heard to-morrow for an hour, that would probably cut off other gentlemen who would wish to speak much shorter than that, and it would be very convenient for me, if the committee is to sit at all on Saturday, to hear other gentlemen on Friday and let me speak on Saturday.
TheChairman. If we are compelled to hold a session on Saturday, we will hear you on that day; but we hope that the gentlemen who are present to present their views to the committee will finish in such time as will permit you to have your hour to-morrow morning.
Mr.Walker. Then, is it understood that I am to speak first to-morrow morning?
TheChairman. I think not.
Mr.Currier. There are some other gentlemen here who will want five or ten minutes.
TheChairman. Inasmuch as you prefer to go over until Saturday, if convenient to the committee, I should think that the members from out of town and the other gentlemen here should be first to address the committee.
Mr.Walker. That is very agreeable to me.
Mr.Sousa. I sincerely trust, Mr. Chairman, that in Mr. Walker's discussion it will not be permitted to discuss the copyright of the past. We are not after that. We want a copyright of the future. If he will talk about things that will be for the benefit of the future, I think you should give him the time; but if he is going into a discussion of what was done a hundred or two hundred or three hundred years ago, we do not want it. [Laughter.] That is the past; we want the future.
Mr.Cromelin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give notice, as the representative of the Columbia Phonograph Company, representing large interests which are vitally affected by this bill; as the representative of a company which knew nothing of this proposed legislation before the publication took place on the 31st of May; as the representative of a company that was not invited to take part in the so-called conferences, notwithstanding the fact that its industry is so broad that it embraces the world, that I would like to be heard, and that it will probably take at least one hour or two hours to present this subject in all of its ramifications to your committee. It was my understanding that the committee would adjourn to-day at 12 or 1 o'clock, and in view of the fact that the opponents of this measure have had to come together quickly, and that they have had no time to organize, while on the other hand those who are proposing it have had conferences for more than one year, I propose, sir, that it would be meet and proper at this time to adjourn this conference until to-morrow morning, giving the opponents of the measure a chance to decide upon a plan of action for presenting this matter to your committee, and that we will come here to-morrow morning and present the various views of those who are interested.
I therefore suggest the advisability of a postponement until to-morrow morning or an adjournment.
TheChairman. Do I understand that all the opponents of the provisions of this law relative to talking-machine devices can be heard within one hour?
Mr.Cromelin. No, sir. I speak on behalf of myself, for my own industry only. There are others——
TheChairman. How many desire a hearing?
Mr.Cromelin. I believe that there are at least a half a dozen gentlemen who desire a hearing.
TheChairman. Does each want one hour?
Mr.Cromelin. I do not know how long it will take them to present their views.
TheChairman. We established a rule at the beginning of the hearings yesterday limiting the statements to ten minutes each.
Mr.Cromelin. I understood, Mr. Chairman, that that was in regard to the proponents of the measure. I did not understand that you intended to limit those persons whose interests are vitally affected by this measure to ten minutes to reply. I do not believe that is the intention of this committee; and I submit the question to the honorable chairman.
Mr.Chaney. Mr. Chairman, it is entirely out of all reason to expect us to remember what these gentlemen will say. We will want a good deal of it in typewriting anyhow; and they can simply give a synopsis of an argument here as to what they want to do, and we must expect them to submit to the committee in writing for our use such matters as they seem to think important for our consideration when we are giving the bill consideration. They do not need so long a time to make a speech here. Let them prepare their matter and hand it in.
Mr.Cromelin. Mr. Chairman, we hope to file briefs in addition to the oral statements.
Mr.Currier. As far as the House committee is concerned there is no expectation that there will be a report of this bill at this session of the Congress.
Mr.Cromelin. Will the gentleman be good enough to state that positively on behalf of the committee, so that the interests that ought to be represented here to-day, and whose representatives must remain away, can be satisfied on that point?
Mr.Currier. I can state it most positively, as far as the House is concerned.
Mr.Cromelin. I thank you very much.
TheChairman. And the same is true so far as the Senate is concerned.
Mr.Cromelin. I thank you very much. We have endeavored to get that information from the Librarian, and he stated yesterday that it was highly improbable, but he could not state——
Mr.Putnam. Mr. Cromelin, if you will excuse me, I said that I had no right to give any such prophecy on the part of the committee; it was not within my control. You will do me the justice to say, Mr. Cromelin, that I added that when the copyright office asked for this bill to be introduced it had no expectation itself of any possibility of its being reported at this session.
Mr.Cromelin. Thank you very much for the information I have gotten from the Librarian and from the chairmen of the respective committees. That assures us on the point, for the first time, that this bill will not be reported at this session of Congress.
(After a consultation between the members of the committees:)
TheChairman. The committee has decided that it will hear some representative of all these interests, if they shall so desire, not exceeding an hour, with the same permission to supply in writing such matter as they may desire, as was given to Mr. Walker. I might add that it seems to us that the representatives of these interests can state concisely in that time their objections to the bill as introduced in the Senate and House, leaving the details to be supplied in writing, as I have suggested. It does not seem necessary to us, unless it is desired by these representatives, to have each gentleman representing each manufactory make a speech to this committee. We think that it will be giving you all a fair opportunity to be heard to comply with the suggestion that has been made.
Mr.Webb. The interests are about the same.
TheChairman. The interests are precisely the same, as I understand it, so that the objections must be along the same line.
Mr.Cromelin. Mr. Chairman, may I merely state that as regards sound records as understood by a phonograph record, a graphophone record, or a telegraphonic record, the interests may not be the same. We are standing together against the whole measure; but it must be fully understood that in so far as relates to the reproduction of sounds previously produced, there may be a distinction between a sound-producing machine and a sound-reproducing machine.
TheChairman. We think that those distinctions can be very well brought out in your written communications to the committee.
Mr.John J. O'Connell. Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the suggestion of Mr. Cromelin were complied with—that is, that a recess be taken until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock—the various interests covering the music rolls and the phonographic records could get together and decide how to present their views to this committee, and in that way save time; and afterwards each could enlarge in his written brief on the points which he wishes to make.
Mr.Chaney. That is so as to that particular thing, but if there is someone who wishes to be heard on some other point, why not hear him now?
TheChairman. We will postpone this question until to-morrow morning, and we will hope to finish that branch of the case, as well as the argument of Mr. Walker, to-morrow morning from 10 until 12.
Mr.O'Connell. As I stated to the chairman, the only thing in which my clients are interested is the music rolls, and that is the only question I personally wish to present to this committee. Perhaps the same question may be embraced in the points to be raised by the phonographic record people as well.
TheChairman. And I will say to you and the other gentlemen who are interested that you can divide that hour between yourselves as you may please, or you can select some representative to take the entire hour.
Mr.Currier. Mr. Remich, of New Hampshire, is here, and wishes to be heard briefly on another section of the bill.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL O. REMICH, ESQ., OF LITTLETON, N.H.
Mr.Remich. Mr. Chairman, I appear here to-day in behalf of the stereoscopic view manufacturers of the country. There are at least twelve large manufacturers of this description of views. There may be some that are not familiar with that class of view; it is the double view that you look at through the stereoscope. The firm to which I belong is the founder of this business, D. W. Kilburn & Co., of Littleton, N.H., in the White Mountains. There are, as I say, now twelve large concerns, which are competitors. I appear here in behalf of the stereoscopic view manufacturers, who approve of this bill, except one provision, and that is the provision as to the copyright fee.
Mr.Currier. What section is that, Mr. Remich?
Mr.Remich. That is section 60. You will notice that under the old law the fee for copyrighting was 50 cents. The fee is now made a dollar, which advances that expense upon our industry 100 per cent.
Inasmuch as the report of the office shows that there is a good handsome surplus of cash received, more than enough to pay for all the expense of maintaining the Copyright Office, and in addition to that some 213,000 objects, which the Librarian says are of great value to the Nation—books, paintings, etc.—and in view of the small profit in the manufacture of our goods, and the fact that in the conduct of our business we have to make long-term contracts with general agents who handle our goods, selling them over the entire world, and that our contracts have been made for a long term of years, this 100 per cent advance upon our class of goods would practically put us out of business.
Mr.Chaney. Suppose we except those views?
Mr.Remich. I have no objection to that. You will see that they have tried to modify this provision somewhat by a section at the bottom of the twenty-fifth page of the conference report, in which they say——
Mr.Currier. The thirty-eighth page of the bill, gentlemen.
Mr.Remich. The thirty-eighth page of the bill, in which they say: