The talking machine world (Jan-Dec 1907)

THE TALKING MACHINE WORLD. 43 THE NEW COPYRIGHT BILL. The Progress of the Measure Since the Last Issue of The World — The Difference Between the Senate and House Bills — The Latter Measure Favored by The Talking Machine and Perforated Music Roll Interests — The Minority of the Senate Committee Also Favor a Somewhat Similar Measure — The Developments Up to Date. (Special to The Talking Macliine World.) Washington, D. C, Feb. 12, 1907. Since the last issue of The World considerable progress has been made in the legislative endeavors to consolidate and revise the acts respecting copyrights. On January 29 Senator Kittredge, chairman of the committee on patents, reported bill No. 8,190, which the majority of the committee recommended for passage. A further report was made by him February 5 in support 'of the measure, signed by himself and Senators Knox, of Pennsylvania; Clapp, of Minnesota, and Lattimer, of South Carolina. The minority report was indorsed by Senator Mallory, of Florida, who presented it, and Senators Foster, of Louisiana, and Smoot, of Utah. Chairman Currier, of the House committee, also reported a bill (No. 25,133) on the same date of tire one that made its appearance in the Senate, and which he also urged should be enacted into law. The following day a supporting report, agreed upon unanimously, was filed. DIFFERENCE BETM^EEN THE TWO BILLS. The difference between the Senate and House bills is that in the provisions concerning the use of music for talking machine records, mechanical instruments, etc. In fact, the entire opposition is concentrated on paragraph E (G in the first draft), and were the music composers and publishers to consent to the exemption of record and perforated roll manufacturers, it is believed the bill would be passed quickly. Dealing with this phase of the measure the Currier report says in part; "More time was given by the committee to the consideration of this provision (formerly paragraph G, now E) than was given to any other provision in the original bill. •* * * Your committee felt that the public performance of a musical composition without first obtaining the consent of the copyright proprietor should not be prohibited in all cases, but only when tlie public performance is for profit. For that reason what was known as paragraph G in the original bill and the last part of paragraph E in the new draft have been eliminated. The only provision In the bill reported to the House regarding the reproduction of copyrighted music by mechanical means is found in paragraph B of section 1 as it now stands. Your committee believe that if this is enacted into law it will simply prohibit the public performance for profit of copyrighted music without the consent of the proprietor by any means whatever, whether mechanical or otherwise." Under this proviso the only records, rolls, sheets, etc., subject to royalty charges would be those used in the so-called vaudeville parlors, and wherever slot or talking machines, automatic pianos or players, orchestrions or any description of mechanical musical devices are installed in public places, as well as in instru. ments operated on the streets. THE SENATE ANTAGONISTIC. Senator Kittredge takes an entirely different view of this portion of section 1, and says: "Of late years an entirely new art has developed as the result of ingenious and elaborate invention. Many forms of machines have been made, purely mechanical in their nature, which are capable, when properly organized, of producing sound in the air, and a succession of sounds, which, when properly combined, form a good substitute for music rendered by voice or by a performer through the instrumentality of an instrument. These mechanical appliances have substituted and displaced in large measure the personality of the performer, and have made it possible to duplicate the skilful performer many hundreds of times by having the artist perform a piece of music before the machine and then mechanically reproducing the original made by the artist. The inventors of these ingenious and valuable machines are entitled to high credit for their ingenuity and for the benefit which they have bestowed upon mankind, and they receive a large pecuniary reward from the exclusive right to manufacture and sell their instruments, granted by the patent system of the United States. These inventions, ingenious they may be, are, however, as dead bones without the vivifying spirit of the musician. It is he who creates the thought they reproduce and sell. Without him they would be nothing." In the minority report to the Senate, however, the position of the House Committee is unqualifiedly approved. This statement, which reflects the views of the trade, is carefully written, and more from a strictly business than a legal viewpoint. It reviews the history of the two bills and the hearings before the joint patents committee in connection therewith, and in referring to those portions of direct interest to the talking machine and allied trades says: SUMMARY OF MINOBITY REPORT.' "We are opposed to certain portions ol the majority report . . . Two separate groups of business interests strenuously opposed the provisions of this section, viz. : (1) Manufacturers of pianos and pianoplayers operated by music rolls, and manufacturers of music rolls for use on such instruments; and (2) manufacturers of talking machines, etc., and manufacturers of records for use in connection with such machines. "Tljese interests most vigorously contended that paragraph 'g' [now 'e'] should be eliminated because (1) it was unconstitutional, (2) because if passed it would create a monopoly; (3) it would be extending the law of copyrights to lengths which all the countries of Europe that had legislated on the question had declined to go; (4) it is designed to inequitably benefit this alleged monopoly and the foreign owners of copyrights on foreign compositions, thereby granting to foreign composers or copyright owners rights which were refused them in their own countries and rights which those countries do not grant to American composers or copyright owners; (5) it invades the domain of the patent laws and fails to preserve that line of demarkation between copyrights and patents which has heretofore been carefully preserved. "As to the alleged monopoly, this paragraph 'g' is said to have been injected into this bill by an associa tion known as the .Music PubllsherB' AggodatloD. The oppo-illlon to tills paragraph contend that It was Introduced for the benefll; of the Aeolian Co. of New York, and for the purpose ol giving that company a conjplele monopoly of the pluno-player and music roll tjUHln>.sB. . . . It Is worthy frf noU: that at no llrne did the Aeolian Co. disavow the charges made against It. . . . TUB AlyLKCiKU .MO.SOl'OI.V f;O.Sl<KM.Sl;l>. "While there was no denial on behalf ot the Aeolian Co., It was contended hy counsel for the .Music I'ubllshers' Association that the contracts In question could only go Into effect provided a decision favorable to them was obtained In what Is known as the Whlte.Smlth case; and If the Wlilte-Smlih case were lost the contracts failed. 'J'liey contended that such contracta did not provide for legislation. 'J'he opposition contended that these contracts did provide for leglKlation, and in addition offered anoth'jr series of contracts wherein legislation Is specllleally referred to. Wiiatever may be the truth In regard to these contentions, it is apparent that the enactment of paragraph "g' Into law would afford an opportunity for such a close organization as tha Music Publishers' Association to organize precisely the kind of monopoly which It is contended would exist under the contract referred to. We think that no law should be enacted which would render this even reasonably possible . . . "We are satisfied that copyrights should not be extended so as to cover mechanical reproducing devices. In the first place, it seems to be a clear invasion of the patent law and fails to observe the line of demarkation that has always been heretofore preserved between the copyright and the patent law. In the second place, we ought not to make such a radical departure In view of the fact that all the nations which have considered the question have refused to go so far. Thirdly, manufacturers who have invested many millions, relying upon the existing statutes to protect them in their investments, should not be despoiled for the benefit of the few. Lastly, the public should not be exploited for the benefit of a group who apparently Intend and expect to obtain complete control of these Industries. We therefore object to the paragraph in question, wnlch is now contained in subsection 'e' of Section 1." The foregoing, as above stated, was signed by the three Senators named, but Senator Smoot declined to indorse the appended: SUB-MINORITY AGAINST PENAL PROVISION. "The undersigned desire to emphasize their objection and opposition to another feature of the bill, which they think is worthy of serious consideration. They object to and protest against the first paragraph of section 21, beginning with line 11 and ending with line IS. The existing law provides for a similar criminal prosecution, with a penalty of ■ imprisonment in the penitentiary ; but we do not believe that it was the intention of Congress, when the existins law was enacted, or that it is the intention now, to establish a rule of action as harsh as this will prove to be. "Why the infringer of a copyright should be subjected to a criminal prosecution, with the possible infliction of a penalty that will attach to him the badge of infamy, while the infringer of a patent right is subjected to no FREE SAMPLES TO PROVE QUALITY NEEDLES MAY LOOK ALIKE, but HEARING NOT SEEING, PROVES THE QUALITY Wc Want You To Hear Them At Our Expense. Write Now rfTT The best record will give poor results and be ruined if played with a POOR quality needle. The BEST Needle is the one that gives a GOOD REPRODUCTION from START to FINISH. The ordinary CHEAP and POOR quality needles on the market will only play right about half way through the Record. The Needle point is then worn flat, and the sharp edges on the side of the point wear the Record and make it scratchy. ^ To give best results. Needles must be tempered hard enough to keep the point, and allow it to follow and fit the grooves, on all parts of the Record. It must also have a proper taper to insure correct volume and tone. .'\fter careful experimenting we have produced two styles of Needles that will stand every test, and prove the best at any price. TRADE MARK NEEDLES " THE NAME TELLS WHAT THEY DO " Best for VOLUME, TO.\'E and LASTING QVALITY. PLAY RIGHT from ST.aj^T to FINISH. PRESERVE RECORDS and can be used on .ANY DISK M.ACHINE OR RECORD. Packed in RUST PROOF packages of iOO. RET.A.1L, lOc. per 100; 25c 300 75c. 1.000. TRADE MARK GIVE A MELLOW TONE " REDUCE VOLUME and DON'T SCR.ATCH. Each needle can be used SIX TIMES. No special attachments needed. Packed in RUST PROOF packages of 200. Price. 25c. Package. NOTE— We furnish Jobbers and Dealers with ADVERTISrNG MATTER FREE. Big profit. We will send FREE sample packages to Jobbers or Dealers. Write now. IVl A. M U F A C T U R E:D BV BLACKMAN TALKING MACHINE COMPANY ( J. NEWCOMB BLACKMAN, Proprietor > Chambers Street, New York City