  ARGUMENTS | ||||||||||||||||||
| FRANK D. CURRIER, New Hampshire, Chairman. | |
| SOLOMON R. DRESSER, Pennsylvania. | CHARLES McGAVIN, Illinois. |
| JOSEPH M. DIXON, Montana. | WILLIAM SULZER, New York. |
| EDWARD H. HINSHAW, Nebraska. | GEORGE S. LEGARE, South Carolina. |
| ROBERT W. BONYNGE, Colorado. | EDWIN Y. WEBB, North Carolina. |
| WILLIAM W. CAMPBELL, Ohio. | ROBERT G. SOUTHALL, Virginia. |
| ANDREW J. BARCHFELD, Pennsylvania. | JOHN GILL, Jr., Maryland. |
| JOHN C. CHANEY, Indiana. | |
| Edward A. Barney, Clerk. | |
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1906.
ARGUMENTS ON H.R. 19853, TO AMEND AND CONSOLIDATE
THE ACTS RESPECTING COPYRIGHT.
Committee on Patents,
House of Representatives,
Wednesday, June 6, 1906.
The committee met at 10 o'clock a.m.; at the Senate reading room, Library of Congress, conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents.
Present, Senators Kittredge (chairman), Clapp, Smoot, Foster, and Latimer; Representatives Currier (chairman), Bonynge, Campbell, Chaney, McGavin, Sulzer, and Webb.
The Chairman. We are met to consider Senate bill 6330, relative to the copyright law. We would like to hear first from Mr. Putnam regarding the history of the proposed legislation.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT PUTNAM, ESQ., LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Putnam. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the origin of this bill is indicated in the message of the President to Congress last December. The passage is brief; let me read it:
Our copyright laws urgently need revision. They are imperfect in definition, confused and inconsistent in expression; they omit provision for many articles which, under modern reproductive processes, are entitled to protection; they impose hardships upon the copyright proprietor which are not essential to the fair protection of the public; they are difficult for the courts to interpret and impossible for the copyright office to administer with satisfaction to the public. Attempts to improve them by amendment have been frequent, no less than twelve acts for the purpose having been passed since the Revised Statutes. To perfect them by further amendment seems impracticable. A complete revision of them is essential. Such a revision, to meet modern conditions, has been found necessary in Germany, Austria, Sweden, and other foreign countries, and bills embodying it are pending in England and the Australian colonies. It has been urged here, and proposals for a commission to undertake it have, from time to time, been pressed upon the Congress.
The inconveniences of the present conditions being so great an attempt to frame appropriate legislation has been made by the Copyright Office, which has called conferences of the various interests especially and practically concerned with the operation of the copyright laws. It has secured from them suggestions as to the changes necessary; it has added from its own experience and investigation, and it has drafted a bill which embodies such of these changes and additions as, after full discussion and expert criticism, appeared to be sound and safe. In form this bill would replace the existing insufficient and inconsistent laws by one general copyright statute. It will be presented to the Congress at the coming session. It deserves prompt consideration.
So far the message. It did not contain what was the fact as to the origin of this project, that it did originate in an informal suggestion on the part of the chairman of this committee.
The conferences to which it refers were not open, public meetings; they were not conventions; they were conferences, and conferences of organizations—that is to say, associations representing a group of interests; and those organizations were specially invited, additions being made to the list later as suggestions were made of others that should be added.
The organizations selected were the most representative organizations that we could think of or that were brought to our attention as having practical concern in the amelioration of the law, but especially, of course, those concerned in an affirmative way—that is to say, in the protection of the right. They were nearly thirty in number. The list of them and their representatives is before you.
(The list referred to was, by direction of the committee, made a part of the record, and is as follows:)
List of associations invited to take part and the delegates nominated to be present at the conference on copyright, together with other participants.
AUTHORS.
American (Authors') Copyright League: Edmund Clarence Stedman1,2, president; Richard R. Bowker, vice president; Robert Underwood Johnson1,2, secretary; Edmund Munroe Smith, acting secretary (not present).
National Institute of Arts and Letters: Edmund Clarence Stedman1,2, president; Brander Matthews1,2.
DRAMATISTS AND PLAYWRIGHTS.
American Dramatists Club: Bronson Howard, president; Joseph I. C. Clarke1, first vice president; Harry P. Mawson1,2, chairman committee on legislation; Joseph R. Grismer1, committee on legislation; Charles Klein3.
Association of Theatre Managers of Greater New York: Charles Burnham1, first vice president; Henry B. Harris1, secretary.
ARTISTS: PAINTERS, SCULPTORS, ARCHITECTS.
American Institute of Architects: Glenn Brown, secretary.
Architectural League of America: D. Everett Waid1,2.
National Academy of Design: Frank D. Millet.
National Sculpture Society: Daniel Chester French3, president; Karl Bitter2,3, vice president.
Society of American Artists: John La Farge1, president; John W. Alexander1,2.
COMPOSERS.
Manuscript Society: Miss Laura Sedgwick Collins1 (charter member), F. L. Sealy2.
PUBLISHERS.
American Publishers' Copyright League: William W. Appleton, president; George Haven Putnam2,3, secretary; Charles Scribner1,2, treasurer; Stephen H. Olin2,3, counsel.
Association of American Directory Publishers: W. H. Lee2,3, president; W. H. Bates, secretary; Alfred Lucking3, counsel; Everett S. Geer3, president Hartford Printing Company; William E. Murdock3, trustee of the Association of American Directory Publishers; Ralph L. Polk3, trustee of the Association of American Directory Publishers; S. T. Leet3.
PUBLISHERS OF NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES.
American Newspaper Publishers' Association: Don C. Seitz1,2, acting chairman copyright committee; John Stewart Bryan1,2, copyright committee; Louis M. Duvall1,2, copyright committee; Thos. J. Walsh2, at the request of Mr. Seitz.
Periodical Publishers' Association of America: Charles Scribner1,2.
PUBLISHERS OF ARTISTIC REPRODUCTIONS: LITHOGRAPHERS, PHOTOGRAPHERS.
National Association of Photoengravers: B. W. Wilson, jr.2
Photographers' Copyright League of America: B. J. Falk, president; Pirie MacDonald; A. B. Browne3, counsel.
Print Publishers' Association of America: W. A. Livingstone, president; Benjamin Curtis3, secretary; George L. Canfield3, counsel.
Reproductive Arts Copyright League (Lithographers' Association—East): Robert M. Donaldson, president: Edmund B. Osborne2, vice-president; A. Beverly Smith, secretary; Fanueil D. S. Bethune2,3, counsel.
PUBLISHERS OF MUSIC.
Music Publishers' Association of the United States: J. F. Bowers2,3, president; Charles B. Bayly3, secretary; George W. Furniss, chairman copyright committee; Walter M. Bacon, of copyright committee; Nathan Burkan,23, counsel; A. R. Serven,3 counsel; Leo Feist3; Isidore Witmark3; R. L. ThomÆ,2,3 (Victor Talking Machine Company, of Philadelphia).
PRINTERS AND LITHOGRAPHERS.
United TypothetÆ of America: Isaac H. Blanchard1, of executive committee; Chas. W. Ames2,3.
International Typographical Union: J. J. Sullivan, chairman I. T. U. copyright committee; P. H. McCormick, president, and George J. Jackson, organizer, of New York Typographical Union No. 6.
Central Lithographic Trades Council: W. A. Coakley3.
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
National Educational Association: George S. Davis1, associate city superintendent of schools; Claude G. Leland2, librarian board of education of New York.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
American Library Association: Frank P. Hill, president; Arthur E. Bostwick.
BAR ASSOCIATIONS.
American Bar Association—Advisory committee: Arthur Steuart1,3, chairman; Edmund Wetmore2, Frank F. Reed (not present).
Association of the Bar of the City of New York—Advisory committee: Paul Fuller3, chairman; William G. Choate, John E. Parsons, John L. Cadwalader, Edmund Wetmore2, Henry Galbraith Ward, Arthur H. Masten. (Of this committee, appointed after the second conference, only Mr. Fuller was present.)
MISCELLANEOUS.
International Advertising Association: Will Phillip Hooper1,2; James L. Steuart2, counsel.
The Sphinx Club: Will Phillip Hooper1,2.
OTHERS PRESENT, BUT NOT FORMALLY PARTICIPATING.
Samuel J. Elder, of Boston; AndrÉ Lesourd3, of New York; A. Bell Malcomson3, of New York; Ansley Wilcox3, of Buffalo; A. W. Elson2,3, of Boston; Gen. Eugene Griffin3, of New York; Charles H. Sergel3, of Chicago.
Librarian of Congress, Herbert Putnam.
Register of Copyrights, Thorvald Solberg.
Commissioner of Patents, Frederick I. Allen (was not present, but submitted written suggestions).
Department of Justice, Henry M. Hoyt3, Solicitor-General (present, but not formally participating); William J. Hughes2,3, of the Solicitor-General's Office (present, but not formally participating).
Treasury Department, Charles P. Montgomery, of the Customs Division.
Note.—Persons marked 1, 2, or 3 were present only at the sessions thus indicated. The absence of a mark following a name indicates attendance at all three sessions.
Mr. Putnam. These men are the writers of books, the writers of plays, the composers of music, the architects, painters and sculptors, the photographers and photoengravers, the publishers of books, newspapers, periodicals, music, and prints, and the manufacturers, printers, typographers, and lithographers. The conference included, therefore, those interests that abroad are considered primary in such a matter—that is, the creators of the works which are to be protected and the publishers through whom the property in these becomes effective and remunerative; but it included under each of these genera several species and various subsidiary interests. It included the National Educational Association and the American Library Association as representing to some extent the consumers; and in addition to the legal counsel representing special interests it included two committees of the American Bar Association and of the New York Bar Association of experts upon copyright law, who gave gratuitous service as general advisors to the conference and in the framing of the bill.
Upon questions of importation the conference had the benefit of information and advice from a representative of the Treasury Department, expert in the practice of that Department at ports of entry. The Solicitor-General, whose name appears upon the list, was not a formal participant, but his representative was present throughout as an observer of the proceedings; and if I do not emphasize the aid which he and which the Solicitor-General himself, in later informal criticism and suggestion, rendered, it is only because the practice of his office forbids him to take part in the initiation of legislation; and his assistance in this matter must not be taken as a precedent to his inconvenience.
The conference held three meetings in June and November of last year and in March of this year, but, of course, as a conference it included various minor consultations and much correspondence. At the outset of the meeting last June each organization was invited to state the respects in which it deemed the present law defective or injurious, either to its own interest, or, in its opinion, to the general interest. The second conference had before it a memorandum prepared by the register embodying provisions deemed by the office important for consideration at that stage. The third conference, in March of this year, had before it a revision of this memorandum. The last conference, this third, resulted in the draft of a bill, which was sent to each participant for comment and suggestion, and the bill itself is before you.
We would have no misunderstanding as to what this bill is. It is a bill resulting from the conference, but it is not a conference bill; for the conference did not draw it, nor did it by explicit vote or otherwise determine its precise provisions. It is rather a copyright office bill. The office submits it as embodying what, with the best counsel available, including the conferences, it deems worthy of your consideration, in accordance with your previously expressed desire. In calling the conferences and in submitting the draft it has proceeded upon your suggestion. Apart from the chapter relating to its own administration, it has no direct interest in the bill, except its general interest to secure a general amelioration of the law. It does not offer the bill to you as the unanimous decision of a council of experts, for it contains certain provisions as to which expert opinion as well as substantial interest was divided. It does not offer to you the bill as one that has passed the test of public discussion, for it has only now come before the public. It knows already of objection to certain of its provisions—objection which will be entitled to be heard by your committee; and it is informed by one critic that his objections are sufficient to cover fully one-half of the provisions of the bill.
The bill comes before you with precisely that presumption to which its history entitles it—no less, but no more.
The conference had certain aids prepared in advance by the copyright office, which were embraced in these particular publications, setting forth the present law in this country and all previous enactments in this country—a bibliography, indeed, of all bills introduced into Congress, all amendments of the copyright laws, and the laws in foreign countries so far as they could be epitomized.
The conferences occupied eleven days in all, of twenty-two sessions—two sessions a day. Their labors are evidenced by these four volumes, which are the stenographer's record of the proceedings. The sincerity of their endeavor to secure a result that should be scientific yet conservative, is, perhaps, evidenced by the brevity of the bill. The memorandum of last November contains some 16,000 words; that of March contains some 11,000 words; the bill contains slightly over 8,000 words. I believe that the present group of statutes embodying the existing law will contain somewhat over 4,000 words; and they are alleged to be imperfect and neither systematic nor organic.
The bill attempts to be both. It is, as you see, divided into eight chapters, with some supplementary miscellaneous provisions. I say that it is divided into chapters—that is, recited in the contents of the bill as printed officially and set forth in marginal references in the bill as printed at the Library. These chapters deal with the nature and extent of copyright, the subject-matter of copyright, who may obtain copyright, how to secure it, the duration of it, the protection and the transfer of copyright, and the copyright office.
I have furnished to your committee some analysis of it. That analysis is contained in the printed statement marked "Memorandum," of which there are additional copies here dated June 5, including those before you, containing some slight changes from those sent out to members of your committee. I would ask to have this one, dated on the outside June 5, considered the recent one.
(The memorandum above referred to was, by direction of the committee, made a part of the record, and the same is as follows:)
MEMORANDUM.
A.—Some leading features.
As the present law consists of but a group of statutes, and the proposed bill is systematic and organic in form, the changes which it introduces other than mere abrogations are not easily explained by mere reference to the existing statutes. Throughout attempt has been made to substitute general terms for particular specifications, to provide for a protection as broad as the Constitution contemplated, and to insure that no specification shall tend to limit unduly either subject-matter or the protection. Important respects in which the bill modifies or amplifies existing law are as follows:
Nature and extent.—Section 1, like section 9, is fundamental. The existing law (Rev. Stat., sec. 4952) specifies as the exclusive right "the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing, and vending;" of public performance or representation; and of dramatization or translation. The bill omits the specifications "printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, executing, and finishing," but attempts others intended to be fully as broad. [Please see sec. 1.] It adds the right of oral delivery in the case of lectures, and the right to make, sell, distribute, or let for hire any device, etc., especially adapted to reproduce to the ear any musical work, and to reproduce it to the ear by means of such a device; but these latter are limited to works hereafter published and copyrighted.
The copyright is to protect "all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted and any and all reproductions or copies thereof in whatever form, style, or size."
Subject-matter of copyright.—A general statement that it is to include "all the works of an author," leaving the term "author" to be as broad as the Constitution intended. Certain specifications follow, but coupled with the proviso that they shall not be held to limit the subject-matter.
The specifications [sec. 5] substitute, so far as possible, general terms for particulars. They omit, for instance, the terms "engravings, cuts, lithographs, painting, chromo, statue, and statuary." They assume, however, that these will be included under the more general terms as "prints and pictorial illustrations," or "reproductions of a work of art," or "works of art," or "models or designs for works of art." The term "works of art" is deliberately intended as a broader specification than "works of the fine arts" in the present statute, with the idea that there is subject-matter (e.g., of applied design, yet not within the province of design patents) which may properly be entitled to protection under the copyright law.
Express mention is made of oral lectures, sermons, and addresses; periodicals, including newspapers; drawings and plastic works of a scientific or technical character, and new matter contained in new editions.
Labels and prints relating to articles of manufacture hereafter to be registered in the copyright office instead of in the Patent Office.
Additions, revisions, abridgments, dramatizations, translations, etc., to be regarded as new works. [Sec. 6.]
Who may obtain copyright.—As broad as heretofore. International reciprocal arrangements confirmed. The privilege extended to any foreign author who is living in the United States at the time of the making and first publication of his work, or first or contemporaneously publishes here.
How to secure copyright.—The copyright is to be "secured" by publication of the work with the notice affixed. This section, 9, with section 14, is fundamental. Sections 10, 11, and 13 prescribe subsequent procedure in the copyright office.
Registration is provided for works (e.g., works of art) of which copies are not reproduced for sale, with the requirement that the notice shall be affixed to the original "before publication thereof." [Sec. 10.]
The deposit to be not later than thirty days after publication; in the case of a periodical not later than ten days. The copies deposited to be of the "best edition," as required by the act of 1870. [Sec. 11.] In case of error or omission to make the deposit within the thirty days, permission to make it within a year after first publication, but with the proviso that no action shall be brought for infringement until it has been made. [Sec. 15.]
In case of a printed book the copies deposited must be accompanied with the affidavit called for by House bill 13355, passed by the House April 26, 1904, that the requirements as to American typesetting, etc., have been complied with, and the affidavit is to specify the place and the establishment in which the work was done.
Extends [sec. 13] the "manufacturing clause" to include texts produced by lithographic process, and also in certain cases illustrations and separate lithographs, but abrogates it in the case of photographs.
The articles required to be deposited are to be entitled to free transmittal through the mails, as under earlier statutes (e.g., act of February 18, 1867; July 8, 1870). [Sec. 12.]
The notice of copyright simplified. Specified only for the copies "published or offered for sale in the United States." Where right of public performance is reserved on musical compositions, a notice to this effect is required. [Sec. 14.]
Ad interim term [sec. 16].—Extends the ad interim term of protection in the case of books first published abroad in foreign languages from one year to two years. Provides for an ad interim term in the case of books first published abroad in English, of thirty days, but with prohibition of importation during the interim.
Duration [sec. 18].—Instead of the present term (forty-two years), varying terms according to the subject-matter. Provides a special term of twenty-eight years (instead of forty-two years as now) for labels and prints heretofore registered in the Patent Office; increases the term of other articles, and especially derivative articles, from forty-two years to fifty years; and in the case of original works increases the term to the life of the author and fifty years. Abolishes renewals.
The bill also makes provision for the extension of subsisting copyrights to agree with the term provided in the present bill where the author is living or his widow or a child, provided the publisher or other assignee joins in the application for such extension. (See section 19 of the draft.)
The right of dramatization or translation must be exercised within ten years or it will lapse.
Protection of copyright.—The present statute (Rev. Stat., sec. 4965) attempts to define acts which shall constitute infringements. The bill, having defined the exclusive rights which the copyright has secured to the author, defines (sec. 23) infringement as "doing or causing to be done" without his consent "any act the exclusive right to do or authorize which" is "reserved" to him. It contains, however (sec. 22), the one specification that "any reproduction" without his consent "of any work or any material part of any work" in which copyright is subsisting, shall be illegal and is prohibited.
The civil remedies open to him (sec. 23) are the injunction and an action for damages and profits, or, in lieu of actual damages and profits, "such damages as to the court shall appear just, to be assessed" upon the basis of so much per copy or infringing act, but to be not less than a total minimum of $250 and maximum of $5,000. And the infringing copies are to include all copies made by the defendant, and not merely those "found in his possession" or "sold or exposed for sale." A provision for the impounding and destruction of infringing copies and means for producing them.
Protection provided for [sec. 21] against publication or reproduction of any unpublished copyrightable work.
A willful infringement for profit, now a misdemeanor in the case of such a performance or representation of dramatic or musical compositions, is made a misdemeanor in all cases, as is also the insertion of a false notice of a copyright or the removal of a true one. [Sec. 22.]
Importations [secs. 26-29].—Detailed provision for the treatment of copies supposed to be infringing or otherwise prohibited. Exceptions to prohibition modified as below under memorandum "B."
Suits [secs. 32, etc.]—Actions may be instituted "in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in a district where the violation of any provision of the act has occurred."
Limitation of actions to be three years instead of two and to apply to all actions under the act. [Sec. 34.]
Transfers [secs. 37-45].—Definitions of the copyright as distinct from the property in the material object and of the copyrights in derivative works as distinct among themselves.
The copyright office.—Sections 46 to 60 provide specifically for the administration of this.
Catalogue of title entries.—Detailed provision is made for the continuance of the printing of the catalogue on the allotment for printing of the Library of Congress (see secs. 55 and 56 of the draft); and the catalogue is to be made prima facie evidence of deposit and registration.
Provision is made for the reprinting of the indexes and catalogues in classes at stated intervals, with authority to destroy the manuscript cards included in such printed volumes. The current catalogues to be distributed from the copyright office, and sold at a price fixed by the register; the subscriptions to be received by the superintendent of public documents.
Following the provisions for the indexing and cataloguing of the articles deposited, provisions are made, in sections 57, 58, and 59 of the draft for the public inspection of the copyright office record books and deposits; for the permanent use of such deposited articles; for their transfer to other Government libraries where unnecessary to the Library of Congress; and for the disposal of accumulations of useless articles.
Section 60 provides for fees. A uniform fee of $1 for registration; but this is to include the certificate which is to be furnished in all cases [a separate charge is now made for it]. And the certificate is given a new importance as prima facie evidence of the facts which it sets forth, including deposit and registration, thus exempting the complainant in an action from other affirmative proof of compliance with these formalities.
A single fee for certain registrations heretofore requiring multiple fees.
B.—Provisions of existing law which are omitted from the bill.
The existing law is set forth in the twenty-odd pages of "Copyright Office Bulletin No. 1." It consists of Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, sections 4948 to 4970, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes, and twelve later acts in amendment thereof. The substantial provisions of these which are intentionally abrogated are the following [references are to pages of the Bulletin, copy herewith]:
[Section 4950, page 6.—Omitted in the bill, but exists still as part of the act of February 19, 1897.]
Section 4952, page 6A.—Ad interim copyright. The requirement for notice (of date of publication and reservation of copyright) on the foreign edition is abolished.
Section 4952, page 7.—Labels and prints relating to articles of manufacture no longer to be registered in the Patent Office, but in the copyright office, with corresponding reduction of fee.
Section 4954, page 7.—Renewal term abolished.
Section 4956, page 8.—Requirement that the deposit of copies shall be "on or before the date of publication" is abolished, and a margin of thirty days is allowed, with provisions for making good omissions within a year.
The deposit (registration) is no longer to be the act entitling to a copyright. The copyright is to be "secured" by "the publication of the work with the notice of copyright affixed," and dates from such publication. Registration with deposit remains compulsory, and after the expiration of the thirty days no action for infringement can be brought until it has been made; but it is no longer expressed as a formality the failure to comply with which is to avoid the copyright.
Section 4956, page 8.—Preliminary deposit of title or description abolished. "Photographs" omitted from the "manufacturing clause." ["Chromos" also, in terms, but assumed to be covered by "lithographs."]
Section 4956, page 9.—Importation by individuals of the foreign edition (two copies at any one time) is abolished except with the assent of the American copyright proprietor, and the two copies at a time are throughout reduced to one. The privilege of societies and institutions (under the act of October 1, 1890) is no longer to include the importation, without such assent, of "a foreign reprint of a book by an American author copyrighted in the United States unless copies of the American edition can not be supplied by the American publisher or copyright proprietor;" and the society or institution must be incorporated, unless it be a "college, academy, school, or seminary of learning" or a "State school, college, university, or free public library."
Section 4957, page 9.—The particular language of the entry in the record books of the copyright office is no longer specified.
Section 4959, page 11.—Deposit of "subsequent editions" not required unless the "changes" which they contain are "substantial" enough to induce a new registration.
Section 4960, page 12.—Provisions of act of March 1, 1893, dropped as no longer effective.
Section 4962, page 13.—Notice.—The date and the word "by" no longer required in the notice. The abbreviation "Copr.," and in certain cases the letter C within a circle, permissible instead of the full word "Copyright."
Sections 4963, page 13; 4964, page 14; 4965, page 15; 4966, page 16.—Penalties imposed for acts in the nature of misdemeanors no longer to be shared by the United States with "a person" suing for them; sums recovered by way of compensation to the copyright proprietor not to be shared by him with the United States. All infringements willful and for profit made misdemeanors, and the remedies provided by sections 4965 and 4966, including the specifications of a definite sum for each infringing copy, etc., and a minimum and maximum total are expressed definitely as compensation to the copyright proprietor rather than penalties.
Section 4964, page 14.—Witnesses not to be required for the written consent of the copyright proprietor.
Act of March 3, 1891, page 18.—Only one fee to be required in case of several volumes, or numbers or (in certain cases) parts of a series deposited at the same time with a view to a single registration.
Act of January 7, 1904, page 19.—Omitted as obsolete.
I have particularly noted in this memorandum the points in which the bill intentionally abrogates existing law and the more significant respects in which it modifies or amplifies it. The respects in which it intentionally abrogates existing law are very few, as shown in Part B of the memorandum. The phraseology of existing law is only here and there recognizable in the bill. That is because the bill attempts to be systematic and organic, and, second, because it has sought general terms, wherever descriptive, rather than particular specifications. Especially has it preferred this where the specifications might be limiting. This, as I have noted in the memorandum submitted to you, is particularly illustrated by the treatment of the "subject-matter." The bill contains only the general statement that the subject-matter is to include "all the works of an author," leaving the term "author" to be as broad as the Constitution intended; and, as you know, the courts have followed Congress in construing it to include the originator in the broadest sense, just as they have held "writings," as used in the Constitution, to include not merely literary but artistic productions.
After this general statement certain specifications follow in the bill of particular classes under which a particular application is to be made in the office, but these specifications are coupled with the proviso that they shall not be held to limit the subject-matter. The specifications so far as possible also substitute general terms for particulars. They omit, for instance, the terms "engravings, cuts, lithographs, painting, chromo, statues and statuary." They assume, however, that all of these articles will be included under the more general terms, as "prints and pictorial illustrations" or "reproductions of a work of art" or "works of art" or "models or designs for works of art." The term "works of art" is deliberately intended as a broader specification than "works of the fine arts" in the present statute with the idea that there is subject-matter (for instance, of applied design, not yet within the province of design patents), which may properly be entitled to protection under the copyright law.
The attempt to substitute general terms for particulars is evidenced also in the definition of the right, and of the acts which constitute an infringement of the right. The present statute (sec. 4952) defines the right to consist in the sole liberty to do certain things. The bill (sec. 1) defines the right to be the sole and exclusive right to do certain things, and it specifies those things; but its specifications are in terms very different from those in the present statute.
The present statute (secs. 4965 and 4966) specifies certain acts which are to be deemed an infringement. The bill, having defined the right of the copyright proprietor as the exclusive right to do certain things, defines an infringement to consist in the doing or causing to be done without his consent of any of those things, the right to do or authorize which is exclusively reserved to him. It contents itself with this, adding only the one specification that "any reproduction," without his consent, "of any work or material part of any work in which [his] copyright is subsisting," shall be an infringement.
So as to the person who may obtain copyright: The present statute mentions the "author, inventor, designer, or proprietor," and elsewhere the "originator." The bill rests with the term used in the Constitution, "author," adding only "proprietor," which is not merely in the existing statutes, but has been construed in a series of judicial decisions.
Copyright consists of the exclusive right within a defined period to do certain things with certain subject-matter and to prevent other people from doing these things. The fundamental provisions of the copyright law are therefore these four:
What is the subject-matter?
What are the acts?
How may the exclusive right to do them be secured?
And who may secure it?
Upon the third point, "How may the right be secured?" the bill modifies substantially the existing requirements of law. These make deposit and registration in the copyright office a condition precedent. They require the deposit to be at least coincident with the publication, and they stipulate that failure to comply precisely with this requirement shall avoid the copyright ab initio.
The bill, in section 9, initiates the copyright from the date of the publication of the work, with the notice of copyright affixed. So, in effect, does the present law initiate the copyright from that date, provided the deposit and registration be effected then; but by the bill the publication with notice not merely initiates the copyright, it "secures" it. That is the expression used in the bill.
Deposit and registration in the copyright office are still requisite, but a reasonable period after publication is allowed for them. The period is thirty days, and in the case of error or omission may be even an entire year, but with the proviso that after the thirty days no action for infringement may be brought until these requirements have been complied with. The right is to be exclusive for a limited period. This period is now twenty-eight years, with a possible renewal for fourteen years—a maximum, therefore, of forty-two years. The bill abolishes renewals and provides for three terms, according to the subject-matter. The shortest is twenty-eight years for labels and prints relating to articles of manufacture heretofore registered in the Patent Office, but which the bill proposes to be taken over into the copyright office. The second term, fifty years, is substantially identical with the present possible maximum of forty-two. It applies to some original and to all derivative works. It would probably cover the majority of copyright entries during any particular period—the majority in number, I do not say in importance. The longer term—the life of the author and fifty years after his death—applies only to original works, but applies to most of those.
As to the merit of these terms, Mr. Chairman, and their necessity you will hear discussion. I merely call your attention to them with, however, these suggestions, which I feel in duty bound to communicate, because they have been so insistently urged upon us:
First, that the present term, a maximum of forty-two years (and that a conditional maximum), does not insure to the author his copyright even throughout his own life, and it makes no certain provision for his immediate family after his death. These are admittedly grave defects, and they are perhaps not met by the fact—it is a fact—that at present the privilege of renewal is taken advantage of by only a small percentage of the authors or their families.
The second is, that a term as long as life and fifty years exists in fifteen countries, including France; that England, with the minimum term of life and seven years proposes a term of life and thirty years, and that Germany, with a term of life and thirty years, is discussing—informally thus far, but is discussing a term of life and fifty years.
The third suggestion is that a common disposition to question a long term for copyright, on the ground that a short term suffices for patents, is based upon false analogy. Literary and artistic productions and useful inventions may be equally the creations of the mind, and they are coupled in the Constitution; but they are coupled, it is pointed out, only as deserving protection. Their character, and the duration of the protection required by each, may be very different. It is alleged to be very different. The monopoly is different; the returns to the creator are different, and the interests of the public are different in the two cases. The monopoly by patent in an invention is a complete monopoly of the idea. The monopoly by copyright in a literary or artistic work is a monopoly merely of the particular expression of the idea. The inventor's exclusive control of his idea, it is said, may bar innumerable other inventions, applications of his idea, of importance to the public, while the author's or artist's exclusive control of his particular expression bars no one except the mere reproducer. The returns to an inventor are apt to be quick; the returns to an author are apt to be slow, and the slower in proportion to the serious character of his book, if a book. The returns to a successful inventor are apt to be large; the returns to even a successful author or artist are not apt to be more than moderate.
Then the idea, it is said, covered by an invention or discovery, may concern the essential welfare, even the lives, of the community, and should be freely available at the earliest possible moment not unjust to the creator of it. Now, it is remarked that no particular book, at least none currently copyrighted to-day, can be said to be essential to the welfare or protection of the community. Many a man's pleasure may be enhanced by it, some men's profit; but no man's essential welfare depends upon it, and no man's life, save, perhaps, the author's own.
I communicate those suggestions as having been pressed upon us.
In no respect are the present statutes alleged to be less satisfactory than in their provisions for the protection of the right, and redress to the copyright proprietor for invasion of it. One inconvenience is that they provide a different class of remedies and recoveries for different subject-matter; another is that they seem to confuse the duty of the Government to punish a deliberate infringement as it would punish any other theft with the right of the copyright proprietor for compensation for his particular losses. The bill attempts to provide uniform remedies, and it divorces the civil action from the criminal. As the memorandum states it, "Penalties imposed for acts in the nature of misdemeanors are no longer to be shared by the United States with a person suing for them;" nor "are sums recovered by way of compensation to the copyright proprietor to be shared by him with the United States." Nor is his right to recover such sums to be imperiled by the necessity of proving that the defendant has committed an offense against the community as well as profited at his expense.
The deliberate theft of a dramatic or musical composition by the willful performance of it for profit, without the assent of the owner, author, or copyright proprietor, is now by law a misdemeanor. The conference could not see why this provision should not apply to any infringement which is both willful and for profit, and section 25 of the bill extends it to all such.
The existing provision (sec. 4966, Rev. Stat.) which provides remedies and penalties for infringement of dramatic and musical copyrights, is of great moment to the dramatists and composers; and now that it is merged in the general provisions of this and other sections of the bill they are in great apprehension lest it may suffer accident, if accident befall these. To guard against this the general repealing clause of the bill excepts and continues in force section 4966 of the Revised Statutes, but it does so with the intention that this exception shall be dropped in case the general provisions stand.
The reason or merit of these and other provisions of the bill will at the proper time have to be made clear to you, if challenged. That is no part of my present duty, which is merely to introduce the bill to your attention, with some explanation as to how it came to be, and some note as to its leading features. But I except two matters, and I do so to avoid misapprehension; and I feel free to do so because both involve the administration of the copyright office. One is as to fees. The impression has gone out that the fee for registration is to be doubled. The fee for registration is now 50 cents, but 50 cents additional is charged for a certificate when furnished. The proposed fee is $1, but this is to include the certificate, which is to be furnished in all cases and as a matter of course. It ought to be furnished, in the opinion of the office, and no claimant of copyright ought to rest easy without it. It is the evidence of registration and deposit—indispensable formalities, even hereafter—and it is now to be prima facie evidence in a court of law of the facts which it sets forth.
If the copyright is worth the 50 cents for the registration, it seems certainly worth the additional 50 cents for the certificate. But I note here that objections are to be raised to the provision for fees, and particularly as working hardships in some cases not made exceptions, as the case of a series of studio photographs registered under one title at the same time is made an exception. You will have some suggestions as to cases in which the exaction of this fee, without some special modification in certain cases, would work an undue hardship.
On the other hand, the bill tends to reduce the aggregate fees payable by any one publisher and the aggregate receipts of the office by enabling a number of volumes of the same work, and in the case of photographs, prints, and like articles, an entire series, if registered at the same time, to be registered for a single fee.
The other matter is that of copyright deposits. The volume of these is now prodigious. During the last year alone the articles deposited exceeded 200,000 in number. A large proportion of these are of great value to the Library and are drawn up into it. The rest remain in the cellar. The accumulations in the cellar now number a million and a half items. Many of these would be useful in other Government libraries; for instance, medical books in the library of the Surgeon-General's Office. Some of them might be useful in exchange with other libraries. A few might have value in exchange with dealers. The remainder are a heavy charge upon the Government for storage and care, without any corresponding benefit. They ought to be returned to the copyright proprietors if they want them, or, if not wanted, destroyed. Such dispositions are, I believe, already within the authority of law; but it is fair that they should be expressed. The bill (secs. 58 and 59) definitely expresses them. I ask your attention to them in due course. They have been accepted by the conferences, and therefore by the interests outside of the Government most nearly concerned with their operation. But they may awaken some apprehension elsewhere because of a quite common misunderstanding of the significance of the deposit and its relation to the copyright protection.
The original purpose of such deposits was the enrichment of the Library. This is clear from their history, both in this country and abroad. They were made a condition of securing copyright, but they had no continuing relation to the copyright once secured. In England, for instance, the copies required (now five) are to be for the use of the libraries—five libraries—no one of which is the office of registration for copyrights. The earliest act in this country was that of Massachusetts, in 1783, which exacted a copy as a gift to the library of the University of Cambridge, Harvard University, "for the use of said university," which was not the office of copyright. The earliest act providing for deposit in the Library of Congress, that of 1846, provided that the copyright proprietor should give one copy of the book to this Library, and at the same time it provided that he should give one copy to the library of the Smithsonian for the use of that library.
In 1867 the library of the Smithsonian became a part of the Library of Congress. The act of 1870 provided two copies, both to be addressed to the Library of Congress. But by that same act of 1870 the Library of Congress became the office of registration for copyright; and from that time, and because the failure to deposit not later than the date of publication actually voided the copyright, an impression has grown up that the articles deposited are an integral part of the record of registration, and have a peculiar sanctity as such. The fact of the deposit has been and will be an integral part of the record, and in times past this could most readily be proved by the copies themselves, the law providing neither for a certificate to the claimant admitting the receipt of the deposit nor an entry in the official record showing it. But hereafter the fact of deposit will be proved by the certificate itself.
There is an impression—a very natural one, too—that the copies deposited are necessary evidence of the thing copyrighted, and essential as such in litigation. Now, during the past thirty-six years the copyright office has record or memory of only four cases in which articles deposited have been summoned into court, and an authority on copyright litigations remarks that in three of these he is quite certain that the reason was a fanciful one, and in the fourth he did not see any necessity for it.
For the matter of that, however, there is little prospect that any article of sufficient importance to be a subject of litigation would be deliberately destroyed, or would fail to be drawn into the permanent collections of the Library—at least one copy of it.
Mr. Chairman, having indicated something of what the bill is, let me say a word as to what it is not, in intention.
First. It is not an attempt to codify the common law. The conservative bar was very fearful that it would be. Even more than the present statutes, it leaves to the courts to determine the meaning and extent of terms already construed by the courts. It does this even in cases where the temptation to define was considerable and where foreign statutes attempt a definition. For instance, Who is an author? What is publication in the case of works not reproduced in copies for sale? What is fair use? Now, many such definitions were proposed and lengthily discussed, and omitted because they did not stand the test of the best expert opinion of the most conservative advisers of the conference, particularly the committees of the bar associations.
Second. The bill does not, in intention, attempt to regulate relations between authors and publishers which are or may be matter of private contract.
Third. It is not an attempt at abstract and theoretic perfection, nor is it an attempt to transplant to this country theoretic or what might be charged to be sentimental provisions of foreign law. It tries to be a bill possible for this country at this time and under conditions local here. It contains, therefore, some provisions which are, in our judgment, neither theoretically sound nor according to modern usage abroad nor satisfactory to particular participants in the conference. These are a compromise between principle and expediency or between one interest and another at the conference, between which we could not decide for either extreme—I mean decide in the sense of bringing before you a suggestion in this particular form. We had not any decision in any other sense; we were not a commission. The bill is a compromise. I doubt if there is a single participant in the conferences whom it satisfies in every particular.
Fourth—and I feel really, Mr. Chairman, in justice to the conferences, after their year of labor, impelled to say this—the bill is not a mere congeries of provisions proposed by a selfish group, each member of which was considering solely his own particular interest. It contains, of course, some provisions which concern only particular interests—for instance, the provision as to sound records, or that as to affidavit of domestic manufacturers. But these are easily distinguishable; we suppose and we should hope that they would be distinguished, and particularly so if, as we know to be true in the case of sound records, there is to be definite objection before you against the bill as it stands; and we should hope that that objection, with the arguments of those with whom the proposal originated particularly, should be set aside for special discussion distinct from the general discussion on the bill as a whole. I say there are provisions which concern particular interests, of course, particularly; but these we should hope would be distinguished in your consideration of it.
The bill is the result of a sincere attempt, as we have seen it, to frame a reasonable general statute. I say "sincere," and I feel the right to say it because I followed the conferences closely, and had the best opportunity to judge of their temper and disposition. If some of the interests were selfish in one direction, they were met by the selfishness of others in another direction, and both were under criticism from the general advisors and under the influence of the main body. And neither such interests—and I am speaking of history now, of course—neither such interests nor any other participant in the conference initiated the conference, nor determined its composition, nor controlled its proceedings. The conference was initiated by the Copyright Office at your suggestion, Mr. Chairman. It was composed of organizations invited by the office, and it was theoretically held in the office. The Librarian presided at it, and except for the purpose of some formal resolutions it never organized or in any other way passed out of the control of the office.
If the bill reveals some selfishness, it is perhaps condonable. It is the selfishness of men trying to protect their own property; for of course, as I have emphasized, the interests that were especially invited to the conferences were those that are concerned in an affirmative way with the protection of the right. The conferences were not generally representative—completely representative—in other respects. The bill has that purpose—that is, for the protection particularly of the property. It comes before you for consideration on the ground that it goes too far. It does not create, of course, a new species of property; it merely recognizes a species of property created by the Constitution and already recognized by statute. Its purpose is simply to secure to the man who has created it a species of property which peculiarly requires the protection of law, because the very act which makes it remunerative to him lays it open to expropriation—that is, the act of publication—and seems peculiarly entitled to the protection of the law, because it is that act, and that alone, which makes it of any use to the public; and of course it secures this protection—not permanently, but only against untimely expropriation.
It may be said that the public was not represented at the conferences. The public in this matter would, I suppose, belong to one of four classes: In the first place, the producer, the creator, with his publisher and manufacturer; or, second, one who is to enjoy the work as a consumer; or, third, one who wishes to utilize the work in some other work, or to reproduce and market it for his own benefit, when this can be done innocently; or, fourth, the student and critic of the rights and obligations of property, and of the regulation of this by law. There may be a fifth class, the mere pirate. He was not invited to the conferences, and I suppose he would not be to your hearings. But the innocent reproducer was not unrepresented at the conferences or in the discussions. In fact, most of the producers were also reproducers, and quite insistent upon their convenience as such. The original producers, publishers, and manufacturers were there as of right, and the student and critic through their interest and public spirit. As for the consumers, two considerable groups were actually represented, and more would have been if organizations could have been found to represent them. Others also there spoke for them.
But as I understand it, it is in the interest of the consumer just because it is in the interest of the producer that copyright laws were originally designed and were called for by the Constitution; and if this proposed one fails fairly to regard that interest of the consumer, its defects will surely be brought to your attention by the third great estate which is jealous of those interests—the newspaper and periodical press; for the bill is now before the public.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the labor put upon it, the bill is doubtless still imperfect in expressing its intentions; and I have no doubt that while it is under consideration those especially concerned will ask leave to submit to you some amendments of phraseology. I understand that any such amendments proposed by participants in the conferences will be communicated first to the copyright office, so that they may be formulated by the register for your convenient consideration; and the office will gladly do the same for any that may reach it from any other source.
The relation of the office to this project has been peculiar, Mr. Chairman, and that alone has excused me in introducing the bill to you. But having introduced it, the office will, with your permission, relapse into its more normal position of informant to your committee on matters of fact, and an adviser when its opinion is asked. With the general structure of the bill, including its phraseology, the office will of course have especial concern. Upon the general principles involved and upon matters of practice the office will naturally have some opinions, and may not avoid ultimately expressing these, even though in doing so it incidentally supports a provision which concerns particularly a particular interest. It can not avoid this where a bill is referred to it by your committee for its opinion, and still less can it do it in the present case where it is itself in possession of the reasons which induce the various provisions and the principles supposed to underlie them. It must, as occasion requires and you think necessary, expound the bill. Mere advocacy, however, Mr. Chairman, of any particular provisions it must leave to others.
Mr. Chairman, ordinarily I assume that in such a case as this those who are in a sense proponents of the measure would be heard in the affirmative in argument in support of the measure. It is my understanding that in so far as the proponents can be said to be those who participated in the conferences, they do not care for leave to make any argument as such. Certain of them, representing typical interests, would, however, be glad to submit a word or two in behalf of those interests—a very brief word, no one of them speaking for more than five minutes. We have thus far (which I am under duty to communicate to you) notice of objections to two or three particular provisions and then to the bill substantially as a whole.
One of the particular provisions is that against reproduction of copyrighted musical compositions by means of some device or appliance for reproducing it to the ear. Another particular provision is that which, in two respects, curtails the privilege of American libraries to import foreign editions of works copyrighted here.
Mr. Currier. It does so in more than two respects, does it not?
Mr. Putnam. The present law permits two; the bill cuts the two to one.
Mr. Currier. Yes; but there are various other restrictions embodied in the bill, are there not?
Mr. Putnam. In regard to libraries?
Mr. Currier. In regard to importation for libraries.
Mr. Putnam. Yes; there may be other points. I was speaking of the two.
Mr. Currier. The individuals are cut out, are they not?
Mr. Putnam. The individuals are cut out.
Mr. Currier. That is one restriction.
Mr. Putnam. They are noted as cut out.
Mr. Currier. The number of books is reduced from two to one?
Mr. Putnam. In all cases; yes.
Mr. Currier. Then the phraseology is so changed that it must mean something. When you say, "To any book published abroad," beginning on page 16, "with the authorization of the author or copyright proprietor," what does that mean?
Mr. Putnam. Page 16 of the library print?
Mr. Currier. Yes; it is subdivision E, page 16.
Mr. Putnam. Section 30—"any book published abroad with the authorization of the copyright proprietor"—that is, the authorized foreign edition.
Mr. Currier. Well, that phraseology is new.
Mr. Putnam. I was not of the impression that the intent was new in that. It refers to the foreign authorized edition as distinguished from the foreign unauthorized edition, because the importation of any unauthorized edition is prohibited as a fraudulent invasion of the right. It may be, of course. If there is any diminution under that of the present privileges of libraries, there is a group of librarians who desire to be heard. I do not know that they had that so particularly in mind as the exception under subsection 3.
Mr. Currier. In subsection 3 there is still another new restriction, is there not?
Mr. Putnam. Yes.
Mr. Currier. As to the privilege of importation without the consent of the American copyright proprietor, etc.?
Mr. Putnam. Yes.
Mr. Currier. That is still another restriction?
Mr. Putnam. Yes; two copies reduced to one, this prohibition of the importation of the foreign edition of a book of an American author published here of which there is an authorized American edition——
Mr. Currier. And the cutting out of the right of the individual?
Mr. Putnam. And the cutting out of the right of the individual. I was speaking of libraries first; yes.
Mr. Currier. And then such restrictions as may be embodied in that phraseology?
Mr. Putnam. Yes; if there is any restriction there, that also.
Mr. Currier. I understood some two months ago that an agreement had been reached between the publishers and the librarians, satisfactory to both, which was to be embodied in the bill. Was that the proposition that is now a part of the bill?
Mr. Putnam. I think that can best be answered, Mr. Currier, by Mr. Bostwick, who is here, who was a participant in the conferences in behalf of the American Library Association. That is the general association of this country. Mr. Bostwick and Mr. Hill were the two delegates to the meeting; and Mr. Bostwick will say whether this provision is satisfactory to his association as an association.
Mr. Currier. I simply desire to say that my mail is filled with protests from librarians and from universities and colleges against this restriction.
Mr. Putnam. Yes; and as I was saying, Mr. Currier, we have already note of that protest. Mr. Cutter, Doctor Steiner, and perhaps others—certainly those two, however—Mr. Cutter being librarian of the Forbes Library, at Northampton, and Doctor Steiner being librarian of the Enoch Pratt Library, at Baltimore, are here in behalf of remonstrants against any diminution of the present privileges of libraries. I had understood that this provision as it stands had been accepted by the representatives of the association simply as participants in the conference. May Mr. Bostwick state as to that, Mr. Chairman? I only suggest it because you asked the question.
The Chairman. We have concluded that it is best to adopt the suggestion to hear first the proponents of the bill and then, at a later period, hear those who object to its provisions.
Mr. Putnam. In that case, Mr. Chairman, if you will let me suggest, the interests represented at the conference are easily classifiable. They were the creators of literary productions, the authors; they were the dramatists; they were the composers and the publishers of those productions, the manufacturers, the reproducers; they were these two associations, so far as we had them there, representing the consumers; and then there were the two committees of the American Bar Association representing our general legal advisers.
Mr. Bowker is here representing the author class particularly.
The Chairman. We will hear from Mr. Bowker.
Mr. Sulzer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have it noted on the record that I have received a letter from former Judge A. J. Dittenhoefer, the well-known lawyer of New York City, who represents the American Dramatists' Club and the Managers' Association, of New York, and who desires to appear at some subsequent time in favor of certain provisions in this proposed law.
The Chairman. Does he desire to be heard if the committee is in favor of them?
Mr. Sulzer. No; not if the committee is in favor of them. That is the point.
The Chairman. Perhaps that can be taken up, then, at a later date.
Mr. Sulzer. Yes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROGERS BOWKER, ESQ., VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LEAGUE.
The Chairman. Will you please state your name, Mr. Bowker, your residence, and whom you represent?
Mr. Bowker. My name is Richard Rogers Bowker. I speak as vice-president of the American Copyright League, commonly called the Authors' Copyright League.
Mr. Chairman, the American Copyright League, for which I speak as vice-president in the absence of its president, Mr. Edmund Clarence Stedman, who regrets in this letter that ill-health detains him in New York, and who desires to be recorded as well satisfied with the bill as a basis for Congressional consideration, and in the absence of our secretary, Mr. Robert Underwood Johnson, of the Century, who has been our sentinel for years in respect to all matters as to copyright legislation, the American Copyright League asks that the first half hour be devoted by your committee to the originators of copyright property.
Mr. Clemens, I understand, has reached Washington, and hopes to be present at one of these sessions as a member of the council of our league. Mr. Bronson Howard, the president of the American Dramatists' Club, and also a vice-president of this league, I hope will be present to speak for the dramatists. Mr. Sousa and Mr. Victor Herbert are here to-day representing musical composers. Mr. Frank D. Millet is here as the delegate of the National Academy of Design and of the Fine Arts Federation, and possibly Mr. Carl Bitter, president, or Mr. Daniel C. French, ex-president of the National Sculptors' Association, may also be here. We ask that a half hour be given to those gentlemen presently; and I shall occupy but five minutes or so of that time.
The conference, sir, proceeded at its first session on a memorandum which formed the basis for discussion, presented by the American Copyright League; and I mention that to say that that memorandum included two important suggestions which were not incorporated in the bill—one the suggestion that the bill should be, as it were, a group of bills, representing separately and distinctively the literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic varieties of copyrightable property. An honest endeavor was made to do that, but it proved not practicable and workable. Again, members of our council, Mr. Stedman and Mr. Clemens among them, desired very much that the authors should be safeguarded in their relations with publishers by certain insertions in the bill. It was held by the legal authorities that that was not a proper subject of introduction in a copyright code; and on those two points the American Copyright League, I think I am authorized to state, recedes from any possible dissension. And I say it, sir, because there are doubtless many points on which the several organizations would prefer to have additions or omissions.
A little girl I knew spoke of a compromise as something where everybody got what they did not want. Now, in that sense this bill is not a compromise. It represents, rather, the consensus of opinion of the originators of copyrightable property, of the reproducers, publishers and similar interests, and of representatives, as Mr. Putnam has told you, of various other interests. On behalf of the league we believe, sir, that you have before you a working basis for a just, broad, clear, workable copyright bill; and we feel confident that such a bill will emerge from your deliberations.
We ask you, sir, to keep in mind two vital points: First, that the rights of the producing classes shall be first of all thought of, but not to the detriment of the great body of reproducers and readers, on whom the author classes depend for the possibility of realizing from their productions. As has been said to you, copyright is on a different basis from patents, in that it not only does not interfere with the rights or privileges of others as succeeding inventors, but that the world is the better for any original work contributed by help of the copyright laws to the community without detriment to anyone, and therefore it should have a broader scope before you in copyright legislation than in patent legislation; and we ask that in that view, in that spirit, the rights of the producing classes shall be kept in mind.
Secondly, sir, this is a very difficult and complicated question. Those of us who have met in conference have recognized most fully the care, fairness, and wise consideration which have been given to all interests by the copyright office and the difficulties under which a practical bill has been framed. We ask you, sir, in your considerations in the committee and in the discussions in Congress so far as they are shaped by the committee, that you will keep in mind, sir, the importance of keeping a consistent bill throughout these difficult provisions. The copyright office has been of the greatest service to all of us in that very function; and I have no doubt, sir, from our experience, that it will be of the greatest service to your committee.
The league had stood for a copyright commission instead of this conference. But when we find this bill, sir, presented as the result of only a year's work, and remember that the English copyright commission took years to produce a draft which has not yet, after nearly a generation, been enacted into law, we can not but express the greatest satisfaction with the result now before you. We do not feel, sir, that any bill can be presented to your committee which does not call for the most careful consideration, for protest from outside interests, and for discussion, not only in your committee and in the halls of Congress, but throughout the public. We do not feel that any such bill would be possible; and I wish very heartily, sir, to record the American copyright league as favoring the fullest discussion and the fullest consideration of any of what may be called the minority interests. We believe that the interests of the office are perfectly consistent with the interests of the public; and in that view, sir, we support most heartily, individually and as members of the conference, the bill which you have before you.