Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives Part 4

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 a.s.sume 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 partic.i.p.ated 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 partic.i.p.ant in the conferences in behalf of the American Library a.s.sociation. That is the general a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation as an a.s.sociation.

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 a.s.sociation simply as partic.i.p.ants 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 cla.s.sifiable. 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 a.s.sociations, so far as we had them there, representing the consumers; and then there were the two committees of the American Bar a.s.sociation representing our general legal advisers.

Mr. Bowker is here representing the author cla.s.s 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' a.s.sociation, 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.