Mr. FURNESS. It does not cover that at all.
The CHAIRMAN. You state that this law refers to the use of these books
for a public performance for profit. I do not understand the law that
way.
Mr. CHANEY. I do not, either.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee has suggested yesterday and to-day an
amendment which would put the law as you state it, and you object to
that.
Mr. SERVEN. For this reason: It is proposed to make certain exceptions,
to allow privileges to certain beneficiaries under this law, which
would really defeat the law, because that sort of a proposition is
solely for financial profit, the sort of entertainment that is referred
to. Upon investigation it will be found that nearly every entertainment
of the kind referred to is really for profit; that instead of lending
or renting for a charitable enterprise pure and simple, it will be
found that it is a money-making enterprise; there is hardly an
exception. You will find that such an entertainment is not a social
affair. It is not that sort of a thing. It is an institution solely
devised as an expedient to raise money for certain specific purposes,
whatever they may be. Now, if we simply give, as, for instance, for the
benefit of the occupants of a hospital, or something of that kind,
where there is no charge or anything of that sort, we give simply for
the entertainment of a company of gentlemen and ladies, where the
public is not shut out unless they had the price, then I am sure these
gentlemen would not have the slightest objection to it whatever; in
fact, they like to encourage that sort of thing, and they even lend
their music for such purposes.
Mr. CHANEY. But you want the power of doing that lending yourselves?
Mr. SERVEN. Yes; if our music is gone, we like to do the lending.
Mr. CHANEY. Suppose I buy this composition [holding up musical
composition]: haven't I a right to sing it, and have not my friends a
right to sing it at my expense?
Mr. SERVEN. You have, so far as any private performance is concerned.
Mr. CHANEY. Well, in public?
Mr. SERVEN. I don't think so.
Mr. CHANEY. Ought I not to have that right?
Mr. SERVEN. That depends on what the contract is when you buy it.
Mr. FURNESS. You could not sing that yourself [referring to musical
composition]; that requires more than one voice.
Mr. GILL. How was the use of that restricted when it was purchased?
Mr. FURNESS. The law says that if he does that willfully, or for
profit--I think the words "for profit" are in the statute--that he is
guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, is subject to
imprisonment not less than a year, I think, the same as for the
dramatic public performance; it is the same remedy for both.
Mr. GILL. You sell that without any restriction?
Mr. SERVEN. Without any notice of restriction.
Mr. GILL. Without any restriction?
Mr. SERVEN. No.
Mr. GILL. Is it not a matter of fact that you make the sale without any
contract? I concede that if you make a contract of course you can
restrict its use, the same as you can make a contract for the use of a
patent; you can give the whole use of a patent or limit it to a town or
a county, or you may restrict the patent as to whom it shall be sold,
or in any way you please, and I admit that you could restrict this; but
I ask, as a matter of fact, what are the contracts? It is a matter of
contract?
Mr. SERVEN. It is solely a matter of contract.
Mr. GILL. You sell it without any contract.