ページの画像
PDF
ePub

The

more cheaply there than abroad. statement that four-fifths of English copyright music was printed abroad was therefore very misleading, and it was absurd for the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, on this statement, to take that to be an absolute fact without inquiring into its accuracy.

MR. CALDWELL said he took it from the evidence of the hon. Member for Manchester's own witness, and he had no other evidence or knowledge; and in his Report he referred to the answer that four-fifths of the English copyright music was printed abroad.

MR. GALLOWAY said he did not think the hon. Member knew anything else, and when he knew that fact he did not know much about the question. The hon. Member for Mid. Lanark issued a Minority Report containing some statements which ought to be dealt with. The statement that the printing of copyright music was done mostly abroad was misleading and inaccurate. Then again, the publisher had to pay office expenses, and rent and other expenses, and for the first few months every song was sold at not more

The complaint was that the price of music was excessive. How was a song produced? The publisher had to agree with the author, and his royalty was frequently about 1d. per copy, and sometimes he was paid a fee of perhaps twenty or thirty guineas. He was speaking from the point of view of the publisher. He often had to pay to the composer not only a retaining fee, but sometimes a royalty of 6d. per copy. One of the most eminent of English musicians, whose memory was still fresh to the English musical public, got as much as 6d. per copy in royalties during the latter years of his life. The publisher having got the song and published it, it had to be advertised, which often was very expensive; and not only this, but it had to be sung, and some of the eminent singers, like Miss Clara Butt and Mr. Andrew Black, had been known to get as much as 3d. per copy. He had heard of one eminent singer who got as much as £600 for singing a copyright song. The hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, who had discussed this subject without having mastered the facts, believed that English copyright music was largely printed abroad. Here was one of those cases where a little knowledge was a than 8d. per copy to the trade. He dangerous thing. The hon. Member had got that information from the evidence given by Mr. Enoch in reply to a question put by himself. Mr. Enoch stated that four-fifths of English copyright music was printed abroad, and upon that the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark made his statement that fourfifths of English music was printed abroad. That was a mis-statement of the facts, although he did not wish to throw any reflection on Mr. Enoch's evidence or the Report of the hon. Member opposite. Take, for example, Messrs. Chappell & Co., Boosey & Co., and Messrs. Novello, who were the principal publishers of music in London. Messrs. Novello had got their own printing works and engraving staff, and not a note of any kind produced by them was sent out. Messrs. Chappell & Co. employed their own printers and engravers, and so did Messrs. Boosey & Co. The hon. Member had referred to Glasgow.

Was he aware that even from his own native town of Manchester they sent music to be engraved and published in Glasgow, and what was more, it was done

wished to add, and he believed he was right in stating, that the number of successes proportionate to failures in the publication of new songs, was about one in fifty, and in some cases only one in a hundred. Surely if that was true it ought to be taken into consideration. The purchaser did not need to pay those prices and there was no compulsion upon anyone to buy the music. Frequently the public paid 6s. for a new book, and therefore it could not be said that 1s. 4d. was a very high price for a piece of music. The 6s. novel was, as a rule, only read once, but a piece of music was played time after time and often played by many persons. The hon. Member had argued that music was more expensive in England than in other countries. He did not think that was accurate, for his experience was that music was far more expensive abroad than in England. Take, for example, a copy of a musical play like "The Geisha." That was sold at 6s., or with the discount taken off, 4s. 8d. If they went to France they would have to pay twelve francs for a copy of "The

Geisha." He could give the House many instances of that kind, and it was erroneous to say that the cost of music was more in this country than it was abroad.

The hon. Member opposite had said that he could only agree to certain

a

pre

remedies on condition that the cedent of the Patents Act was carried out. That Act under certain circumstances provided that they might insist upon the owner selling at certain price. Nobody had any settled idea as to the actual working of the Patents Act in this respect. They were entirely in the dark as to the view of the Privy Council upon it, and it was not unreasonable to say that before they extended that principle they should at least know the result of the working of the Act. He did not attach any importance one way or the other to it, but he did not think that composers and music publishers should have such an extreme remedy used against them. The hon. Member opposite in his Report objected to two points, but he would deal first with the question of exports. As regarded exports

the Committee had received some extraordinary evidence from Mr. Stephen Adams, who said he had been in Canada and his works had been sold there. In his opinion what they required was to get at the printer, and not so much at the person who aided and abetted the printer, and that was a point which it was most desirable should be dealt with. It had been suggested in the Minority Report that the piracy of books in America was stopped by bringing down the price of books, and it had been argued that if they did the same thing in regard to music they would stop piracy here. He doubted this, but his point was that in America the stopping of piracy had not been brought about by the reduction in the price of books. In 1892 there was no law dealing with piracy in America and books were pirated there wholesale, with the result that the Copyright Act was passed.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross): I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present.

MR. GALLOWAY said he had taken an interest in music all his life. He had had many friends who had been deprived of their livelihood and brought to the direst straits of poverty through the piracy complained of. The House was probably aware that the Berne Convention had been construed as giving the same protection to owners of foreign copyright in England as was given to English copyright in foreign countries. He thought it was essentially desirable that that should be done. If this country received favour from foreign countries in this matter it was equitable that we should give the same advantages to others. He wished to say a few words with regard to the price of music. Anybody who had read the Report by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark would see that he made a great hon. Member's Report was based on the point on that matter. The whole of the assumption that music was too dear, and that in consequence the poorer classes were shut out from purchasing it.

Mr. JOSEPH DELVIN rose in his
66 That the

place, and claimed to move,
Question be now put."

*MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion, but I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself strictly to the question raised in the Bill before the House.

MR. GALLOWAY said he was going to deal with the question of the price of non-copyright music, but he would pass from that and deal with another question which he thought was as essential as that of price. It was said that the remedies proposed by the Bill should not be given because Parliament had already passed enactments restricting the price, and had thereby done all that was necessary to protect the composers of music and at the not in the least hold that view. He same time to protect the public. He did thought it was founded on an incorrect interpretation of the Statute. He did say that Parliament, having given the right which was established by the Act of 1882. ought to provide powers by which the Statute could be carried out. He submitted that the remedies proposed by the Bill were the only remedies which would

Forty Members being present the House effectually carry out that object. He resumed.

asked the House to accept the principle of

Mr. Galloway.

the Bill by agreeing to the Second Reading, | of Parliament was to be on the Committee. reserving minor points for consideration The subject was one which he thought in Committee.

MR. CALDWELL said the speech to which they had just listened was a complete justification of the action taken last year in refusing to allow the Bill to pass without discussion. He thought it was very useful indeed that they should have an opportunity of discussing the Bill. He did not know how far the hon. Member had helped the progress of his Bill, because if it had taken two hours to deliver one speech on the Second Reading he did not know how, in the limited time after Whitsuntide, it would be possible to get through a contentious measure containing a great many clauses. That was, however, probably a matter for the future. He was not going to follow the hon. Member into his personalities. The hon. Member had referred to his opposition to Bills. He would point out in answer to the hon. Member that of about 170 private Member's Bills introduced in the past two sessions only a very small number (15) became law, and that, of those which were passed, the majority were Bills which were introduced on the Government side of the House, and not one of which had an early place on the ballot. The suggestion that Bills were blocked on the Opposition side of the House was not justified. When the hon. Member talked of the blocking of Bills he would remind him of one Bill which passed the Second Reading by a large majority, and passed through the Standing Committee and through Report in the House down to the last Amendment, by large majorities. That was the Innkeepers Liability Bill, which was promoted with the view of providing refreshments for cyclists. The hon. Member for South-West Manchester talked it out. Not only did he do that once, but on another occasion, when there was half an hour to spare, he talked it out again. He was not the man who should come forward and reprove sin of that sort. Reference had been made to the constitution of the Committee.

ought to be inquired into by a Committee, and he consented to serve, stating that he thought the Government tion. He came from Scotland to London ought to introduce the necessary legislaand spent the whole of January sitting

on the Committee in the interest of a Bill

What

The hon. Member for South-West Man

dealing with the matter, and then the hon. Member suggested that he was put on the Committee because he was the a dishonourable imputation to bring representative of the pirates. That was against a Member of the House. was the composition of the Committee? chester represented the copyright owners. He did not conceal his friendship for them. Another member was Mr. John Murray, Publisher, the man who held the greatest Another was Mr. Scrutton, K.C. It had interest in copyrights in the kingdom. Another was Mr. Scrutton, K.C. It had of Trade. He was counsel and adviser been said that he represented the Board for the Musical Copyright Association right Act, 1902. How could he judge in proceedings under the Musical Copyimpartially in the matter?

In this House it was understood that when counsel was engaged in a case he should Scrutton was the member of the Comnot take part in the vote upon it. Mr. mittee who wrote out the Report of the Majority of the Committee. It was not a Report written by the chairman. The House had only to look at the questions put by him from the beginning to see exactly where his bias lay. Mr. Fenwick was, he admitted,. impartial, able, and courteous, but everybody knew that magistrates, and that they had formed a matters of pirac had been before the definite opinion on the Not only so, but the Musical Copyright subject.

Association in one of their statements said

that they had received "loyal assistance" from the magistrates as well as the police. It was a grand thing to have on the Committee one who had given loyal support to the copyright owners when the matter was being considered and reported

on.

The only Member of the Committee He received a letter from the Home left was himself, and it could be seen at Office, when in Scotland, asking him if once that there was a great disparity— he would attend a Departmental Com- four against one. The witnesses were mittee. It was said that another Member all brought forward by the Copyright

Association. Not one was brought for ward by him (Mr. Caldwell) and as to the king of the pirates, he absolutely knew nothing about him or about a single pirate until the Committee received a letter from Willetts asking to be heard. He had no sympathy with the pirates, and he had had no communication, direct or indirect, with anyone. He had no grievance to represent on the Committee. He was there to look at the matter purely from the public point of view.

Coming to the merits of the Bill he thought he could state the matter shortly in this way. The difference between the two Reports lay in the difference of view which had been taken as to copyright. The majority had acted on the view, which was openly stated, that they considered copyright was a right of property the same as a man had in his watch. They also asserted that he had a right to charge the public anything he pleased for his copyright [An HON. MEMBER No.] and that the public had no right or interest whatever with regard to price or the manner in which the right of copyright was exercised. Every witness maintained that it was a right of property, and therefore the Report of the Committee was a logical consequence. If copyright was the same right as a man had in his watch obviously they got in the criminal law at once. But they were not content with getting in the criminal law, because it was proposed to change the onus of proof. They said that a man must prove his innocence They said that an accused person could give evidence as a prisoner to prove his innocence. If it was to apply in this case it should apply to every other. The contention of the Minority Report was that copyright was a privilege conferred by Parliament. The words conferring that privilege were

"the sole and exclusive liberty of multiplying copies."

[blocks in formation]

property. In the case of musical compositions, copyright carried with it not only the sole and exclusive right of multiplying copies but also the sole right of representation and performance, the penalty for infringement in the latter case being not less than 40s. or the proceeds of the entertainment whichever was greatest. Under this law, copyright holders mulcted people in villages in penalties of not less than £2 for singing a song in public without receiving the authority of the holder of the copyright; but in 1888 Parliament interfered, and imposed more modest penalties, and gave absolute discretion to the Judges as to costs. The result was that now no one had the slightest compunction in singing a song in public, even supposing they had not asked the consent of the composer. If Parliament granted a privilege to anyone, Parliament could take that privilege away. For instance, under the Patents Act, 1902, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Privy Council that the reasonable requirements of the public are not being satisfied, the Privy Council have the power to compel Licences or may revoke the patent. Why was it that there had been so much piracy in regard to music, and so little in the case of books? The explanation of that was very simple. Cheap 6d. editions of novels originally published at 6s. were offered to the public. The cost of production had something to do with piracy. The engraving only cost a few shillings, and a thousand copies could be printed for £1-10s. for the printing off and 10s. for the paper. That only came to one halfpenny a copy, and it would be even less if more than 1,000 copies were printed.

Reference had been made to advertising, but everybody knew that advertising did not add to the cost of production. A man advertised because it paid him to advertise; and it was ridiculous to talk about advertising adding a single penny to the cost of production. The net price to the trade was 7d. per copy, and the lowest the stores to the price charged at public was 1s. 4d., so that the dealers got 9d. for handing a piece of music over the counter. In Birmingham and Scotland the retailer charged the public Is. 8d., and there were retailers who

charged 2s. The music was published at seized; but did not that show in 4s. and professors and teachers of music what direction the public sympathy and The demand lay? The existence of a large could charge up to that amount. burden of the song of the hon. Member market for cheap music was admitted by for Manchester was that the brains of Mr. Day the president of the Musical the poor composer were being stolen. If Copyright Association. He stated that they were, it was the publishers who the pirates did not claim that the The customary price of all music should be reduced, were stealing them. royalty in the case of the very few tip- but that there should be two editions, A one at a high price and another at a top composers was only 2d. net. great number, however, only got a few low price, like the cheap sixpenny shillings for a song, and some only a few novels. Mr. Day, whose firm established copies, which cost a farthing each, as a sixpenny series last October, in all their reward for the copyright. In the respects the same as the 4s. series, said by Piccoli- he felt sure that there was a demand on case of "Ora Pro Nobis mini thousands of pounds had been the part of the public for it. The sixpenny drawn by the publishers, and how series was sold to the trade at 2d. per much did the composer get?-A miserable copy and that included the copyright, sum of £10! The public paid the the cost of engraving, of printing, and same price for the most trashy piece of every other expense. That series was commusic as they did for the best, because menced in October, and was it not a the publishers had a ring or combination blessing that the Bill was not passed last among themselves to keep up the price, session. Hawkers bought that series at whilst the Musical Copyright Association, 2d., and could sell it at anything between according to their own statement, had 2d. and 6d. That showed what could be an army of agents, and spent thousands of done if the wide market instead of the pounds in enforcing the copyright law. narrow market were taken. What did This putting forward the poor composer the Bill ask for? It asked for the power was like putting women and children in of imprisonment, in order that the price of music should be kept up to a minimum front of a line of soldiers. price to the public of 1s. 4d. per copy and anything from that up to 4s. It would shut out the hawkers from earning a living in the market places in the interest of a few West End music sellers. As regarded the composers, if a wide market were opened up, they would be appreciated by the working classes, and their talents would find an opening which was now closed against them by the music publishers.

The next question was, "Was there a They all market for cheaper music?" knew that things had changed very considerably since 1842. Singing was now a part of the code in every public elementary school, and there were now pianos and other musical instruments in working Parents did men's homes in abundance. not complain of the fees paid for teaching singing and music, but they complained of the enormous price charged for the sheets of music-2s. for what only cost a halfpenny to produce, plus the The comroyalty to the composer. plaint was that there was piracy. Why It was because the was there piracy? hawkers could not get cheap music. They and the stall-holders in the market places were selling large quantities of classical music at popular prices, and naturally desired to supply their customers with popular music of the day at reasonable prices, and claimed that they had as much right to sell music and have their profits as any man in Bond Street. The hon. Member for Manchester said that 500,000 copies of music had been

A smaller royalty would bring in larger returns owing to the enormously larger sale through the reduction in price. Concurrently with any remedy for putting down piracy, care should be taken to safeguard the rights There ought to of the general public. be a clause in the Bill that, if the reasonable rights of the public were not satisfied, the Privy Council should have the power to compel licences or cancel the copyright. He was sure that no hon. Member who was concerned for the public interest rather than for the selfish interest of the publishers would object to give power of that kind to such a responsible body as the Privy Council. It appeared to be imagined that imprisonment would be a

« 前へ次へ »