« 前へ次へ »
The complaint was that the price of more cheaply there than abroad. The music was excessive. How was a song pro- statement that four-fifths of English duced? The publisher had to agree with copyright music was printed abroad was the author, and his royalty was fre- therefore very misleading, and it was quently about 1d. per copy, and some absurd for the hon. Member for Mid. times he was paid a fee of perhaps Lanark, on this statement, to take that to twenty or thirty guineas. He was be an absolute fact without inquiring speaking from the point of view of the into its accuracy. publisher. He often had to pay to the composer not only a retaining fee, but Mk. CALDWELL said he took it from sometimes a royalty of 6d. per copy. the evidence of the hon. Member for One of the most eminent of English Manchester's own witness, and he had musicians, whose memory was still fresh no other evidence or knowledge; and in to the English musical public, got as his Report he referred to the answer that much as 6d. per copy in royalties during four-fifths of the English copyright the latter years of his life. The publisher music was printed abroad. having got the song and published it, it! had to be advertised, which often was MR. GALLOWAY said he did not think very expensive; and not only this, but it the hon. Member knew anything else, and had to be sung, and some of the eminent, when he knew that fact he did not know singers, like Miss Clara Butt and Mr. much about the question. The hon. Andrew Black, had been known to get i Member for Mid. Lanark issued a Minority as much as 3d. per copy. He had heard Report containing some statements which of one eminent singer who got as much ought to be dealt with. The statement as £600 for singing a copyright song. that the printing of copyright music was The hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, who done mostly abroad was misleading and had discussed this subject without having inaccurate. Then again, the publisher mastered the facts, believed that English had to pay office expenses, and rent and copyright music was largely printed other expenses, and for the first few abroad. Here was one of those cases months every song was sold at not more where little knowledge was à than 8d. per copy to the trade. He dangerous thing. The hon. Member wished to add, and he believed he was had got that information from the right in stating, that the number of evidence given by Mr. Enoch in reply successes proportionate to failures in the to a question put by himself. Mr. publication of new songs, was about one in Enoch stated that four-fifths of English fifty, and in some cases only one in a copyright music was printed abroad, hundred. Surely if that was true it ought and
upon that the hon. Member for Mid. i to be taken into consideration. The purLanark made his statement that four chaser did not need to pay those prices
1 fifths of English music was printed' and there was no compulsion upon any. abroad. That was a mis-statement of one to buy the music. Frequently the the facts, although he did not wish to public paid 6s. for a new book, and therethrow
any reflection on Mr. Enoch's fore it could not be said that ls. 4d. was evidence or the Report of the hon. Member a very high price for a piece of opposite Take, for example, Messrs. music. The 6s. novel was, as a rule, Chappell & Co., Boosey & Co., and Messrs. only read once, but a piece of music was Novello, who were the principal publishers played time after time and often played of music in London. Messrs. Novello had by many persons. The hon. Member had got their own printing works and engraving argued that music was more expensive in staff
, and not a note of any kind produced England than in other countries. He did by them was sent out. Messrs. Chappell & not think that was accurate, for his Co. employed their own printers and en experience was that music was far more gravers, and so did Messrs. Boosey & Co. expensive abroad than in England. Take, The hon. Member had referred to Glasgow. for example, a copy of a musical play like Was he aware that even from his own
“The Geisha." That was sold at 6s., native town of Manchester they sent or with the discount taken off, 48. 8d. music to be engraved and published in If they went to France they would have Glasgow, and what was more, it was done to pay twelve francs for a copy of " The
Geisha.” He could give the House MR. GALLOWAY said he had taken many instances of that kind, and it was an interest in music all his life. He had erroneous to say that the cost of music had many friends who had been deprived more in
this country than it of their livelihood and brought to the was abroad.
direst straits of poverty through the piracy The hon. Member opposite had complained of. The House was probably said that he could only agree to certain
aware that tbe Berne Convention had been remedies on condition that the pre- to owners of foreign copyright in England
construed as giving the same protection cedent of the Patents Act was carried out. That Act_under certain circum- as was given to English copyright in stances provided that they might insist foreign countries. He thought it was upon the owner selling at a certain
essentially desirable that that should be price. Nobody had any settled idea as
done. If this country received favour to the actual working of the Patents Act
from foreign countries in this matter it in this respect. They were entirely in was equitable that we should give the the dark as to the view of the Privy
same advantages to others. He wished to Council upon it , and it was not unreason. say a few words with regard to the price
of music. Anybody who had read the that principle they should at least know Report by the hon. Member for Mid. that principle they should at least know Lanark would see that he made a great the result of the working of the Act. He did not attach any importance one way hon. Member’s Report was based on the
point on that matter. The whole of the or the other to it, but he did not think that composers and music publishers assumption that music was too dear, and should have such an extreme remedy
that in consequence the poorer classes used against them. The hon. Member were shut out from purchasing it. opposite in his Report objected to two points, but he would deal first with the place, and claimed to move, “ That the
Mr. JOSEPH DELVIN
in his question of exports. As regarded exports place, and claimed to move, the Committee had received some extra
Question be now put." ordinary evidence from Mr. Stephen *MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Adams, who said he had been in Canada and his works had been sold there. In Motion, but I hope that the hon. Member his opinion what they required was to will confine himself strictly to the quesget at the printer, and not so much tion raised in the Bill before the House. at the person who aided and a betted
MR. GALLOWAY said he was going to the printer, and that was a point which it was most desirable should be dealt with. deal with the question of the price of It had been suggested in the Minority non-copyright music, but he would pass Report that the piracy of books in America from that and deal with another question was stopped by bringing down the price which he thought was as essential as that of books, and it had been argued that if of price. It was said that the remedies they did the same thing in regard to music proposed by the Bill should not be given they would stop piracy here. He doubted because Parliament had already passed this, but his point was that in America the enactments restricting the price, and had stopping of piracy had not been brought thereby done all that was necessary to about by the reduction in the price of protect the composers of music and at the books. In 1892 there was no law dealing same time to protect the public. He did
in with piracy in America and books were pirated there wholesale, with the result thought it was founded on an incorrect that the Copyright Act was passed.
interpretation of the Statute. He did say
that Parliament, having given the right MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan which was established by the Act of 1882, and Kinross): I beg to call attention to ought to provide powers by which the the fact that there are not forty Mem- Statute could be carried out. He subbers present.
mitted 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.
ought to be inquired into by a
Committee, and he consented to serve, MR. CALDWELL said the speech stating that he thought the Government to which they had just listened was tion. He came from Scotland to London
ought to introduce the necessary legislaa complete justification of the action taken last year in refusing to allow the and spent the whole of January
on the Committee in the interest of a Bill Bill to pass without discussion. He thought it was very useful indeed that dealing with the matter, and then the they should have an opportunity of dis- hon. Member suggested that he was put
on the Committee because he was the cussing the Bill. He did not know how far the hon. Member had helped the pro- representative of the pirates. That was
a dishonourable imputation to bring gress of his Bill, because if it had taken two hours to deliver one speech on the Second against a Member of the House. What Reading he did not know how, in the was the composition of the Committee? limited time after Whitsuntide, it would be chester represented the copyright owner 3.
. for Manpossible to get through a contentious He did not conceal his friendship for them. measure containing a great many clauses. That was, however, probably a matter for Another member was Mr. John Murray, the future. He was not going to follow interest in copyrights in the kingdom.
Publisher, the man who held the greatest the hon. Member into his personalities. The hon. Member had referred to his Another was Mr. Scrutton, K.C. It had opposition to Bills. He would point out of Trade. He was counsel and adviser
been said that he represented the Board in answer to the hon. Member that of about 170 private Member's Bills intro- in proceedings under the Musical Copy:
for the Musical Copyright Association duced in the past two sessions only a very small number (15) became law, and right Act, 1902. How could he judge
In this that, of those which were passed, the impartially in the matter ? majority were Bills which were introduced
House it was understood that when on the Government side of the House,
counsel was engaged in a case he should and not one of which had an early place Scrutton was the member of the Com
not take part in the vote upon it.
Mr. on the ballot. The suggestion that Bills were blocked on the Opposition side of
mittee who wrote out the Report of the the House was not justified.
Majority of the Committee. It was not a
When the hon. Member talked of the block House had only to look at the questions
Report written by the chairman. The ing of Bills he would remind him of one Bill which passed the Second put by him from the beginning to see Reading by a large majority, and passed exactly where his bias lay. Mr. Fenwick through the Standing Committee and was, he admitted, impartial, able, and through Report in the House down to courteous, but everybody knew that the last Amendment, by large majorities. matters of pirac: had been before the which was promoted with the view of Not only so, but the Musical Copyright That was the Innkeepers Liability Bill, magistrates,
and that they had formed a opinion
subject. providing refreshments for cyclists. The hon. Member for South-West Manchester that they had received “loyal assistance”
Association in one of their statements said talked it out. Not only did he do that from the magistrates as well as the police. once, but on another occasion, when there it was a grand thing to have on the was half an hour to spare, he talked it out again. He was not the man who should Committee one who had given loyal supcome forward and reprove sin of that sort. port to the copyright owners when the Reference had been made to the consti- matter was being considered and reported tution of the Committee.
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 disparityhe would attend a Departmental Com- four against one. The witnesses were mittee. It was said that another Member all brought forward by the Copyright
in this way.
Association. Not one was brought for property. In the case of musical comward by him (Mr. Caldwell) and as to the positions, copyright carried with it not king of the pirates, he absolutely knew only the sole and exclusive right of nothing about him or about a single multiplying copies but also the sole right pirate until the Committee received a of representation and performance, the letter from Willetts asking to be heard. penalty for infringement in the latter He had no sympathy with the pirates, case being not less than 40s. or the proand he had had no communication, direct ceeds of the entertainment whichever or indirect, with anyone. He had no was greatest. Under this law, copyright grievance to represent on the Committee. holders mulcted people in villages in He was there to look at the matter purely penalties of not less than £2 for singing a from the public point of view.
song in public without receiving the
authority of the holder of the copyright; Coming to the merits of the Bill he but in 1888 Parliament interfered, and thought he could state the matter shortly imposed more modest penalties, and gave
The difference between the absolute discretion to the Judges as to two Reports lay in the difference of view costs. The result was that now no one which had been taken as to copy. had the slightest compunction in singing right. The majority had acted on the a song in public, even supposing they had view, which was openly stated, that they not asked the consent of the composer. considered copyright was a right of If Parliament granted a privilege to anyproperty the same as a man had in his one, Parliament could take that privilege watch. They also asserted that he had a away. For instance, under the Patents right to charge the public anything he Act, 1902, where it is proved to the satispleased for his copyright [An Hon. faction of the Privy Council that the MEMBER: No.] and that the public reasonable requirements of the public had no right or interest whatever with are not being satisfied, the Privy Council regard to price or the manner in which have the power to compel Licences or may the right of copyright was exercised. revoke the patent.
Why was it that Every witness maintained that it was there had been so much piracy in regard a right of property, and therefore the to music, and so little in the case of books ? Report of the Committee was a logical The explanation of that was very simple. consequence. If copyright was the same Cheap 6d. editions of novels originally right as a man had in his watch obviously published at 6s. were offered to the public. they got in the criminal law at once. But The cost of production had something to they were not content with getting in the do with piracy. The engraving only cost criminal law, because it was proposed to a few shillings, and a thousand copies change the onus of proof. They said could be printed for £1-10s. for the printthat a man must prove his innocence ing off and 10s. for the paper. That only They said that an accused person could came to one halfpenny a copy, and it would give evidence as a prisoner to prove his be even less if more than 1,000 copies innocence. If it was to apply in this case were printed. it should apply to every other. The contention of the Minority Report was that Reference had been made to advertiscopyright was a privilege conferred by ing, but everybody knew that adverParliament. The words conferring that tising did not add to the cost of privilege were
production. A man advertised because " the sole and exclusive liberty of multiplying it paid him to advertise; and it was copies.”
ridiculous to talk about advertising That liberty was conferred by Parliament adding a single penny to the cost of
The net price to the for a limited number of years, and under production. certain conditions, and the public had a
trade was 7d. per copy, and the lowest right to demand that the privilege should price charged at the stores to the be exercised fairly and reasonably in the got 9d. for handing a piece of music over
public was 1s. 4d., so that the dealers interests of the public. That privilege the counter. In Birmingham and Scotwas not absolute property in the same land the retailer charged the public sense as a watch was a man's absolute' ls. 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 could charge up to that amount. The demand lay? The existence of a large 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 were stealing them. The customary price of all music should be reduced, royalty in the case of the very few tip- but that there should be two editions, top composers was only 2 d. net. A one at a high price and another at a 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 case of “Ora Pro Nobis” by Piccoli. he felt sure that there was a demand on 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 front of a line of soldiers.
of music should be kept up to a minimum
price to the public of ls. 4d. per copy The next question was, "Was there a and anything from that up to 4s. It market for cheaper music ?” They all would shut out the hawkers from earning a knew that things had changed very con- living in the market places in the interest siderably since 1842. Singing was now a of a few West End music sellers. As repart of the code in every public elemen- garded the composers, if a wide market tary school, and there were now pianos were opened up, they would be appreciaand other musical instruments in working ted by the working classes, and their men's homes in abundance. Parents did talents would find an opening which was not complain of the fees paid for teach- now closed against them by the music ing singing and music, but they com- publishers. A smaller royalty would plained of the enormous price charged for bring in larger returns owing to the the sheets of music—28. for what only enormously larger sale through the recost a halfpenny to produce, plus the duction in price. Concurrently with any royalty to the composer. The com remedy for putting down piracy, care plaint was that there was piracy. Why should be taken to safeguard the rights was there piracy? It was because the of the general public. There ought to hawkers could not get cheap music. be a clause in the Bill that, if the reasonThey and the stall-holders in the market able rights of the public were not satisfied, places were selling large quantities of the Privy Council should have the power classical music at popular prices, and to compel licences or cancel the copyright. naturally desired to supply their cus- He was sure that no hon. Member who tomers with popular music of the day at was concerned for the public interest reasonable prices, and claimed that they rather than for the selfish interest of the had as much right to sell music and have publishers would object to give power of their profits as any man in Bond Street. that kind to such a responsible body as The hon. Member for Manchester said the Privy Council. It appeared to be that 500,000 copies of music had been imagined that imprisonment would be a