Music Trade Review
Issue: 1919 Vol. 69 N. 14 - Page 3
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
RMFW
THE
VOL. LXIX. No. 14
T
Published Every Saturday by Edward Lyman Bill, Inc., at 373 4th Ave., New York.
Oct. 4, 1919
Single Copies 10 Cents
$2.00 Per Year
HE practice, or rather the reported practice, of one music roll company in making" its rolls from arrange-
ments originated by competing companies has been considered of sufficient importance by the Federal
Trade Commission to be made the basis of definite charges and a matter for investigation. It is well
that this is so, for whether or not the defendant company has been guilty of the practice as charged
the fact that such a practice will not be permitted should in itself discourage any other roll companies from
trying the same tactics;
There is no question but that the utilizing by a competitor of an arrangement of music made by another
company at a considerable expense constitutes unfair competition, and if such methods exist it is but right that
they should be checked at the outset before any great harm can be done to the trade as a whole. The music roll
business has, for the most part, been a clean business. Competition has been strong at times, but it has been
conducted on the basis of fairness by the leading companies who have seen fit to co-operate, through their as-
sociation and by other means, in keeping it on a high level.
It was just ten years ago that the talking machine companies had their big fight to keep their records free
from the practice of "dubbing," which in a sense resembles the practice of stealing music roll arrangements.
The "dubbing" of talking machine records consisted of taking an original record by a noted artist, to whom a
prominent company had paid substantial royalties, and then by a special process making other records from
the original, and selling these records as genuine duplicates of the higher priced original discs. In rendering a
decision against these "dubbers" Judge Chatfield, in the United States Circuit Court, in Brooklyn, analyzed
the practice in no uncertain terms, and, in granting a permanent injunction, said:
"The relief asked in this case would protect those who have already sung or played compositions having a
pecuniary value because of their musical excellence, and also the persons who have invested capital and labor
in putting a valuable product upon the market. The education of the public by the dissemination of good music
is an object worthy of protection, and it is apparent that such results could not be obtained if the production
of the original records was stopped by the wrongful taking of both product and profit by anyone who could
produce sound-discs free from the expense of obtaining the original record."
The music roll industry has become so important a branch of the music trades that its standing as a factor
therein is becoming recognized to a constantly increasing degree. It offers, in itself, one of the finest mediums
for propagating greater interest in music in the home that has yet been devised, and because of this fact the
industry should strive to keep itself free from any suggestion of those unfair practices and methods which
have unfortunately besmirched other and older industries, to their detriment and consequent loss of prestige.
The music roll industry is a clean, honorable industry,and should be kept so at all hazards.
The music roll company, especially in these days of reproducing pianos and record rolls, which has the
progressiveness to secure the exclusive services of a noted pianist to record for its rolls, or who arranges with
a famous composer personally to supervise and correct the arrangement of rolls bearing music, should in
every sense be protected in its rights to have the exclusive use and sale of the products so created. If any
Tom, Dick and Harry can, with perfect freedom, take this specially arranged roll and from it make thousands
of duplicates without the expense of his own arranging, and therefore at a cost far under that of the original
manufacturer, then the inspiration to progress in the % trade, and to show originality, is lost. It would seem that
the duplication of music rolls is just as reprehensible as the duplication of talking machine records. The prac-
tice is in the same category, and the upright members of the trade should unite in seeing to it that the practice
is discontinued forthwith, appealing to the courts without hesitancy should other means fail. There is a legal
precedent already established that should not be overlooked.
RMFW
THE
VOL. LXIX. No. 14
T
Published Every Saturday by Edward Lyman Bill, Inc., at 373 4th Ave., New York.
Oct. 4, 1919
Single Copies 10 Cents
$2.00 Per Year
HE practice, or rather the reported practice, of one music roll company in making" its rolls from arrange-
ments originated by competing companies has been considered of sufficient importance by the Federal
Trade Commission to be made the basis of definite charges and a matter for investigation. It is well
that this is so, for whether or not the defendant company has been guilty of the practice as charged
the fact that such a practice will not be permitted should in itself discourage any other roll companies from
trying the same tactics;
There is no question but that the utilizing by a competitor of an arrangement of music made by another
company at a considerable expense constitutes unfair competition, and if such methods exist it is but right that
they should be checked at the outset before any great harm can be done to the trade as a whole. The music roll
business has, for the most part, been a clean business. Competition has been strong at times, but it has been
conducted on the basis of fairness by the leading companies who have seen fit to co-operate, through their as-
sociation and by other means, in keeping it on a high level.
It was just ten years ago that the talking machine companies had their big fight to keep their records free
from the practice of "dubbing," which in a sense resembles the practice of stealing music roll arrangements.
The "dubbing" of talking machine records consisted of taking an original record by a noted artist, to whom a
prominent company had paid substantial royalties, and then by a special process making other records from
the original, and selling these records as genuine duplicates of the higher priced original discs. In rendering a
decision against these "dubbers" Judge Chatfield, in the United States Circuit Court, in Brooklyn, analyzed
the practice in no uncertain terms, and, in granting a permanent injunction, said:
"The relief asked in this case would protect those who have already sung or played compositions having a
pecuniary value because of their musical excellence, and also the persons who have invested capital and labor
in putting a valuable product upon the market. The education of the public by the dissemination of good music
is an object worthy of protection, and it is apparent that such results could not be obtained if the production
of the original records was stopped by the wrongful taking of both product and profit by anyone who could
produce sound-discs free from the expense of obtaining the original record."
The music roll industry has become so important a branch of the music trades that its standing as a factor
therein is becoming recognized to a constantly increasing degree. It offers, in itself, one of the finest mediums
for propagating greater interest in music in the home that has yet been devised, and because of this fact the
industry should strive to keep itself free from any suggestion of those unfair practices and methods which
have unfortunately besmirched other and older industries, to their detriment and consequent loss of prestige.
The music roll industry is a clean, honorable industry,and should be kept so at all hazards.
The music roll company, especially in these days of reproducing pianos and record rolls, which has the
progressiveness to secure the exclusive services of a noted pianist to record for its rolls, or who arranges with
a famous composer personally to supervise and correct the arrangement of rolls bearing music, should in
every sense be protected in its rights to have the exclusive use and sale of the products so created. If any
Tom, Dick and Harry can, with perfect freedom, take this specially arranged roll and from it make thousands
of duplicates without the expense of his own arranging, and therefore at a cost far under that of the original
manufacturer, then the inspiration to progress in the % trade, and to show originality, is lost. It would seem that
the duplication of music rolls is just as reprehensible as the duplication of talking machine records. The prac-
tice is in the same category, and the upright members of the trade should unite in seeing to it that the practice
is discontinued forthwith, appealing to the courts without hesitancy should other means fail. There is a legal
precedent already established that should not be overlooked.
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).