NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

No factory or mechanical worker or artisan (other than radio operators, control men, announcers, production men, and em¬ ployes on special event programs) shall be employed more than a maximum of 40 hours per week, nor more than 8 hours in any one day. Radio operators, control men, an¬ nouncers, production men, and employes engaged on special event programs, shall not be employed more than a maximum week of 48 hours. And for Paragraph 4 of the President’s Agreement (Code Refer¬ ence: Sec. 4 (a)). The maximum hours fixed in the foregoing paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not apply to employes in establishments em¬ ploying not more than two persons in towns of less than 2,500 population which towns are not part of a larger trade area; nor to managerial, executive and supervisory employes and production men and announcers who receive $35.00 or more per week; nor to employes on emergency maintenance and repair work; nor to very special cases where restrictions of hours of highly skilled workers on continuous processes would unavoidably reduce production, but, in any such special case, at least time and one-third shall be paid for hours worked in excess of the maximum. Population for the purposes of this agreement shall be determined by reference to the 1930 Fed¬ eral Census. (Signed) Philip G. Loucks, Representing National Association of Broadcasters. Dated August 31, 1933. After consideration, and with the approval of labor advisors and industrial advisors, as shown hereon, I recommend that NRA elect to substitute said Code provisions for said provisions of the PRA and to authorize employers to sign the agreement subject to such substitutions and to signify their compliance with the PRA by adding to the standard statement of compliance the following sentence: To the extent of NRA, consent as announced, we have complied with the President’s Agreement by complying with the substituted provisions of the Code submitted for the Radio Broadcasting Industry. (Signed) Robert K. Straus, Chairman of Policy Board. Approved: L. D. Tompkins, Industrial Advisor; W. J. Woolston, Labor Advisor. Approved as to form: William P. Farnsworth, Legal Division. After the date hereof, the Certificate of Compliance signed by employers in such Trade Industry with the additional note above mentioned will entitle them to National Recovery Administration Insignia. Ray D. Smith, for and in the absence of T. S. Ham¬ mond, Director of President’s Emergency Reemployment Pro¬ gram. Approved as an election by the NRA under Section 13 of the President’s Reemployment Agreement: Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator. Req. 462. SUIT TO DISSOLVE ASCAP The anti-monopoly suit brought in the Federal Courts to dis¬ solve the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, by radio station WIP of Philadelphia, not only charges ASCAP with being an illegal conspiracy to enforce exhorbitant copyright demands against broadcasting stations but also unlawfully to eliminate competition among music publishers and composers, ac¬ cording to a summary prepared by Oswald F. Schuette, NAB copyright director. The suit was filed September 1 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Pennsylvania Broadcasting Company, owner and operator of Radio Station WIP at Philadelphia. The defendants in the suit are Gene Buck, Louis Bernstein, Jerome Kern and E. C. Mills as officers, agents and members “of an unincorporated association known as American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.” The attorneys who filed the proceedings are Baker, Hostetler, Sidlo and Patterson of Cleveland, Ohio, and Isaac B. Levy of Phila¬ delphia. Hon. Newton D. Baker, of the Cleveland firm, is the General Counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters on copyright matters. Mr. Levy is the Chairman of the NAB Finance Committee. A Bill of Complaint declares that Radio Station WIP represents an investment of over $250,000 with a gross of operating costs of approximately $100,000 per annum It operates daily from 8:45 A. M. to 12:30 A. M. on a frequency of 610 kilocycles with 500 watts power, covers the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and substantial portions of the states of New Jersey, New York, Dela¬ ware and Maryland, extending to a population of practically three million persons. The bill alleges that the membership of ASCAP approximates 107 music publishers including practically all of the leading music publishers’ houses in the United States and approximately 700 com¬ posers and authors of popular classical music and lyrics. The bill charges: “Said association constitutes a conspiracy in restraint of trade and the object of the association is to fix prices and to monopolize and control for the benefit of the members the public performance of all forms of music and entertainment, including therefore particularly the communication thereof in intra and interstate commerce by means of radio broadcast¬ ing. It is further the object of said association, by means of such control, unlawfully to control and restrain the instru¬ mentalities of interstate commerce, of which the radio broad¬ casting facilities of this plaintiff form a part.” “In pursuance of the aforesaid object, said association re¬ quires: (a) that each member assign to the association the entire and exclusive right of public performance of all copyrighted compositions owned or controlled by its members; (b) that each member agree to assign, from time to time, such entire and exclusive rights to all original compositions which he may in the future compose, or the rights to which he may in the future acquire; (c) that each member agree not to grant any individual licenses in derogation of such assignment; (d) that each member surrender the right, individual to the copyright owner, to fix or determine the terms or con¬ ditions of any license or licenses covering his own compo¬ sitions; and (e) that each member surrender his individual right to any profits otherwise traceable to the licensing of his compo¬ sitions.” “In further pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy,” the bill charges that the defendants “have adopted and have compelled the plaintiff to accept, under threat of copyright infringement, a stan¬ dard form of license agreement for radio transmission covering all of the copyrighted compositions which have been, or may in the future be assigned to the association by its members.” The bill declares that “defendants refuse to license the broadcasting of par¬ ticular compositions or the compositions of particular composers or authors, or to grant licenses for any limited number of per¬ formances, so that the plaintiff and other radio broadcasting sta¬ tions are compelled to accept all or none of the compositions con¬ trolled by the defendants.” After setting out the terms of the “Standard license” the bill recites : “The amounts to be paid as so-called royalties under the aforementioned standard license agreement are not reduced or affected by the fact that the musicians or artists employed by the licensee may also be licensed to perform publicly the musical compositions controlled by the defendant, nor by the fact that the licensee may be authorized by another licensed radio broadcasting station to amplify and broadcast the pro¬ gram performed at such other station, nor is the licensee based upon the number of public performances of any particular composition or compositions, or the number of compositions embraced within such license which may be reproduced by the plaintiff, but said license fee, irrespective of the extent to which the license may be used, is arbitrarily based upon the income derived from all programs, including programs which are made up entirely of music belonging to other copyright owners or of music which is public domain and including pro¬ grams which do not employ music at all. “The defendants refused to give to the plaintiff or to make public a list of the titles of the copyrighted compositions em¬ braced within said license, and under threat of cancellation of said license and prosecution for copyright infringement have compelled the plaintiff and other licensee broadcasting stations to make periodic report of all compositions included in the Page 130