NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1941)

1626 K STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. Vol. 9, No. 1, January 3, 1941 THE WEEK IN WASHINGTON Attorney General Robert H. Jackson announced that the Justice Department would bring criminal procedure under the anti-trust law against ASCAP, BMI, NBC and CBS. Next day, at a press conference, Thurman Arnold indicated that others might be indicted, too. (p. 1 ) The Wage and Hour Division says that weekly salaries can be stabilized by prepayment of overtime when sal¬ aried employees work less than their regular work week, (p. 5) Paul Peter, NAB Research Director, told the American Marketing Association convention that advertisers should “put more in radio”, (p. 6) A new plan for associate membership in the NAB has been approved by the Board of Directors. The country now has 50,100,000 receiving sets. (p. 7) Radio engineers throughout the country are getting ready for the Ohio State University Engineering Confer¬ ence starting February 10. (p. 8) Neville Miller tells the country, in a broadcast, that the American System of Broadcasting is coming through the emergency period with flying colors, (p. 9) The FCC has been asked to follow last year’s pro¬ cedure with regard to financial reports. The Commission sent its annual report to Congress without any recom¬ mendations for major broadcasting legislation, (p. 9) Colonel Charles H. March has been elected chairman of the Federal Trade Commission for the coming year. The Commission discussed advertising at length in its re¬ port to Congress, (p. 11) All proposed legislation affecting broadcasting dies with the adjournment of Congress January 3. Many of the bills listed in this issue will be reintroduced, (p. 13) Starting with this issue, the page numbers of the NAB Reports will start with “one” with the start of each volume each January 1. This is to facilitate back refer¬ ence. BMI Developments JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STEPS IN Attorney General Robert H. Jackson announced De¬ cember 26 that he had authorized Thurman Arnold, As¬ sistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Di¬ vision, to institute criminal proceedings under the Sher¬ man Act against the American Society of Composers, Au¬ thors and Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., the National Broadcasting Company, and the Columbia Broadcasting System. The proceedings, he said, will be brought in Mil¬ waukee, Wisconsin, immediately after the first of Jan¬ uary, and will be based on the following charges: 1. The illegal pooling of most of the desirable copyright music available for radio broadcasting in order to eliminate com¬ petition and to monopolize the supply. 2. Illegal discrimination against users of copyright music. 3. Illegal discrimination against composers who are not members of ASCAP or Broadcast Music, Inc. 4. Withholding music from publication in order to exact fees not permitted by the copyright laws. 5. Illegal price fixing. 6. Restraining composers in their right to bargain for the sale of their own music. 7. Requiring users of music to pay for tunes on programs in which no music is played. 8. Mutual boycotts by ASCAP and by the broadcasting chains (through Broadcasting Music, Inc.) in an attempt by each of these conflicting groups to obtain for themselves control over the supply of music by depriving the others of control, which boycotts threaten to restrain and obstruct the rendition over the radio of about ninety percent of the desirable modern copyright music. Explaining the Department’s decision to institute crimi¬ nal proceedings. Assistant Attorney General Arnold said: “For a number of years the Antitrust Division has received constant complaints against the activities of .4SCAP. The original purpose of ASCAP was one which the Department recognizes to be legitimate, i.e., collective action to protect its members from piracy of their copyrights. Activities which further this purpose have not been questioned by the Department, and are not attacked in these proceedings. However, the Department for many years past has frequently called to the attention of ASCAP practices which went far beyond the necessity of protecting its members in their copyright privileges, — practices which were designed solely for the purpose of eliminating competition in the furnishing of music, and securing a monopoly control over the supply. “Recently, through Broadcast Music, Inc. (an association con¬ trolled by the major broadcasting chains), the National Broadcast¬ ing Company and the Columbia Broadcasting System have engaged in, and threaten to continue on a larger and larger scale, restrictive practices similar to those which the Department charges were il¬ legally instituted by ASCAP. It is claimed that these activities were necessary to protect the broadcasting chains from the illegal activities of ASCAP. The Department is not concerned with the (Continued on page 2) January 3, 1941 — 1