Broadcasting (Jan - June 1936)

iCopyright Threatens to Split Industry 1 Baldwin Is Center of Opposition in Network Circles; I Independent Radio Music Plan in Formative Stage COMPLICATIONS over music copyI rights have created a schism within the broadcasting industry that ; threatens the NAB, with the showj down to come at the next trade I association convention tentatively ; scheduled for July in Chicago. I With no generally acceptable soI lution of the copjTight issue yet in I sight, developments since the crisis I that arose with the new year have '■' tended to aggravate rather than quiet feeling among factions within , the industi'y The major networks, I NBC and CBS, have seriously considered mthdrawal from the NAB 1 but evidently have decided to await the convention and battle it out on the floor. j There is no longer an^' quibbling over terms. The networks seem to ' be outspoken in the view that James W. Baldwin, NAB managing I director, has not acted in the best j interests of the industry. They lay ] at his doorstep blame for the presj ent condition that threatens deI struction of a unified industry. I Mr. Bald'ttdn, on the other hand, j has openly charged the networks !! with "selling out" the independent [j stations in copyi'ight royalties, and I charges them also with operating .j hand-in-hand with ASCAP. His j; feeling, clearly expressed in the ij 21,000 word memorandum on copyi right submitted to the last NAB / board meeting on Feb. 3, was that the interests of the networks and : of independent stations are incom; patible. Apparently, he would weep 'I no tears over network withdrawal j from the NAB. ' Attitude of Networks n I THE NETWORK viewpoint is that : unity in the industry should not be jj sacrificed because of a single issue ! such as copjnright or because of the actions of the directing head of the ; trade association. They are plan, ning to go into the convention, it is asserted, with the hope of keep's ing the industry unified, but with I the avowed purpose of securing the { removal of Mr. Baldwin as its head, j Should the memberstap majority ' support Baldwin, then there is no I question, at this time in any event, of the intention of both networks j to withdraw from the NAB, judgI ing from the outspoken assertions of their officials. The network view is that they pay into the NAB a substantial sum of money, and have repeatedly ' paid "extra assessments", only to j have the organization combat it on I copyright. Greatest resentment on !j the part of the networks grew out of certain of Mr. Baldwin's recom' mendations to the last board meeting which were not adopted but which were publicized just the same. The networks objected mainly to ! the recommendation which, if ' adopted, would have implicated them in the government suit ' against ASCAP, according to network spokesmen. They also resented insinuations that the networks aided ASCAP in "forcing" the fiveyear extensions of ASCAP contracts in January under which they ! paid old rates for that catalog I minus Warner Bros, music, which totaled between 25 and 40<7f of the ASCAP repertory. Meanwhile, there was under consideration by a group of prominent individual station operators a plan for independent dealing with the copyright problem. Details as Broadcasting went to press were not divulged and apparently the project had not crystallized. In this, however, was seen a possible movement, already said to be under way, for another industry trade association, •ivith copyright negotiations as its primary purpose. Other developments during the last fortnight on the copyright front were not particularly sensational. The high spot was the opening of hearings before the House Patents Committee on the Duffy Bill and on two other measures introduced in obvious efforts to scuttle the former measures, favored by copyright users generally. First on the stand Feb. 25, 26 and 27 were ASCAP representatives, headed by President Gene Buck, who led the usual procession of flag-waving and protection of the down-trodden com HOPE for enactment of remedial copyright legislation at this session of Congress in the form of the Duffy Bill, which would take away from ASCAP its gun and horse, has all but vanished. This was apparent with the opening of hearings before the House Patents Committee Feb. 25 — hearings which have been spread over a four-week period until March 19 and which have been complicated by the introduction of two ASCAP-inspired bills designed to befuddle the real issue and block enactment of the Duffy bill. As was expected, ASCAP immediately upon the opening of the hearings, paraded its usual imposing troupe of top-flight Tin-PanAlleyites before the committee, which acquired the commodious caucus room of the House Office Building for the hearing. Advance publicity had gone out that the Berlins, Gershwins, Vallees and other celebrities would be on hand, thus insuring a capacity house. Gene Buck, ASCAP president, indulged in flag-waving at its best. He was aided by several members of the committee, with whom "conferences" obviously had been held in advance. He talked about how the "powerful" broadcasters and hotel people and others had "lobbied" Congress and were trying to break that great humanitarian organization— ASCAP. He said the Duffy bill was written for that purpose. Buck's testimony, which consumed the entire session, Feb. 25, and the testimony of his troupe of tunesmith celebrities, in the aggregate means nothing. The whole show, from ASCAP's standpoint, is that of blocking the Duffy bill and of preventing elimination of the $250 innocent infringement pro poser and author (see story of hearings on this page). Mr. Baldwin, meanwhile, was whipping into shape his plan for an independent corporation to control music for radio, broadly along the line of the Radio Program Foundation of several years ago, which failed hopelessly in its mission. He told the board on Feb. 3 that this foundation failed because of inadequate financing, apathy by the NAB, and insufficient experienced personnel. The board authorized him to draft his plan and present it to another board session. Mr. Baldwin estimated it would take him a month to finish the work, but because of the current hearings on the Duffy Bill it is more than likely that the board session will be deferred probably until April. Warner Contracts THE three-month temporary contracts signed by upwards of 25 stations with Warner Bros, houses expire on March 31. According to Mr. Baldwin the matter of extension or of working out of a new basis has not yet been con vision from the present law, and of leaving amount of damages to the courts. That infringement provision is the club ASCAP has wielded so skillfully in forcing every type of music user into paying tribute. The fact that the Duffy bill passed the Senate last session and has administration support through the State Department, meant nothing to ASCAP. The administration wants the measure because it would allow American entry into the international copyright union at Berne and because it would correct what the State Department has construed to be obvious defects in the present law and place necessary restrictions on the operations of such pools as ASCAP, with its stranglehold on music. The hearings were called by Chairman Sirovich (D. N. Y.), sidered along any definite lines. The contracts themselves, under which full-time stations pay as royalties to Warner the equivalent of four times their highest quarter-hour rate monthly for the three-month period, specify that negotiations for a "per -piece" method of payment be worked out as soon as possible. Whether all of the stations intend to renew or extend or alter Warner contracts on March 31, at this time is highly problematical. The networks contend that they are getting along nicely without the Warner music. They haven't lost any accounts because of the unavailability of Warner music, and they say they are not disturbed over the $3,000,000 in infringement suits, more or less, that the Warner houses have filed. Warner big-wigs, it is reported, are chafing over the loss of popularity of their music because of its non-performance over the networks and over many stations. Moreover, the Songwriters Protective Association, of which Sigmund Romberg is president, has broken into open conflict with Warners on the question of collection of license fees for radio, claiming that Warners does not have that right. Practically all of the Warner songwriters, it is reported, are author members of ASCAP, which pays them royalties. In connection with the infringe (Continued on page 53) whose home district includes Tin Pan Alley, only after the Duffy bill was practically blasted out of a pigeonhole earlier in the month by drastic legislative action. Rep. Zioncheck (D. -Seattle) introduced a petition in the House to have the committee discharged from consideration of the bill. Nevertheless, the hearings were called. As announced, the hearing schedule provided for sessions on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays for four weeks. The dates were Feb. 25, 26 and 27 and March 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 19. ASCAP's day was flrst, then the Authors League, dramatists and other writers, and flnally the hotels, radio and movie interests. When the hearings opened Dr. Sirovich, who has been openly hos(Continiied on page 62) GOOD PALS — It was an exceedingly friendly House Patents Committee that greeted ASCAP's Tin Pan Alley parade before it during the hearings starting Feb. 25 on the Duffy copyright bill. This picture shows, seated left to right. Rep. Sirovich, Irving Berlin an^ Rep. Lanham; standing. Rep. Perkins, George Gershwin and Rudy Vallee. Tin Pan Alley's Lobby Scores in DulFy Bill Show . . March 1, 1936 • BROADCASTING Page 9