Broadcasting (July - Dec 1941)

ried forward so that a monopolistic combination of copyright owners may not "again close the door to open competition" in the sale and purchase of performing rights, Mr. Bennett said there is "extreme danger of a repetition of 1932, 1935 and 1940". "In my view," he continued, "the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in the Florida-ASCAP case furnishes the means of forever setting the broadcasting industry and other users of copyright music free from the domination of price fixing monopolies. That task of acquiring freedom should be carried on to completion and not be lost through inertia. It is the task of some representative organization of the industry which should function for the benefit of the entire industry and not be subjected to the selfish motives of a few. Unless this is done, it is my belief that we will be faced with an assortment of State statutes which lack uniformity, will lead to endless litigation and which may be more confusing than beneficial. "Even at the present moment, there seems to be little effort made by the industry to take advantage of the gains made to date. For nine years the industry repeatedly has called for a method of licensing by ASCAP which would require payment only on the ASCAP music actually performed. Under the Government's consent decree, ASCAP not only must clear network programs at the source but must make available to all stations, including networks, a license on a 'per-use' basis which must bear 'a relationship * * * justifiable by applicable business factors.' ASCAP Intent "Up to the present time, it is my opinion that nothing has taken place indicating an intention on the part of ASCAP to license according to the intent of the consent decree or on the basis of normal competitive business methods. On the contrary, the atmosphere is cluttered with threats, self-serving declarations and similar propaganda all tending toward the re-establishment of the ASCAP blanket license with payment to ASCAP of a per cent of gross receipt. "ASCAP is the seller seeking to establish a market for the product of its members. As the seller, it is up to ASCAP, if it wishes to dispose of its product, to submit to each station individually a proper offer. Then it is up to each station to determine whether the price and terms of the offer are economically desirable to it and whether it wishes to buy. ASCAP material no longer is indispensable to the operation of the station, and ASCAP now must compete with other copyright owners on quality and on price. It is not legally necessary for a station or a network to approach ASCAP with offers to buy. "Let me suggest that there appears to be much loose thinking regarding the copyright problem, and this is stimulated by the propaganda directed toward a return to Can't Be Cancelled SOCONY-VACUUM OIL Co., New York, has signed a 52week non-cancellable contract with WABC, New York, for a news program on WABC, New York, to start Aug. 4, Mondays through Saturdays, 10:45-11 p.m. News commentator has not yet been set. Agency is J. Stirling Getchell, New York. the old licensing method with payment to ASCAP based upon gross receipts. Fifth column activities are not limited to dictator nations. "We have had the argument dinned into our ears so long by combinations that the blanket license with a blanket fee is the only workable and practicable method of buying performing rights that many fail to recognize such licens ing method as the chief tool for regaining and maintaining domination in the combination. Though we are the dispensers of advertising, we forget the first principle of advertising— that repetition breeds belief. Or Else! "The trend toward an ASCAP license with a payment of a percentage of the station's gross income is accelerated by developing a 'fear complex'. This has been one of ASCAP's basic weapons in the past, the 'pay what you're told or else be sued for infringement' demand with which music users became so familiar — the prevention of competitive selling or buying in a free and open market and the enforcement of the blanket license under a claim that the Federal copyright laws granted copyright owners a special immunity from the provisions of anti-trust laws. "Now that this claim has been destroyed by the U. S. Supreme Court through its unanimous decisions in the Florida and NebraskaASCAP cases, and now that ASCAP has been substantially 'off the air' for six months, the lyric has been changed slightly, but the melody lingers on. The effort to instill the same old 'fear complex', the effort to destroy competitive selling and buying in an open market by the blanket license method is in full swing. But this time the threat is not the threat of infringement suits. "ASCAP's new lyric to recreate the 'fear complex' is the threat of treble damage suits — treble damage suits under the Sherman AntiTrust Laws for alleged damages of 20 million dollars. Treble damages under the very laws for violation of which ASCAP and its members were prosecuted both civilly and (Continued on page i6) CAUSE: WIBW's 500% increase in nighttime power (still on our enviable fre quency of 580 kilocycles). EFFECT: (1) In round numbers, OUR FAMILY has been increased by over two and a half million listeners.* (2) Mail response is daily shattering all previous records. (3) Advertisers report sales and distribution increasing beyond all expectations. CONCLUSION: When so many new listeners are stirred to such IMMEDIATE ACTION by WIBW's friendly, personalized selling methods . . . OUR FAMILY offers a market that calls for investigation . . . RIGHT NOW. * In WIBW's 0.5 tnv area alone. WI BW ^oS^^^^^^^^^ WW A Al# WW " COLUMBIA OUTLET FOR KANSAS I ^ BEN LUDY, Gen. Mgr. REPRESENTED BY CAPPER PUBLICATIONS, INC. NEW YORK DETROIT CHICAGO KANSAS CITY SAN FRANCISCO BROADCASTING • Broadcast Advertising July 21, 1941 . Page 29