Broadcasting (Apr - Jun 1949)

MAY 23, 1949 ASCAP EXTENDS Television Music Rights to June 15 By BRUCE ROBERTSON ASCAP has extended until June 15 the temporary licenses authorizing TV broadcasters to use the music of ASCAP members on their sight-and-sound programs. Move, announced Thursday by Fred E. Ahlert, ASCAP president, puts off for two weeks at least the threat of a withdrawal of ASCAP tunes from the air. Since the society's cancellation of its longterm blanket licenses as of Dec. 31, 1948, it has continued to permit its music to be telecast by a series of extensions — the first for three months, followed by two of one month each — while negotiations were in progress between TV music committees of NAB and ASCAP. Breakdown in these negotiations on May 6 [Broadcasting, May 9, May 16] led to belief that June 1 might find television in a situation comparable to that of the sound broadcasters on Jan. 1, 1941, with the right to use ASCAP music withdrawn. Both groups, however, have striven to avert such an event. ASCAP's prompt invitation to the networks to negotiate individual contracts was promptly accepted and meetings of network and ASCAP committees at the top executive level began last week. A friendly attitude but little progress was reported following lengthy meetings on Monday and Wednesday, but at the conclusion of the Thursday meeting Mr. Ahlert, in announcing the extension of the temporary licenses, stated: "Progress was made at today's meeting. No final decision was reached, but discussions will continue." First Effect First effect of the extension was the restoration of ASCAP music to programs which, in addition to their live telecasts, are kinescoped — recorded on film from the face of a receiver tube — for delayed broadcast by non interconnected stations. As the normal time for such delayed broadcasts is two weeks after the date of the original performance, ASCAP tunes had been ruled off these programs after May 17, as two weeks from that date would be June and, if ASCAP music had been banned as of June 1 as feared, such delayed broadcasts would have constituted infringements. On Tuesday, ASCAP was host to a score of executives of New York Page 32 • May 23, 1949 advertising agencies, to whom Mr. Ahlert outlined the difficulties confronting his organization and the TV broadcasters in arriving at a mutually satisfactory system for licensing the use of ASCAP music on television. One agency radioTV executive who attended the luncheon said that it impressed him largely as a public relations venture on the society's part, to explain to the agencies that the problem is complicated and difficult and that it is not a matter of unreasonable demands on TV by the music copyright group. Contrasts Attitudes Contrasting the present attitude with that of ASCAP preceding its break with radio nine years ago, he said that the ASCAP position expressed at the luncheon was that both sides are trying to find a workable TV licensing plan and that they will continue to do so despite the failure of the original negotiating committees. There was none of the belligerence of a decade ago, he reported, expressing the belief that before ASCAP would allow the TV problem to involve it in a serious dispute with the broadcasting industry which last year contributed some $7 million of the ASCAP revenue, it would step out of the video picture and return the TV licensing rights to its members to handle individually. The idea that ASCAP might withdraw from the video licensing field, which cropped up repeatedly in New York radio-music circles last week, was brushed aside as "ridiculous" by an ASCAP spokesman queried by Broadcasting. Rather than dropping this admittedly difficult problem, he said, ASCAP executives are determined to work out a solution acceptable to the TV broadcasters as well as to their own membership. "We've got to face it eventually," he pointed out, "so there's no reason to try to dodge it now." Representing the TV networks at last week's meetings were: Charles R. Denny, NBC executive vice president; Joseph H. Ream, CBS executive vice president; Mark Woods, ABC president; Mortimer W. Loewi, director, DuMont TV Network; Theodore C. Streibert, president, WOR New York [WOR-TV, WOIC (TV) Washington]. ASCAP was rep resented by Mr. Ahlert; Oscar Hammerstein II, board member; Herman Finkelstein, resident counsel ; Richard F. Murray. Statement reviewing the ASCAPTV negotiations was issued Thursday by NAB Washington headquarters. It included text of letters exchanged by Robert P. Myers, NBC, chairman of the NAB Television Music Committee, and Mr. Ahlert; an introductory statement by NAB Executive Vice President A. D. Willard Jr. and a report by Mr. Myers to the NAB board. Mr. Myers told the NAB board the committee could not accept ASCAP's proposal for two basic reasons — the proposal was too expensive; it could not recommend acceptance of the principle of special-use licensing. Costs were estimated at 2% times the amount ASCAP would receive under sound broadcasting contracts on the same gross billing. The committee held the specialuse proposal was so unacceptable as a matter of principle as to be an improper subject of arbitration and that selection of an inexperienced third party for arbitration would have been impracticable. CO-CHANNEL TV RCA Has 'Off -Frequency1 Plan A SYSTEM of "off-frequency" co-channel television assignments has been developed by RCA Labs which its exponents are confident will reduce interference at least as well as synchronization, without synchronization's extra expense. Not yet formally announced because work is still in progress, the plan is believed capable of permitting co-channel operations at spacings of approximately 150 miles — the separation FCC aimed at in its original allocation. Dr. C. B. Jolliffe, executive vice president in charge of RCA Labs, told Broadcasting that the heart of the plan is to stagger the carrier frequencies of co-channel stations by about one-half the line frequency. Thus, he said, the Venetian-blind pattern arising from mutual interference is reduced to about the width of a scanning line, and disappears. Dr. Jolliffe said the new system has been in operation on RCANBC's WNBT (TV) New York and WNBW (TV) Washington for about two months. The results, he said, are fully as good as were obtained by the exact synchronization of the two stations' frequencies in earlier tests [Broadcasting, Jan. 3]. If utilized by the Commission, the system would pose no extra cost for broadcasters. FCC's assignment procedures would specify the exact carrier frequency to be used— about 8,000 to 10,000 cycles apart for co-channel operations — and station operators would buy the crystals they need, just as they do now. Cost of producing units similar to those used in the previous synchronization tests has been estimated at about $5,000. If 150-mile separation for cochannel stations is shown to be feasible, FCC could salvage much of the allocation plan which many authorities regarded as doomed by tropospheric interference effects. In many instances, however, the allocation provided for spacings narrower than the goal of 150 miles for co-channels and 75 for adjacent channels. Since FCC called the current TV freeze last fall and with industry's aid launched intensive studies of the interference problems, there has been considerable speculation that co-channel separations in the order of 200 miles or more may be needed. Meanwhile there was still little likelihood that FCC could lift the television freeze before this fall, at the earliest. The commissioners, including the engineer members, George E. Sterling and E. M. Webster, who are directing the TV work conferred Friday with key staff members to discuss plans. The most recent target date for action is August. Since notice must be given and hearings held, this makes it unlikely that there could be a return to normal licensing before October or November, and protracted hearings would mean even greater delay. BROADCASTING • Telecasting