Broadcasting (Jan - Dec 1935)

Mr. Levy's Letters On Copyright (Continued from page 6) lg the present extension for a period of five years. There is no com ulsion on your part to do so. In my pinion it would be good business. ! Mr. Levy's letter of June 11 follows : Since all the members of NAB Jill very likely not attend the Contention in Colorado Springs, I feel .bnstrained to reply to the state lents contained in Mr. Hostetler's ;trer, a copy of which you recent received. I hope you are not under the im pession that these views are other |ian his own. 5| Numerous meetings of our Copyfight Committee were held. I was .atirely concerned with and desired rotection for the broadcasters unH?r all circumstances. Our committee had been reliably informed that 'he minutes of ASCAP shoiced that ['if!/ intended to increase our payments up to 25% of our gross reJlpipts. Mr. Hostetler was opposed it the execution of any contracts 'jith ASCAP pending the Government suit. It was most urgent that someiiing be done in the interim. It be ig obvious that the Committee •j>uld not come to a conclusion, I iroposed, about three weeks ago, "lat we meet with ASCAP for the .urpose of agreeing upon terms. My (roposal contemplated an agree"kent whereby the broadcasters jouid pay much less than their f-esent charges, which terms would * more satisfactory than those of ,ie present WCAU contract. ■ Mr. Hostetler continually object1 to the entering into of any arrangement with ASCAP, — his fear Jeing that the Government's case ould be thereby prejudiced. • Upon this point the Committee received full and competent advice. It learned that the element of prejudice would be injected only if there was any change in the present contracts. At a subsequent meeting with ASCAP they suggested an extension of our present contracts for a term of five years. This proposal was taken back to our Committee who rejected it and offered a counterproposition. The latter was to the effect that an extension of the contracts to the termination of the Government suit would be accepted. Mr. Hostetler was present at this meeting and voiced no objection to such an extension. This latter suggestion was proposed to ASCAP by the Committee. ASCAP promptly rejected it with the comment that no extension could have reference to the suit, and at the same time we were informed that the five year extension proposal was likewise withdrawn. Mr. Mills, however, intimated that it might be revived. On Monday, June 3, 1935, our Copyright Committee again convened at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. At this meeting, we received a telephone communication from Mr. Mills, confirmed in writing by messenger, proposing a contract for a five year period subsequent to the present termination. but only with added oppressive conditions. It was then that I called Mr. Mills back and asked him whether ASCAP would agree to an unqualified five year extension of our present contracts. To this he assented. The Committee was fully apprized of all the facts. A discussion brought no action or decision. It was then I informed the Commit WELCOME NAB to ^BROADMOOR Colorado Springs, Colo. Headquarters 13th Annual Convention July 6-10 inc. Rates: $9 00 single, $14 .oo double — American Plan — Rooms by Reservation Only tee that I would meet with ASCAP the following morning and arrange for the five year extension if ASCAP should still be of that mind. Obviously then, we had forced upon us the situation that gave us the alternative of accepting the five year extension under the present terms or doing nothing whatever. The next morning we executed an extension of the WCAU contract for five 3'ears, but only with the understanding that exactly the same privilege be accorded all other independents and the chains for a similar extension of their contracts. In addition the chains were compelled to substantially increase their sustaining fees. There is a veiled insinuation in Mi-. Hostetler's letter to the effect that the chains, Mr. McCosker and I dealt for our own selfish interests and benefits. This insinuation is entirely unwarranted. It is apparently directed to the terms of the WCAU contract, which terms have long been public property. Would it avail any of the independents anything for me to have agreed to pay a higher price than our present contract called for? My recent letter to you explains my exact position, and what I think should be yours. I have brought the facts to your attention. That is all I can do, you must make your own decision. I can see no point in risking more oppressive terms should the Government suit, by chance, be lost. Tou may be interested to know that a canvass was made of the thirty-six newspapers holding contracts with ASCAP, as to their attitude toward accepting a five year extension. Thirty-five replies in the affirmative were received. The only newspaper failing to respond was the one represented by Mr. Hostetler. Mr. Hostetler knows full well that reference to the chain contracts are without justification. He is fully acquainted with the situation and knows that ASCAP always intended to exact the highest possible tribute from all independents, irrespective of charges against the chains. Mr. Hostetler is either confounding the issues or is entirely lacking in knowledge of the practical business factors involved. The Government's case cannot be prejudiced by accepting an ex-tension of our present contracts. The principle involved can in no wise be injured by our taking a present course to protect our interests. Mr. Hostetler knows full well that there is no reason whatever for any qualms with respect to Mr. Bennett's "spunk" or reactions. Let me definitely reassure you that I have done nothing in the entire situation which met with Mr. Bennett's disapproval as a prosecuting attorney in this case. This morning the suit against ASCAP went on trial and Mr. Bennett will vigorously present the Government's case. It is unfortunate that Mr. Hostetler's letter was transmitted to you upon NAB stationery by the Secretary. It was not done with the sanction of our Committee and does not represent any official action of your Association. It is also unfortunate that Mr. Loucks sent to the NAB members the bulletin concerning station WOR. It may lead you to believe that station WOR does not intend to sign the extension of the contract which was delivered to them at their request. If this is a fact Mr. Loucks should have stated it in his bulletin. I am in receipt of the following telegram from your President : "Phil's letter did not have my approval, neither was I consulted, do not approve insinuations against networks, you and McCosker who I am sure acted in good faith have wired Phil to call board meeting. J. T. Ward." All Aboard! FOR THE N.AeB. CONVENTION COLORADO SPRINGS JULY 6-10 * Ride the finest fleet of genuinely air-conditioned trains in the world. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON The Sportsman • The F. F. V. The ticket agent of any railroad can route you Chesapeake and Ohio. Insist upon it! ChesapemevOhio 1785-ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY-1935 ne 15, 1935 • BROADCASTING I Page 57