Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan - Mar 1951)

ASCAP UCENSE RATES Meeting Set On TV Issu HOPE for a peaceful solution to the current controversy with ASCAP over per program license rates increased last week. Basis for this new turn was acceptance by ASCAP of an invitation by Dwight Martin, WLWT (TV) Cincinnati, chairman of the All Industry TV Per Program Committee, for a meeting this week [Broadcasting • Telecasting, Feb. 19]. The committee will meet in New York this Wednesday and will meet again with the ASCAP committee on Thursday. In his letter of Feb. 14 to Herman Finkelstein, general attorney of ASCAP and head of the society's negotiators, Mr. Martin declared his refusal to believe that court actions are necessary to fix reasonable charges between ASCAP and its biggest customer, the broadcasting industry. Noting that in the past 25 years that industry has paid the society "well over $100 million" and that "as our industry grows your royalties increase proportionately," Mr. Martin pointed out that differences not unlike the current issue have arisen in the past, but they somehow managed to be settled without recourse to litigation." No Back Down Mr. Martin's plea that ASCAP reconsider its announced plan to issue licenses on its own terms, with no further consultation with the TV broadcasters, either before or after the appearance of the unilateral license forms, apparently persuaded the ASCAP leaders that a resumption of talks with the telecasters committee could do no harm and might even do some good. However, Mr. Martin made it plain in his letter that there was no inclination on the part of his committee, nor on the part of the TV station operators, to back down on their stand against giving any consideration to the ASCAP proposal that payment be made to ASCAP for revenue derived from announcements broadcast adjacent to programs of ASCAP music. He noted that the meeting of some 60 telecasters in Chicago on Jan. 18 upheld the committee's position on this vital point without a single dissenting vote. In his acceptance letter Mr. Finkelstein made a number of pointed comments on ASCAP's difficulties in trying to reach an agreement. Agreeing the matter should be settled out of court, he complained the industry committees "negotiate for concessions but never purport to have authority to speak for the individual broadcasters or telecasters." Mr. Finkelstein reviewed negotiations since a Lancaster, Pa., meeting in August, 1949. He then recalled a Dec. 12, 1950 meeting at which ASCAP felt an agreement had been reached, with language to be worked out the next day. Instead, he claimed, a group of three TV members made an effort "to reopen negotiations completely." "In the face of this complete reversal by the representatives of your committee," he wrote, "it was obvious that no progress would be made unless we were willing to start our negotiations all over again at the point where we had been two years ago. "No one could reasonably ask us to do this. There was, therefore, no other course open than to offer to send a form of per program agreement to the individual stations in accordance with the provisions of our interim license agreement. At the risk of being criticized for delay in forwarding this form of agreement to the stations, we have postponed sending it because, as you know, we have been urged to demonstrate our willingness to keep an open door and possibly avoid litigation, by awaiting further developments within your industry. "Our doors are always open to anyone authorized to negotiate on behalf of any station or group of stations; but the history of our past negotiations leaves little hope of making progress with your committee. However, we are genuinely interested in avoiding litigation, and toward that end we are willing to have a final session with any committee representing your industry." Further efforts to avoid costly litigation were advocated last week by Roger W. Clipp, WFIL-TV Philadelphia, member of the industry negotiating group, in a letter sent to members of the NAB-TV board. Mr. Clipp contended the industry committee had already arrived at the best possible deal that could be made in or out of court. Left to Committee Another indication of industry backing for the Per Program Committee came last Monday when Mr. Martin and Stuart Sprague, counsel for the committee, rendered a full report on their year-long dealings with ASCAP to the NAB-TV board of directors, (see story, page 55). After an exhaustive consideration of the problem, spearheaded by Clair McCollough, WGAL-TV Lancaster, the board left the problem in the hands of the committee, which received no instructions except "to make the best deal you can." Mr. McCollough some weeks before had written to Eugene S. Thomas, WOR-TV New York, NBA-TV board chairman, suggesting a joint meeting of the board and the Per Program Committee with the purpose of reopening n gotiations with ASCAP [Bro.a casting • Telecasting, Feb. iSj In his letter, which also was se i to board members and other indi; try leaders, Mr. McCollough e| pressed the feeling that per pr' gram licenses are of interest only a few of the nation's 107 1 stations, with the vast majori likely to take the blanket licens already negotiated. Under the* circumstances, he stated, to allc these per program licenses to I come the subject of lengthy ai costly litigation might "become ; exceedingly ill-timed and unnecf sary debacle on the part of t television industry." Replies to this letter indica that a majority of the video stati* operators support his views, M McCollough reported. Howevc there are those who, while agre ing that court action should n be taken except as a last resoi nonetheless feel that such acti< would be preferrable to accedii to any infraction of the prese policy. This policy was laid dov by the ASCAP consent decree th royalty payments for the use ASCAP music on a per progra basis be strictly confined to pr grams actually containing ASCA tunes. In addition to the danger to T licensees of agreeing to a brea (Continued on page 70) NARBA By FRED FITZGERALD TWO more state broadcaster associations last week reported their support of the new NARBA agreement, while on the Capital front indications grew stronger that proposed detailed hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of Sen. Tom Connally (D-Tex.) may evolve into a first-rate donnybrook. Though no hearing date has been set, it's expected that sessions will be scheduled for late March or early April. It's also felt that in addition to study of reported opposition to the pact, the Committee will delve into the whole issue of clear channel stations [Closed Circuit, Feb. 19] with purported duplication of network programs on clear channel stations as one issue. State Dept. has requested the hearings, and key witness will be FCC Comr. Rosel H. Hyde, chairman of the U. S. delegation, which successfully negotiated the treaty last Nov. 15 with Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Bahamas and Jamaica. Further support for the new NARBA agreement, sent Feb. 5 by President Truman to the Senate for ratification, came from the California State Broadcasters Two State Groups Favor Ratificatio Assn. and the Florida Assn. of Broadcasters. The California group at its fourth annual meeting Feb. 16 in San Francisco (see story, page 33). voted its favor of ratification in the following resolution : California Resolution Whereas, an agreement between the United States and other North American nations relating to the use of radio frequencies in the various countries concerned is vitally important to the welfare of all radio stations in this country; and, whereas, the FCC and the State Dept. of the United States have, after four years of negotiation, concluded an agreement which is, in their opinion, the best one obtainable at this time; and, whereas, this agreement will soon go before the U. S. Senate for ratification; now therefore be it resolved that the California State Broadcasters Assn. do hereby go on record as favoring the ratification of the said agreement and instruct the officers of the association to send to the appropriate Senate Committees this resolution expressing the association approval of the agreement. In a like manner, the Florida Assn. of Broadcasters notified the Commission that its organization had gone on record favoring ratification. Spokesman for the Clear Chan nel Broadcasting Service last we< reiterated the opposition of CCE to what it termed "a paper treaty and declared that appropria testimony would be presented 1 farm groups and other organiz tions who concurred in the feelii that "the treaty should be rejected Pointing out that neither Mexii nor Haiti had signed the agre ment, CCBS stated that there w; no guarantee of engineering pr tection to U. S. stations even if tl treaty were accepted. The tin period covered by the treaty ws also scored by CCBS, which coi tended that any pact "should be long-term treaty" and that tl current agreement could be term nated by a signatory nation shou it desire to demand reopening < negotiations. The CCBS spokesman allude to possible differences that ma exist in so far as radio operatioi within the United States are coi cerned and declared "if there any quarrel, let's fight it out dome: tically." Also heard last week were coi flicting reports as to where certai organizations and stations stood i the NARBA fight. One sourc maintained that though son (Continued on page 6i) Page 28 • February 26, 1951 BROADCASTING • Telecastin