Broadcasting Telecasting (Jul-Sep 1955)

and Leonard R. Posner from Washington. Judge Yankwich, a veteran jurist in movie cases, opened the proceeding by advising the participants not to pay any attention to whether others have entered a consent decree or what statements are made or actions are taken outside of the courtroom. "We are dealing with the movie industry, a powerful propaganda organization, with their lawyers doing one thing and press agents another," he said, reminding those present, "I'm good at counterpropaganda too." When Mr. Flatow proceeded to offer his summary, the judge frequently interrupted with questions and commented, "western judges are talkative." He cautioned the Washington attorney "there are no set speeches in my court, besides, you'll deprive us of a lot of fun. And, you see, will get to know what is on my mind." Mr. Flatow outlined this history of the 16mm film industry and said his evidence would show that the 16mm distribution firms agreed not to allow their films to compete with standard 35mm exhibitors. He cited a 1949 letter from the TO A 16mm committee and the committee's 1950 annual report confirming what he alleged was a joint restrictive agreement among all distributors. Six Points of Evidence He outlined the following six areas of evidence to be offered: First — That as each defendant producing company entered the field of 16mm distributors it adopted a plan of limited distribution, the terms of which contained substantially the same restrictions and limitations of exhibitors. "We do not depend on the theory of conscious parallelism to prove our case, because we be lieve that in this case affirmative proof of a concert of action is abundant. "The second category of documents we expect to introduce is to prove that the plan of limited distribution and restricted exhibition of 16mm film was adopted and designed to keep 16mm showings from being competitive with 35mm theatres. "The third category of documents which we intend to introduce will show that the continued maintenance of the plan was due to extreme pressure of the theatre owners through their co-conspirator exhibitor associations. "The fourth category are those which show that the specific restrictions and limitations contained in the plan were actually enforced. These are the restrictions alleged in the complaint. Adherence to Restrictions "The fifth category will be offered to show that adherence to the restrictions and limitations were policed by the defendants individually and collectively with the aid, assistance and under the pressure of co-conspirators. "We expect to show that not only did the defendants police the plan individually but they also policed it collectively, using the legitimate enterprise of policing copyright violations to police violations of the limited plan of 16 mm distributors. "The sixth category of documents will be offered to show that with demand for 16mm feature films for use on television, as part of the same conspiracy, the defendants uniformly refused to license films for that purpose even though the films had not only been distributing to all theatrical runs, but most of them were actually lying dormant for years in the vaults of the defendants." Mr. Flatow emphasized to the court that the refusal to license films for tv is not an individual action but concerted action. The theatre owners admit that television is their greatest competitor, he said, explaining that "producers fear the reprisals of the exhibitors if they license films to television." Judge Yankwich interrupted, "I'm interested in the legality of the action, not whether several are doing it. Just because there is a conspiracy doesn't necessarily change something into an illegal act." He said the word "conspiracy" has been given over-emphasis in too many cases. "At the end of a theatre run, suppose they burn them up?" the judge questioned. "Suppose they decide the films are artistically inferior or something and decide to lock them up and won't release them to anybody," Judge Yankwich suggested, probing for Mr. Flatow's opinion of whether such an individual act on the part of a producer or distributor would constitute an illegal act. Cites Procedure When the Washington official suggested the government would file a memorandum of law on the matter, Judge Yankwich reminded him that western courts operate differently. "I want the law when I get to it," he told counsel. "I don't want memorandums filed later. I don't have a law clerk. I look up the law myself." At another point, Judge Yankwich told the participants he had cleared his docket to devote at least four days a week to the 16mm case, having worked until 1 1 p.m. the preceding night to complete another trial. "Judges work 11 months a year out here," he commented, stating this was a point he liked to "remind" those from New York and the District of Columbia. the nation's 3rd rail center.. and its industrial wealth are the hub of WSPD-TV's billion or market. Toledo is the nation's 3rd rail center, and is listed ong the United States leaders in 1 1 of the 19 industrial classifications! Along with Toledo, WSPD-TV gives you maximum 316,000 watt power for complete saturation of our 18 county, billion dollar market. Your sales message will be heard, and your product will be in Northwestern Ohio. R«DI0" TELEVISION TOLEDO, OHIO Represented Nationally by KATZ Page 70 • September 26, 1955 Broadcasting • Telecasting