The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Nov-Dec 1922)

32 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. November 25, 1922. MORE ABOUT THE “STRANGLEHOLD OF THE PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY.” (By WM. HY. HUISH.) “INCE writing my article last’ week commenting on the circular letter sent out by Mr. King, the general secretary of the C.E.A., in which he admitted that the P.R.S. was a stranglehold on his members, I have heen asked to give some particulars with regard to the position of the C.K.A. and P.R.S. Tn order that my readers may be in possession of all the facts concerning the existing agreement between the P.R.S. land C.E.A., LT would like to point out at this juncture that. prier to the year 1914 the Performing Rights Society as we know it to-day was not in existence. There was a society, however, operating in this country known as the French Society that had control of a number of foreign compositions, and charged a modest fee for a licence to play these compositions. The C.E.A. on March 6, 1913, entered into an agrcement with this society, and by this agreement the members of the C\E.A. were granted licenees to perform any of the society's repertoire, the fee being £1 1s. for each musician. When this agreement was being negotiated many of the old showmen in the ranks of the C.E.A. pointed out the danger of encouraging any society that existed for the purpose of charging performing rights fees for any musical composition, These men had vision, and realised at the time that once this society had secured an agreement from an association such as the C.B.A. they would at once endeavour to influence the English publishers to join the ranks of the French Society, and by so doing introduce into this country the pernicious system of controlled music which at that time was in existence on the Continent. Those of us who had given this subject any consideration realised that the Act of Parliament which came into operation the previous year (July, 1912) had been passed in order to bring this country into Jine with cther countries under the Berne Convention. The Act, however, had been intended to do away with pirated music, and not to give publishers the power to form themselves into combines in order to demand the payment ot performing rights fees. The Act had been so loosely drawn that there was no limit placed upen the fees that could he demanded, and any number of publishers, composers, and authors, by combining together could, under the Act, demand any fee they desired to charge for the playing of any musical composition controlled by them. It was also pointed out at the time that by in any way encouraging a society who intended to charge performing rights fees, the exhibitor would, by paying his fees to such a society, be firancing a body of men who were already being well paid for the goods they suppled. There was a great deal of talk at the time about the poor composer and author, I do not want to go into that point at this stage, as space will not permit. 1 would, however, like to say in passing that in the opinion of those of us who were not in favour of the agreement being entered into with the French Society, the large publishing houses would be in control of the administration of such a society, and it was a wellknown fact that the copyright of many of the most popular numbers had been purchased by these publishers, Tn spite ol all that was said against the agreement of March 6, 1913, being entered into, acting on the advice of their general secretary, Mr. King, the executive who then controlled the affairs of the Association from London agreed to the terms of the agreement, and it was duly entered into. The members were advised at the time to take out the society's licence by the C.RLA., and it was, in my opinion, on March 6, 1918, that the first strand in the rope that has brought about the present stranglehold was woven by the C.ELA. executive themselves, Vv was expected, the London publishers were appr ached with a Google "yo soon after the agreement had been entered into. as view to the formation of a society to control the whole of the musie published in this country. I have been given to understand by a well-known publisher that when he was approached in the early part of 1914 by the then secretary of the French Society, it was pointed out to him that the fees to the Society had been considerably increased since the agreement had been entered into with the C.E.A., and, in his opinion, a number of publishers were indueed to interest themselves in’ the ‘formation of the Performing Rights Society, in) consequence of the existence of this agreement. As stated above, the P.R.S. ‘ame into existence in 1914, and the French Society became merged into this new organisation, Early in the following year conversations took place between the General Secretary of the C.E.A. and the then secretary of the P.W.S., and these emferences led to the negotiation of an agreement with the Performing Rights Scerety, which was signed on behalf of the Executive by Messrs. AL EE. Newbould, Arthur J. Gale, and W. Gavazzi King. ; Many members at the time protested against the signing of this agreement, and TP oremember how well the case was stated for uneontrolled iusic by Mr. Svdney Carter, of New Conturys Picture fame, who at that time was a delegate to the General Couneil for the Liverpool Branch of the CLR.A. It was pointed out by Mr Carter at the time that all musical compositions published before the revision of the Copyright Act were free and played) without fee or There was a suggestion put forward that the members cf the C.ELA., instead of taking out a licence with the P.R.S., should contribute the same amount asked for the licence to a special fund, which could be used for the purpose of providing uncontrolled music, and defending any action that might be taken against aoMember for playing controlled music. from control, could be licence, Again, the Champions of uneontrelled musie were placed in’ the background, and the P.R.S. agrecment was entered into, The fees were thereby incrersed from £1 Is. to £2 2s, automatically, as one of the conditions of the P.R.S. agreement was that the agreement of March 6, 1918, was annulled by the signing of the agreement of August 1, 1915, : Thus the stranglehold was increased, but how many members of the C.E.A. know to what extent, for not only did) their Executive agree to the fees being increased, but they guaranteed to the P.R.S, an income of at least £38,000 for the three years ending 1918, when the agreement would terminate. The amount of the guarantee was split up as follows: £750 for the first year, £750 for the second year, and £1,500 for the third year, it being clearly stipulated that if the amount received from the members of the CLEA. did not amount in the aggregate to the sum of £3,000 for the three years, then the C.E.A. undertook to make up the difference. The CELA. also undertock by this agreement to collect all fees due from their the P.R.S., the C.E.A. deducting 334 per cent. on the first £2 2s., and 20 per cent. on all amounts over that sum. The names and addresses of every member on the books of the C.K.A. on August 1, 1915, were to be given to the seeretary of the P.R.S. on the signing of the agreement, and from time to time full particulars of all new members were’ to be furnished, — There were many other onerous conditions contained in this agreement with the P.R.S., and by the signing of this agreement the Executive of the C.E.A. increased the stranglehold of the P.R.S. upon their members. Space will not permit of ime proceeding further with the subject in this issue, but I trust the Editor will permit me in the next issue to give particulars of the other two agreements that have been negotiated between the P.R.S, and the C.E.A, members ta