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

December 2, 1922. THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. 37 THE STRANGLEHOLD OF THE PER. FORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY. (THIRD AND CONCLUDING ARTICLE). (By WM. HY. HUISH.) CONCLUDED my article last week on the above subject by giving details of the agreement entered into by the P.R.S. and C.E.A. dated August 1, 1915. Immediately after the signing of this agreement every member of the C.E.A. was circularised and advised to take out a licence with the P.R.S., the result being that a large number of small exhibitors heard for the first time of this society, which claimed to own the copyright of a large repertoire of popular music. The members of the C.E.A. were given one month in which to secure a licence under the agreement with the C.E.A. and P.R.S., and if at the end of that period they had not applied for a licence through the C.E.A. organisation, then the P.R.S. would at once take the matter up with the exhibitor, having been supplied in the meantime with full particulars with regard to his kinema by the C.E.A. In the opinion, of many exhibitors the C.E.A., by agreeing to provide the information to the P.R.S. with regard to the members of the Association, assisted the P.R.S. very materially in their organisation. I do not think any further proof is required with regard to this point when it is considered that the C.E.A. were never called upon to make up the guarantee for the £3,000 income from their members to the P.R.S. at the end of the three years. There have been no actual figures disclosed, but in 1918, when the new agreement was being negotiated, it was computed that the amount received from exhibitors in the period under revision was nearer £8,000 than £8,000. But it is not only the financial position that has to be considered. What is of far more importance is the opportunity that was given to the P.R.S. to make their power felt to such an extent that a large number of publishers and composers became members of the society, and all their music was controlled by the P.R.S. The 1915 C.B.A. agreement was used as a lever to get many of these into the society, and during the war period the P.R.S. must have made an enormous amount of money. There were a few English publishing houses who remained outside the P.R.S. entirely on principle, and although many inducements were held out to them to join the ranks of the P.R.S. they refused to do so. The action of these few publishers saved the situation, for had the P.R.S. succeeded in getting them into their organisation, there is not the least doubt at the present time that the whole of the music in this country would have been controlled. The publishers and composers who supported uncontrolled music, however, made their presence felt, the result being they were able to get their compositions played at many places of entertainment where controlled music would not be played. In the summer of 1918 the teachers of dancing held their annual convention at Blackpool, and this question of controlled and uncontrolled music was one of the principal questions discussed at this convention. This was a national convention, and was attended by delegates from all parts of the United Kingdom, and at the conclusion of the discussion the following resolution was unanimously passed : ‘‘ That all members pledge themselves not tto buy any dance music published in future unless it is clearly printed on the title page that it can be played in public without fee or licence.’ A gentleman well known in musical circles in Lancashire, Mr. Shorrock, managing director of the Norbreck Hydro, Blackpool, took a very prominent part in this convention, and he informed me at the time that the dancing teachers had received an undertaking from the publishers and composers who had remained outside the P.R.8. to supply them with thousands of copies of dance music which could be played in public without the pay Google ment of any fee or licence, these publishers and composers being of the opinion that by the sale of their compositions they were sufficiently rewarded without looking for additional payment in the shape of performing rights fees. Another champion of uncontrolled music in Blackpool is Mr. John R. Huddlestonc, managing director of the Winter Gardens. This gentleman also gave the movement his whole-hearted support, the result being that very soon after the convention of the teachers of dancing at Blackpool the P.R.S. lost several of their most prominent sineniberey amongst them being Messrs. Feldman and Co., Francis, Day; and Hunter, and Herman Darewski. These well-known publishers immediately supported the movement for uncontrolled music, and other well-known publishers, such as Boosey and Co., Enoch and Sons, Novello and Co., Lawrence Wright Publishing Company, and many others, supported the movement. This all happened in 1918, and at that time there wus a great deal of feeling against the P.R.S. throughout the country. Even the members of the A.M.U. supported the movement for uncontrolled music, and the C.E.A., as an organisation, at that time had the power and influence, had they only used it, to put a stop to the stranglehold which their general secretary now complains about. What did the C.E.A. do in 1918? It came to the rescue of the P.R.S. by negotiating another agreement, and this in spite of the agitation amongst its own members ayainst the methods adopted by the P.R.S., and also against the advice of those of us who had knowledge of the true position with regard to uncontrolled music. Had the agreement of 1915 been renewed the position would have been bad enough, but the 1918 agreement increased the stranglehold on the members of the C.E.A. by first of all increasing the fees, the new tariff being as follows : A minimum of £3 3s. for one or two musicians, £5 5s. for three musicians, and so on in proportion to the number of musicians employed. The agreement was for three years, to terminate on April 5, 1922, and the guarantee given to the P.R.S. for the first year was £1,333 6s. 8d., as against £75), which was the guarantee for the first year in 1915, the total guarantee for the three years being £4,000. It is true the members were given a rebate of 25 per cent. on the £3 3s. susbcription and 15 per cent. on amounts paid over this sum, but the position of the C.E.A. member was made considerably worse, and the etranglehold upon him increased, as he was compelled under the agreement to take out a licence for three years terminating on April 5, 1922. This brings us to the present agreement, which is, to all intents and purposes, the 1918 agreement renewed for a further period of two years. But the stranglehold is by no means loosened, as members of the C.E.A. have found to their cost, as many of them have been forced to take out a general licence through not having complied with one of the conditions of the new agreement, and in these cases the members have been called upon to pay fees based on the seating capacity of their kinemas. In my first article I emphasised very fully the attempt that was made last year by the West Lancashire branch of the C.E.A. to get the General Council of that organisation to take an intelligent interest in this most important question of uncontrolled music, with what results is well known. The third agreement with the P.R.S. was entered into in April this year on the advice of their general secretary, and within seven months of the agreement being signed that gentleman is appealing to the members to assist him in ‘' devising methods to deal with the present stranglehold of the Performing Rights Society.”