Harrison's Reports (1948)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Published Weekly by United States $15.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 N v L r>n N V Publisher Canada 16.50 INew IorK zu» n P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain ............ 15.75 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1. 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India. Europe, Asia .... 17.50 Ug Editorlal Pollcy . No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial circle 7-4622 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXX SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1948 No. 7 ASCAP RETREATS The stout opposition put up by exhibitors every where against the proposed 300% increase in the theatre music tax rates bore fruit last week when ASCAP, threatened with legislation and a multitude of court actions, revised its demands with the an' nouncement of a new tax schedule that provides for no increase in the rates now in effect for theatres having fewer than 500 seats, with gradual increases to a maximum of 25% for all other theatres. The new tax rate schedule, which is to cover a period of ten years and which becomes effective on March 1 5, is as follows : Theatres having 499 seats and under will continue to pay the old rate of 10c per seat; theatres having 500 to 799 seats will pay 12J/2C per seat, an increase of 2]/zc over the old rate of 10c per seat; theatres having 800 to 1599 seats will pay 19c per seat, an increase of 4c over the old rate of 15c; and theatres with 1599 seats and upward will pay 25c per seat, an increase of 5c over the old rate of 20c per seat. Theatres that operate three days a week or less will be required to pay one-half the rates applicable. Theatres using "live" talent as a regular policy are not included in the aforementioned rates, ASCAP reserving the right to establish special scales for such theatres. The new rate schedule, according to the Theatre Owners of America, is the direct result of the negotiations between its officers and those of ASCAP. With all due credit to the TOA for the work it has done in obtaining a reduction from ASCAP's original demands, there can be no question that the pressure exerted by National Allied, the Pacific Coast Conference, the ITOA of New York and other exhibitor organizations was a major motivating factor in ASCAP's decision to back down. Although the new rates are much more favorable than those demanded originally by ASCAP last September, the exhibitors, in the opinion of this paper, would be making a great mistake if they accept the new rates as the best possible compromise and relax their efforts toward passage of the Lewis Bill, now in Congress, which would relieve them entirely of this unfair tax by requiring the motion picture producers to acquire the full performing rights on all music used in a picture. The producer, in turn, would be required to transfer such rights to the exhibitor when licensing his pictures. This means that, when you play a picture, you will not have to pay tribute to ASCAP for the right to play the music. The danger in the compromise reached with ASCAP lies in the possibility that many exhibitors, who operate theatres with fewer than 500 seats, of which it is estimated there are about eight thousand, will be lulled into abandoning support of the Lewis Bill because of the fact that no increase in the seat tax is being asked of them. But just because they are not subject to an increase does not mean that they have obtained relief, for, no matter how little they pay, the fact remains that the tax is unjust, should not be levied, and must be done away with for good. To agree to pay the tax for the next ten years is merely to prolong the agony. So much has been written in these columns giving reasons as to why the music seat tax is unjust, unfair, and even unmoral, that none of it needs repetition at this time. Besides, most of you are fully acquainted with the reasons, as well as with this paper's contention that the solution to the music tax problems lies, not in a reduction of the tax, but in its complete elimination. With the introduction in Congress of Representative Earl R. Lewis' bill, known as H.R. 5014, the exhibitors' drive against ASCAP, through legislation, is getting into full swing. The chances for the bill being enacted into a law have never been better, but it will need the unqualified support of every exhibitor, who can best help by writing to his Congressmen and Senators, urging them to vote for the bill. Just because ASCAP has reduced its demands is no reason for any exhibitor to become pacified and accept the tax. ASCAP is not doing the exhibitors any favor by reducing its demands; it is merely spreading salve on the exhibitors' wounds so that it can continue to collect a tax to which it has no moral right in the first place — a right given to it by a Copyright Law that was framed before talking pictures came into existence, a right that would have undoubtedly been excluded by the framers of the law had they been able to visualize the advent of the talking picture. Why submit to an obnoxious tax, born out of an outmoded Copyright Law, when the way has been opened for its complete elimination? Get busy! Get rid of it! KEEP AMERICA UNITED-AMERICAN BROTHERHOOD WEEK-FEBRUARY 22-29