Harrison's Reports (1948)

56 HARRISON'S REPORTS April 3, 1948 LEWIS BILL REVIVED The Lewis Bill, which would relieve the exhibitors from paying a seat tax to ASCAP by compelling the producers to acquire the public performance rights to the music recorded on film, will be reconsidered by the full House Judiciary Committee. The Bill received its new lease on life through the efforts of Rep. Lewis, author of the Bill and chairman of the subcommittee, which last week rejected the measure by a vote of five to one. Rep. Lewis persuaded Rep. Lane, who had voted against the Bill, to move for its reconsideration. This action means that the full Committee will consider the Bill in executive session. As this paper has already pointed out, the sub-committee's original action in reporting the Bill adversely has done considerable damage, and the chance that it will be enacted into a law is admittedly slim. But the chance is there and every exhibitor should do his utmost to take advantage of it by urging his Congressmen and Senators to give the Bill their full backing. The TOA, which opposed the Bill at the recent hearing, made it appear as if the ASCAP issue was an intra-industry dispute over which the exhibitors were sharply divided. Some pertinent information as to why the TOA may have conducted its campaign will be found elsewhere on this page in a letter from Mr. Milton C. Weisman, prominent New York attorney who, on behalf of 164 independent exhibitors, handled the recently completed anti-trust suit against ASCAP. The decision on this suit is still pending and, if favorable to the plaintiffs, it may end for all time the ASCAP gouge. Read what Mr. Weisman has to say; the facts he presents tear a gaping hole in the arguments set forth by the Bill's opponents. You should use these facts in urging your Congressional representatives to support this badly needed legislation. WEISMAN, CELLER, QUINN, ALLAN V SPETT 1450 Broadway New York 18, N. Y. March 30. 1948 Harrison's Reports 1270 Avenue of the Americas New York 20, N. Y. Attention: P. S. Harrison, Esquire Dear Pete: I read with interest the excellent and trenchant article regarding the Lewis Bill, which appeared in your issue of March 27th. There is a rather relevant and important fact of the ASCAP situation and the T.O.A. position that seems to have been missed by all interested parties and which has not been presented to the Sub-Committee which heard the matter. It was developed during the recent trial of the suit under the Sherman and Clayton Acts that I conducted against ASCAP for 164 independent exhbiitors. This suit was tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Vincent L. Leibell. This may explain in part T.O.A.'s efforts to kill the Lewis Bill. As you know, the theatres of Warner's, Loew's, Paramount and Twentieth Century-Fox are all members of T.O.A., yet these very companies controlling or operating these theatres have a very heavy financial stake in ASCAP's continued "take" through their ownership and interests in publishing companies which are members of ASCAP. The "take" of these companies out of ASCAP is really surprising and very lucrative. Thus Warner's owns outright some of the largest publishing houses in the country including ( 1 ) Harms, Inc. (2) Remick Music Corp. (3) M. Witmark 6? Sons (4) New World Music Corp. (5) Atlas Music Corp. In addition it has a fifty per cent interest in two other music publishing companies, to wit, Advance Music Corporation Schubert Music Publishing Company These companies — all members of ASCAP — received from it the sum of $789,000.00 for the year 1947 alone. Similarly large annual sums have been received over the last ten years. Similarly Loew's and Twentieth Century-Fox control music publishing companies — members of ASCAP, to wit, (1) Miller Music Corp. (2) Leo Feiat, Inc. (3) Robbins Music Corp. These three are known as three of the largest publishing houses in the country. During 1947 these companies received from ASCAP the sum of $514,754.79. Paramount also owns outright two large music publishing companies of ASCAP, to wit. Famous Music Corporation Paramount Music Corporation In 1947 these companies received from ASCAP the sum of $ 1 50,000.00. Of course, in the light of this information it becomes apparent that whatever Warner's, Loew's, Paramount, Twentieth Century-Fox pay into ASCAP through its socalled "seat tax" is really infinitesimal compared to the return that their music publishing companies get from the ASCAP monopoly. Of course, the situation of the independent exhibitor who has no interest in any publishing company that is a member of ASCAP and feeds from its monopoly is diametrically different. The fight that you are conducting in behalf of the independent exhibitor against ASCAP's music monopoly and the illogical, unscientific and arbitrary tax it imposes on the independent exhibitor is a splendid one. It is logical, trenchant and fully demonstrates not only your absolute devotion to the cause of the independent exhibitor but the ability with which you champion his cause. With kindest personal regards to you and with my congratulations to you for the fight you are ceaselessly carrying out for the independent exhibitor, I am Sincerely yours, (signed) Milton C. Weisman. Hollywood 28, Calif. March 24, 1948. Dear Mr. Harrison: Reading your frank and thoroughly enlighting "Reports," which is my weekly custom (I am a cover-to-cover reader), I have just digested what you had to say about a producer (unnamed) who looked with pessimism on the new Hollywood-British agreement. I think you fellows have missed the boat, in weighing the new deal and its consequences, and if your unnamed producer is an independent producer, I would share his fear of the results of the "treaty." I think the independent movie producers may be booted in the rear by this tie-up. Reason: The major companies can take so much money out of England, plus an amount equal to what British movies ta\e out of the United States. There is the catch: I will not be surprised to see the major companies promote English movies here, not by cutting down their own playing time, but by substituting, as much as possible, British films for films made by independent Hollywood companies and producers. It is no money out of the major company's pockets if profits they don't get from American theatres goes into British coffers, instead of going into the pots of independent Hollywood producers. Fact is, it is money in their pockets, for what the independent producer may make means nothing to the majors, but what the British films make over here, means just that much more the majors may take from England. But if the majors have no such idea, it will be the first time in motion picture history that they have overlooked a way or chance to net themselves more dough. Think it over. I offer my suggestion to you, because it is to tradey for my use, and because I think Harrison's Reports is the most respected of the trade publications, and a discussion of this, in your pages, will get real attention. Good luck, (signed) Jimmie Fidler.