Harvard business reports (1930)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

344 HARVARD BUSINESS REPORTS In 1928, considerable agitation developed in certain territories in connection with the sale of pictures to nontheatrical accounts. The following quotations from the Film Daily indicate the attitudes of the exhibitor and the Federal Trade Commission on this question : Officers of the Oklahoma Exhibitor Unit are preparing to carryout the mandate of the recent convention against nontheatrical competition and are now studying the situation. The convention denounced nontheatrical competition and exchanges serving them. Film Daily, April 15, 1928. Columbus — Nontheatrical competition can be restricted only in specific instances, because unified action against nontheatrical exhibition clashes with the Sherman Act, the Ohio Exhibitor Unit concluded at its convention here. Film Daily, November 25, 1928. Efforts of the industry made at the Trade Practice Conference in New York in October, 1927, to have service of films to nontheatricals branded as unfair practice were balked by the Federal Trade Commission which disapproved the resolution. The Commission's action was not taken as an endorsement of nontheatricals but rather a disapproval of the resolution on the ground that it was illegal. Film Daily, December 27, 1928. Excerpts from the proceedings of the Trade Practice Conference for the Motion Picture Industry referred to in the above quotation, which was held at New York City, October 10-15, IQ27> follow : Rule 18 (Formerly distributors' Resolution No. 6) Whereas, throughout the United States today more than 1,500 public, private, and charitable sectarian and non-sectarian institutions for caring for "shut-ins" are showing motion pictures; and such motion picture programs are furnished to these various institutions by national and regional distributors through the various film boards of trade under a plan whereby the responsibility for such distribution is divided among all members of each board; and in most instances such motion picture programs are furnished free of charge to such institutions as orphan asylums, homes for the aged, tuberculosis hospitals, and institutions housing war veterans; and Whereas in some cases they are furnished upon payment of the postal or express charges to ship and return the films, and in other instances where institutions have appropriations available with which to purchase entertainment for the inmates, nominal charges are made; and Whereas in all instances motion picture films are furnished to such institutions with the understanding that they are to be shown only to