In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1914
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 5
Leaf #:
00066
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
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.

2516 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 263. abolish the system of standing orders for new subjects. I have long recognized that to insist upon the purchase of all new subjects, long before they are seen, or even manufactured, is an injustice to the rental exchanges, and an imposition upon the exhibitors who are compelled to use undesirable films, forming a material percentage of the total output, frequently against their will. In the early days of the exhibiting business as it now exists this could not be considered unreasonable, as the supply of subjects was limited, and every film was usable that was not obscene, extremely vulgar, or highly sensational. Censorship Policy Followed. "We have always followed the policy of censorship at the root, and have never imported films that could be considered objectionable from any view-point. This is due to our system of inspecting samples of every subject before our stock was shipped from Europe. "The standing order system is oppressive also because it compels the rental exchange to accept an indefinite quantity of films, subject to great variations from week to week. No exchange, under this rule, can state in advance the total sum of its film bills, — a condition which would not be tolerated in any other line of trade. "In harmony with this position, we have decided upon a uniform price for films to all rental exchanges in good standing, irrespective of size or quantity purchased. A large exchange will have no advantage, because of heavier purchases, over the small concern. "In view of the fact that we charge a selling price for films, we think it but just that the buyer own the goods that he has paid for, without restriction, and do not attach any conditions calling for the return of our films at the expiration of a stated period. Purchasers May Rent Films. "Purchasers of our films are at liberty to rent them to others, without restrictions as to rental prices, or manner of use. "A movement has originated in Chicago among owners of nickelodions wliich bids fair to spread to all large cities of the United states. These exhibitors have formed an