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 #:
000446
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.

289G John Collier, Direct Examination. made of motion pictures at the time of the formation of the National Board of Censorship? A. It was charged that they were sensational and salacious; that they were exploiting interest in crime for purely sensational purposes, and that the imported films were imported without any special discrimination, and were not suited to American taste and habits. There was also much criticism against the conduct of shows apart from the films, and our Board has all along been doing a national work to improve the conditions of motion picture shows in general. Q. At the time of the formation of the National Board of Censorship did you satisfy yourself as to whether these criticisms which you have related were a reality or not? A. They were exaggerated, but a reality, and our own work for the first two or three months bears this out inasmuch as we prohibited nearly ten per cent, of all films. Q. At the time you approached the Motion Picture Patents Company with the proposition of establishing a censorship, how were you received? A. Very well received. Q. Did the Motion Picture Patents Company show a desire or disposition to co-operate with you in arranging for the censorship of motion pictures? A. The Motion Picture Patents Company stated that they had already started a trade censorship within their own group, and that they were willing to submit their films to our Board experimentally, and they continued to submit them for the experimental period. Q. Howr long did this experimental period last? A. It was indefinite, and we have never had any contracts, so that any manufacturer was free to withdraw at any time he saw lit, and it is still handled in that way. Q. How is the Board of Censorship made up? A. It was made up through calling in these eleven civic agencies, which formed a general commit lee, and this general committee controlled the policy, finances, standards, and everything else, and chose the executive officers of the Board, the clerks and the secretaries. No member of the General Committee is paid anything, or is allowed to have any interest, direct or indirect, in motion pictures. This general committee is free to enlarge its own membership, and is in every way the court of last resort in standards, etc. The General Committee called together a special Censoring Committee of disinterested men and women, and the Censoring Committee now has about one