The motion picture industry (1933)

212 ^> ^ -^y The Motion Picture Industry 7. That nothing in this decree shall be construed to declare a classification of theaters according to the method described in the petition as first-, second-, third or subsequent-run theaters, or such other reasonable classification as may hereafter be in use in the motion picture industry or zoning of such theaters or clearance and/or protection of motion picture films for exhibition purposes as between theaters, including clearances and/or protection according to runs or price of admission, to be illegal as such or in violation of the .... "Sherman Anti-Trust Act", or as prohibiting any defendant from selecting its own customers and bargaining with them in accordance with law, or any affiliated exhibitor from exhibiting at any time its own films in theaters owned or controlled by it. 8. That the terms of this decree shall be binding upon and shall extend to each and every one of the successors in interest of any or all of the defendants herein. 9. For the purpose of this decree in case any defendant is owned directly or indirectly by another defendant, the two defendants shall, so long as such relationship continues, be deemed one defendant. 10. That jurisdiction of this cause be and it hereby is retained for the following purposes: a. Enforcing this decree ; b. Enabling the plaintiff to apply to this court for a modification, but not for an enlargement, of any of the provisions of this decree ; and c. Enabling the defendants to apply to this court for modification, but not for enlargement, of any of the provisions of this decree on the ground that the same have become inappropriate or unnecessary. Any application by any party hereto under the foregoing subdivisions, a, b, and c of this paragraph 10, shall be made in open court upon notice to all of the parties hereto, and any of the parties hereto, upon such application, shall have the right and privilege of requiring the production of witnesses upon whose testimony such application is sought or opposed, and of examining and cross-examining such witnesses in accordance with the rules of the Court.3 3 With reference to the protection situation in Chicago, the following statement is of interest: "April 7, 1932, the Department of Justice stated that litigation against Paramount Publix Corporation, Balaban & Katz Corporation and 19 other motion picture distributors, which had been pending for trial in Chicago, had been closed with the signing of a final decree enjoining the film companies and their affiliated theaters from engaging in any of the numerous illegal practices with which they had been charged. The government charged so-called zoning and clearance schedules were used, block booking, and other alleged violations of the Anti-Trust laws." Moody's Industrials, 1932.