NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

HOUSE RADIO COMMITTEE MEMBERS Following is a list of Democrats who have been assigned to the House Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries Committee: Schuyler Otis Bland (chairman), Virginia; Clay Stone Briggs, Texas; George W. Lindsay. New York; Oscar L. Auf der Heide, New Jersey; Bolivar E. Kemp, Louisiana; William I. Sirovich, New York ; Robert Ramspeck, Georgia; Ambrose J. Kennedy, Maryland ; Charles N. Crosby, Pennsylvania; A. C. Willford, Iowa; Monrad C. Wallgren, Washington; Lawrence E. Imhoff. Ohio; John Young Brown, Kentucky; Edward C. Moran, Jr., Maine; William B. Umstead, North Carolina; Lincoln L. McCandless. Hawaii: Anthony J. Dimond, Alaska. Republican members have not yet been announced. NORTH AMERICAN RADIO CONFERENCE The work preparatory to the North American Radio Confer¬ ence pushed forward this week with a study of the uses made of the frequencies below 6000 kc. and their adaptability to the various kinds of services. One very important phase of this study has to do with the propagation characteristics of various frequencies. This task is in the hands of a select committee made up of com¬ petent and disinterested engineers. The findings by this committee should contribute to the application of sound engineering principles in the consideration of the many problems involved. The General Committee is scheduled to meet again on March 20. WOQ CASE GOES BACK TO COMMISSION The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia this week handed down a decision in the WOQ case (Docket No. 5582) the effect of which was to remand the case to the Commission to the end that a proper hearing be had before the Commission. The Commission in its decision reversed the examiner and ordered station WOQ, Kansas City, Mo., off the air and that station KFH. Wichita, Kans., operate full time. The two stations had shared time on the frequency 1300 kc. KFH operated five-sevenths time and WOQ two-sevenths. The examiner, after hearing, recommended that the application of KFH for full time be denied and that the application of assign¬ ment of license asked for by WOQ be granted. KFH obtained an extension of time in which to file exceptions to the examiner's report and request oral argument. According to the decision of the Court the Commission granted KFH the right of oral argument before the Commission en banc without giving WOQ a right to be heard. Concerning the furnishing of other parties with copies of exceptions and the responsibility of the Commission in giving notice to interested parties, the Court said: “The rules of the Commission require an examiner who has taken testimony to have it transcribed and reported back to the Commission, together with a written report containing recommenda¬ tions as to the decision to be made and the facts and grounds upon which the recommendations are based. That was done in the present case. The exceptions filed to that report by KFH were accompanied by the affidavit of a clerk in the office of its counsel (as required by the rules of the Commission) that she had mailed a copy of such exceptions “to each of the parties participating in the hearing” before the examiner. Counsel for WOQ in their brief state that no such copy was received. When counsel for the parties are located in the same city we think it better practice to attempt to serve opposite counsel, and in the event mailing is necessary that notice be sent by registered mail. The function of an examiner is analogous to that of an auditor or special master, and his report has similar weight. The exam¬ iner’s report in the present case being favorable to WOQ, there was no occasion for that station to file any exceptions. When KFH filed exceptions and requested an oral hearing “before a quorum of the Commission,” it w'as the duty of the Commission before decision to notify WOQ, whose very existence was involved, and afford that station an opportunity to be heard; otherwise, there would be a denial of due process. Symons Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Radio Commission, No. 5757 (present term) — App. D. C. — , — F (2d) — ; Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U. S. 362, 369. The statute imposed upon the Commission jurisdiction to make findings of fact, and if such findings are supported by substantial evidence they are conclusive (act of July 1, 1930, ch. 788, 46 Stat. 844), but they can only be made after notice and an opportunity for hearing. The findings in the present case having been made without notice, the decision must be set aside and the case re¬ manded, to the end that a proper hearing be had before the Commission.” PLANS FOR RADIO PROGRAM FOUNDATION A series of conferences to perfect the details of the Radio Program Foundation authorized by the St. Louis Convention and by the Board of Directors of the National Association of Broad¬ casters, have been held by Oswald F. Schuette, director of copy¬ right. Certain legal formalities must still be complied with before the Foundation can be incorporated. In the meantime these con¬ ferences have also discussed the machinery which must be set up to make the music of independent composers and publishers speedily available to the cooperating broadcasters. Various cata¬ logues of music, as well as individual compositions, have been offered for this purpose. Further conferences are scheduled to be held in Washington and New York. RECOMMENDS DENIAL WEBR APPLICATION Application of Station WEBR, Buffalo, N. Y., for permission to use its regular transmitter during daytime broadcasts and its auxiliary transmitter at night. Report No. 465 (Hyde, e.) Report recommends that the application be denied. The report points out that the Commission had determined long before the filing of this application that for administrative purposes broadcast stations should be limited to one transmitter per station except in cases wrhere it might be found that an auxiliary trans¬ mitter was needed or that desirable experimenal w-ork was to be carried on. “These regulations,” says the examiner, "would seem to preclude the granting of this application and accordingly it is recommended that it be denied.” DILL PROPOSES COPYRIGHT REVISION A bill (S. 342) amending and consolidating the copyright laws of the United States was introduced in the Senate on March 13 by Senator Dill (D), Washington. The bill is similar to the measure introduced by the Senator in the last Congress but which failed of action. The most important provision of this bill from the standpoint of the broadcaster is Section 21, which attempts to control monopo¬ listic control of music copyrights. Section 21 reads as follows: "If two or more persons owning or controlling copyrights or any rights therein combine either directly or by means of an association, society, or corporation to acquire or pool copyrights or rights therein, and to issue or grant licenses or other authorizations for public performance for profit, or for broadcasting performances of copyright wmrks or for the manufacture, lease, or sale of record¬ ings or mechanical reproductions, and to fix and collect fees, charges, or royalties for such licenses or other authorizations, then — “(a) Every such combination of copyright owners shall file with the Register of Copyright: “(1) Names and addresses of copyright owners, and if a corpora¬ tion or association its name, officers and principal place of business, together with a true copy of its agreement or articles of incorpora¬ tion and by-laws. “(2) Lists of all copyrighted w:orks, and rights therein, over w’hich such combination exercises or claims control, including those of foreign origin, together with dates of beginning and end of each copyright work. “(3) Names of the owners of said copyrighted wrorks and the dates on which the term of their copyright begins and ends. “(4) Statements of all fees, charges, or royalties which such com¬ bination of copyright owners collects as compensation for the grants or other authorization, together with such revisions thereof as from time to time shall be made. “(b) The lists and statements required to be filed under the preceding subsection (a) shall be kept open for public inspection at the Copyright Office. “(c) Any such combination of copyright owners upon com¬ pliance with the foregoing provisions shall be entitled to make a fair and reasonable charge for the rights conferred. Such charge shall be a fixed amount for a definite period of time. • Page 7 •