NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

Laclede Power & Light Company, St. Louis, Mo. (2-393). Mavis Bottling Company of America, New York City (2-399). C. E. Meriweather, J. M. Wilzon, I. Lowenburg, and A. P. Smith, Jr., New Orleans, La. (2-392). Cadiz Mining Company, Los Angeles, Calif. (2-404). Comstock, Ltd., San Francisco, Calif. (2-40S). Green Tree Breweries, Inc., St. Louis, Mo. (2-409). Hollywood Argyle Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif. (2-403). K. Taylor Distilling Company, Frankfort, Ky. (2-40S). Protective Committee for Villa Theatre, Collingsdale, Pa. (2406). National Associated Dealers, Inc., New York City (2-402). Osage Mineral Rights Syndicate, Santa Fe, N. M. (2-400). Penn York Distilleries, Inc., Shrewsbury, Pa. (2-407). United States Bond & Mortgage Company, New York City (2-401). MUSIC USERS ORGANIZE TO FIGHT The fight against the licensing practices of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers went forward on a widened front this week when Oswald F. Schuette called attention of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to a resolution adopted by the Music Users’ Protective Association of America, a newly formed organization to combat unfair copyright practices. The text of the resolution adopted at a meeting held in Balti¬ more, Md., on November 6, is as follows: WHEREAS, the control of practically all the musical composi¬ tions in America has passed from the individual composers to a certain group of individuals who have combined themselves into an organization holding a monopolistic control over practically all musical compositions in the United States, and WHEREAS, the said group of individuals by virtue of the Copyright Laws of the United States are unregulated as to fees to be charged for the use of said music, and WHEREAS, by virtue of the said monopolistic control, the said group are now in a position to dictate the terms upon which an industry dependent upon the use of music may continue to exist, which arbitrary power has been continuously exercised to the great detriment of the public, and causing the ranks of the unemployed musician to increase, because of the prohibitive license fees people employing musicians in public places are forced to pay, and WHEREAS, the said combination of certain groups, unrestricted by law', is gradually extending its sources of revenue, often col¬ lecting as many as three separate license fees for the rendering of one musical performance, w'hich by fiction of law has been interpreted as three separate performances under certain circum¬ stances, and WHEREAS, the said monopolistic combination is ever actively engaged in enacting new laws in their behalf while the American Public has heretofore slept, during such invasion of their rights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the afore¬ mentioned grievances together with all data in the possession of, and obtained by, Music Users’ Protective Association be forwarded immediately for action thereon to the following authorities: Joseph B. Keenan, Federal Investigator, appointed by United States authorities to investigate commercial racketeering, and the Honorable Simon E. Sobeloff, United States District Attorney for’ the District of Maryland, for investigation of these practices, as being in restraint of trade and in violation of the Federal AntiTrust Law's, and to investigate the unauthorized use of the mails to enforce such practices of the aforementioned combination of groups, and that a copy of same be sent to the Federal Trade Commission and to every Senator and Congressman in the United States to act immediately thereon for the protection of the Amer¬ ican Public. DEMANDS INVESTIGATION OF ASCAP Petitions demanding that Congress investigate the “discrimina¬ tory policy” of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers are being circulated by the American Society for the Advancement of Public Music, a civic non-profit organization, of which Charles L. Mullen, Milwaukee, Wis., is general counsel. Mr. Mullen claims that the “A. S. C. A. P.” has abused the copyright law ; that the group collects excessive royalties from radio stations, hotels, theaters and dance halls where copyrighted music is played and that the organization completely controls popular music. HANLEY DEFENDS AMERICAN BROADCASTING James H. Hanley, in a statement issued this week, concerning the debates in schools and colleges on the subject of radio broad¬ casting: “I have received numerous requests from debate masters, teach¬ ers and students of literature, on the question of the advisability of the United States Government adopting legislation providing for the regulation and control of radio similar to the system now' used in Great Britain,” he said. “Colleges and high schools in twenty-eight states have taken this subject for their debates. It is well they so decided, because impassionate and intelligent debate of vital public questions to develop all the facts — their merits and demerits — before reaching a final determination, is the real backbone of democracy and it affords expression for our people, proud of their independence and free thinking. “The relative merits of the two systems (American and Brit¬ ish) have been discussed sporadically for some time in and out of Congress, but the question will probably come to a head this winter as a result of the enterprise and ingenuity of the National Committee on Radio in Education, representing a group of educa¬ tors who will appeal to Congress to make a special investigation of radio at home and abroad. It is contended by this Committee that use of radio for education is sorely neglected under the American system and is subordinated to the use of radio for purely commercial purposes. With that general conclusion I am in full accord, although it is my contention that the American system can be changed to meet the demands of the educators without doing violence to its basic principles. It therefore gives me pleasure to make some observations on the relative merits of the two systems. “First, I want to point out some of the merits and demerits of the American plan, then I will do the same with the British system, and at the outset I want to give you the appraisal of the American system made by Senator C. C. Dill of the State of Washington, co-author of the Radio Act of 1927 and a close student of radio development throughout the world. He said in a book recently published: “ ‘Private initiative, private capital, and most of all, Amer¬ ican business methods of popularizing and developing radio have placed radio in this country far ahead of that of any other country in the world. “ ‘A forward looking spirit on the part of most of those engaged in the industry in this country, and a liberal policy by Congress, have brought radio to its present place. Since Marconi’s feat of spanning the Atlantic with radio W'aves most of the great radio inventions, and by far the greatest radio developments, have been produced by American inven¬ tors and American business men. Radio as W'e know' it today is truly an American art developed and used in the American way.’ “This is certainly a sweeping defense of our American system, although Senator Dill at times in vigorous terms has pointed out defects in our system of control. “Under our system, service to the listener is the main consid¬ eration. Friendly, but spirited, rivalry exists among stations in their efforts to provide interesting programs for listeners. Efforts are made to satisfy the needs and requirements, the whims and fancies, of the various communities and to provide valuable information and high-grade entertainment, thus giving oppor¬ tunity for expression to every reputable and substantial class or group. • Page 225 •