The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Jan-Feb 1923)

THE. FILM RENTER &. MOVING PICTURE NEWS. January 1, 1923: KINEMA’ MUSIC AND THE P.R.S. The Casé for ‘the C.E.A.—Evils of a Monopoly. | (By GAVAZZI. KING, General Secretary, C.E.A.) [The following has been specially contributed by Mr. Gavazzi King asa commentary on tlie series of articles, entitled ‘* The Stranglehold of the Performing Rights Soz issues of this journal for November 18, 25, and December 2 F Mr. Wm. Hy. Huish had been. genuinely anxious to I assist exhibitors to obtain. just and equitable conditions with respect to the-pérformance of copyright music he would not have -penned the article which appeared in your issue of November 18. His chief anxiety must have been self-advertisement, with a spice of maliciousness, and an utter disregard of crdinary decency Mr. Gavazzi King. in quoting from a communication which was only issued to members of the C.E.A., and was, as must have been obvious to the meanest intelligence, of an entirely private character. If members of the C.P.M.A. received copies it could only be either because, presumably having little faith in that organisation, they were also members of the C.E.A., or had failed to determine their membership by resignation. : “* No Thunder to Steal.’” se ne Mr. Huish makes the modest suggestion that the C.E.A. has stolen his thunder. If those persons to whom Mr. Huish alludes as having ‘‘ sacrificed time, money and position in’ support of uncontrolled’ music ”’ had any thunder for anyone to steal, there might possibly be a iety,”’ by Mr. Wm. Hy. Huish, which appeared in the , 1922.—Ep. Fim RENTER: ] thrust in his last paragraph. They have not and. never had any thunder—not even the mildest rumble. Not even a super-thief can steal what does not exist. The privacy which was asked for in order that there should ‘be less difficulty in obtaining the data desired having been rudely destroyed, it may be desirable. 'to deal with this matter now, to a certain extent, at any rate, publicly. It may be as well, before going further, to point out that it is an utterly misleading statement which .Mr. Huish makes when be writes that exhibitors are being asked to assist me’ in devising methods to deal with the Performing Rights Society, Ltd. They are not asked to do anything of the sort. They are asked for certain specific data. Moreover, the data is for a conimittee— not for me. This question is not, and never has been, a personal matter. It is the business of the General Council. This is well known, and is subject to proof at any time. . What I mean by ‘ stranglehold,’’ and what Mr. Huish “Means, are evidently totally different things, hence the necessity for a somewhat lengthy discussion. A Little History. Early in the history of the C.E.A. the Committee, or Directors, of the then Incorpotated C.E.A. Company, were urged’ by members—owing to the trouble and expense to which they were subjected—to obtain special terms from the Soziété des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique; at that time controlled by Mr. Sarpy. The whole question. of copyright and free music was carefully studied in the light of the Copyright Act of 1911, the : possibilities of effectively providing a supply of miusie outside the repertoire of the Société were thoroughly explored, and the conclusion reached by the full committee of twelve that in the circumstances negotiations for an agreement with the Société should be undertaken. A contrast, dated March 6, 1918, for three years was signed after much labour and protracted discussion. — The fees payable by our members were at the rate of 10s. per performer, with a maximum of four guineas up to ten musicians. Futile Fight of C.E.A. The Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique was absorbed in the Performing Rights Society, Ltd., in 1914, and the question of a new agreement had to be considered. Once more the C.E.A. went into the question of resisting the claims of the new Society. The members were asked to choose between non-copyright music and the repertoire of the Society. They decided infavour of a contract with the Performing Rights Society. In the meantime, no effort had been lacking ‘to test the claims of that Society. The P.R.S. steadily consolidated its-organisation. It appointed agents all over the kingdom.Kinemas were yisitad, infringements