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

6 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. January 13, 1923. Kinema Music eA Reply to Mr, Gavazzt King. By JOHN WOODHOUSE and the P.R. S. I HAVE read with interest, and some amusement, the number of actual performances of copyright pieces during that ‘ article by Mr. Gavazzi King, general secretary of the C.H.A., in your issue of the Ist inst. on ‘‘ Kinema Music and the P.R.8."’ This is not the first tire I have enjoyed reading Mr. King’s remarks on this question in the Press, and my enjoyment is due to my knowledge of the facts of the case, which enables me to appreciate the journalistic deftness with which Mr. King evades the essential points of the dispute. Copyright and ‘‘ Monopoly.” Mr. King’s article means, if it means anything, that the C.E.A. tried by every meaus in its power to escape from the ‘“ stranglehold ’’ of the P.R.S., but in vain. Why was this? Not because, as Mr. King declaims to the gallery, the P.R.S. is an ‘* autocratic monopolv,”’ which ‘* brushes aside areuments and. insists on imposing its own conditions,”. but simply because ‘‘ the average memher desired the latest and most popular music because the general public preferred it.’” In other words, the public wanted the particular music controlled by the P.R.S., and those who catered for the public had to supply this, musicand pay for it. Exactly the same reason causes the kinem. + to secure certain films which take the publie taste, and p ~‘t monopoly ” rates for them. But Mr. King, wants to haygsit.both ways. He wants to: share in the exclusive rights ade teil bopytight musi¢é ® without sdoauate payment. pee ge ee The term ‘ Seanplehcld: sd tnplg fn that the P. R. 8. pat its licende holders’ and goes through their pockets, is absurd to those who know. ‘the tuets. I wenture to say that nearly one third ‘of the kinemas: included ‘in Mr..King’s Association and subscribing-to the P.R.S., pay:no more-tha£2 7s. 8d. a year for their licence—less:: than twopence a day for the use of a vast repertoireof British and foreign copyright music. ‘Poor C.E.A. That’s what aes pay— Strangled and ruined by twopence a day! ” (These words can be sung to the Bridal Chorus from ‘* Lohengrin ’’ without fee or licence.) Legitimate Basis of Calculation. _Mr. King objects to the P.R.S. fee for the use of its.whole repertoire. But neither he, nor any member. of his Executive, has ever suggested any other basis of calculation at.the numerous mectings and discussions hetween the C.E.A. and the P.R,S. .The system of a general licence fee has been carefully considered, and as regards kinemas, it is at present. the most practical scheme, The only alternative -would be. a method, of paying on specific works performed.. .Does Mr. King suggest that any of his members are prepared to state beforehand the particular items of copyright. music which they intend to perform: during-a given year? This is clearly impossible. What is the sense, there charging. a comprehensive fore, of denouncing a syetem to which no alternative is ever. suggested ? Analogy from the Library. Mr. King’s analogy from Mark Twain is hardly applicable to the case of the P.R.S. The C.E.A. and other licensees are not charged exorbitant sums for a huge repertoire when they only want to use a hundred or fewer pieces of music. If the total royalty paid by a kinema for a year were divided by the ‘on the rateable value of the kinema. year the. average royalty would be very little—in the case of the . small houses, ridiculously little. A repertoire is like a table d’héte dinner; and anyone who wants merely two or three dishes of a long menu will find that he pays about as much for them @ la carte as the inclusive charge for the wholebill of fare. If a smaller kinema were charged a farthing for -each’ performance of a piece.of music in ‘the P.R.S. repertoire, the total might be really exorbitant. : Mr. King says plaintively that exhibitors. do not. want a inillion pieces, and could not use them. He might as well complain if he subscribed to a circulating library:-of 100,000 volumes, that he could not read so many in a year, and that the subscription was, therefore, exorbitant. A kinema is paying the P.R.S. as a subscriber is paying the library, an. inclusive fee giving the right to select and use anything in the catalogue. In the case of the library there is a limit on the number of volumes and the time for which they may be taken out. In the case of the P.R.S. the limit is the amount of copyright music that the kinema can profitably use. Mr.-King objects to the licence fees being charged as a percentage of the takings of a kinema. But payments for licensees to perform copyright musie must be assessed on some principle. At first” the P.R.S. charged by the number of musicians employed. The A.M.U. opposed this, as tending to reduce the number engaged. Then the P.R.S. took the “basis of the amount of money that a kinema holds. Mr. King objects to this.. Why, he says, should a composer take a percentage on the takings? Well, why should the author of a play take a percentage on the takings of a theatre when his piece is performed? Why should a West End theatre pay more than a provincial fit-up? But the P.R.S. offered. to meet this objection, insincere. as it is. An offer was made to assess the licence fees as a percentage This was refused, and no alternative was suggested by Mr. King or the C.E.A. This is what Mr. King ‘calls ‘ brushing aside argument and insisting on imposing its conditions.’’ As a matter of fact, during the negotiations about a year ago for a new contract with the C.E.A., I spent hours in listening to arguments from him and his. Executive, and yielded to many of them, sometimes against my own judgment. I challenge him to deny this statement. Difficulties of Assessment. The fact is that Mr. King’s avticle, like others of the kind, is designed chiefly to arouse prejudice. He knows thot lf any practicable method could be devised of settling and verifying the particular musical items that a kinema desires to perform it would be easy to charge a small fixed royalty on each piéce. He .alsc: knows that under any possible system of separate fees, the total royalties payable would in nearly every case exceed the inclusive. fee now charged for the repertoire. His contedtion is apparently this: You are charging a small kinema twopence a day.for the right to use a million pieces of music. But this kinema. only wants to use, say, a hundred. You ought, therefore, in equity, to reduce your charge to one 5,000th of a penny.a day, or less than one.German mark a month, which, ag Euclid says, is absurd.. Therefore Mr. King’s statement that the kinemas are paying for a million pieces-is. -also abs nrd an , [This matter is further discussed on page 37, under the heading of ‘‘A Disastrous Agreement.’’—Ep.]