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

January 13, 1923. THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. 37 A DISASTROUS AGREEMENT. Why the C.E.A. Signed Contract with the P.R.S. (By WM. HY. HUISH.) N the specially contributed article by Mr. W. Gavazzi King, under the above heading, which appeared in the special issue of the Fom Renter for January i, Mr. King, in commenting on my series of articles on the same subject, accuses me of a lack of ‘sincerity, maliciousness and a desire for self-advertisement. I am not concerned about the opinion Mr. King has alwaye had with regard to my attitude towards the P.R.S., knowing, as T do, that a large number of exhibitors appreciate the stand I have taken against the C.E.A. on this question of controlled music; but, at the same time, I would remind that gentleman that abuse is no arguinent. I have carefully perused the article contributed by Mr. King on January 1, but cannot find any reply to a single argument put forward byme in my series of articles. Mr. King confirms the statements made by me with regurd to the past history of the P.R.S.; but he makes no attempts to meet my arguments with regard to the great assistance that has been given to the P.R.S. by the C.E.A. in helping them to build up their organisation. Mr. King states that in 1914, when the question of a new agreement had to be considered, ‘‘ The C.E.A. went into the question of resisting the claims of the new society." He further states that ‘‘ The members were asked to choose between noncopyright music and the repertoire of the society."" They decided in favour of a contract with the Performing Righte Society. The paragraph containing the above statements is headed, ‘‘ Futile Fight of C.E.A."’ I must now ask Mr. King, if he is desirous of continuing this line of argument, to give proof of the above statements, and I challenge him to prove that the general body of members were even asked to record their vote for or against the adoption of the agreement with the P.R.S. in 1914. Those of us who were associated with the C.E.A. at that period know that matters of this kind were invariably decided within the four walls of Broadmead House in London. To extend the argument a little further, the members could not be asked consistently to choose between non-copyright music and the repertoire of the P.R.S., as there is no such thing as non-coypright music at the present day. The question is one of controlled and uncontrolled music, and the P.R.S. is a society affiliated with similar societies in other parts of the world, whose main object is the international contro) of all music. The exhibitors in America are, at the present time, urging tor the repeal of the ‘‘ Music Tax,’’ for in that country the kindred society to the P.R.S., to which they are affiliated, have become so powerful, mainly through the apathy displayed in the past by exhibitors, that they charge a tax on the seating capacity of every place of entertainment and café where music is played. The same state of affairs also exists in France and other countries, and had it not been that so many English publishers remained outside the ranks ‘of the P.R.S., the same conditions would have prevailed in this country. I have no knowledge of any fight having ever been put up by the C.E.A. against controlled music, so how can they claim that their fight has been islet I think, if any “further aa were ae with regard to the desire of the P.R.S.-to secure a monopoly, it has been given by Mr. King in his article of J anuary 1. But he goes’ further than this: and admits that it ts an ‘autocratic: monopoly. He repeats the old parrot-cry of the controller with regard to their legal rights, and tells us that it is purest folly to question them ;. then goes on to say, ‘‘All that is legal is not necessarily just.” This is the view that those who have been putting up a real fight for uncontrolled music have always taken, but you cannot kill an autocratic monopoly by providing it with funds to carry on its organisation; yet this is the manner in which the C.E.A. have been carrying on their fight since 1914. Mr. King charges me with making ‘‘an utterly misleading statement ’’ with regard to the circular letter that was sent out in which reference was made to the ‘‘ stranglehold ’’ of the P.R.S., and which caused me to write the series of articles that Mr. King takes exception to. I can only say in reply that the quotation from the letter wae printed in full, and if my readers will refer to my article, they will see that I made no misleading statement with regard to this matter, but simply quoted from Mr. King’s circular letter. Mr. King’s reference to the General Council is rather unfortunate. As one of the oldest members of that body up to the time of my resignation in December, 1921, I quite realise, as Mr. King states, it is not a personal matter, but the business of the Council; yet, at the same time, I cannot lose sight of the fact that at all times the Council were entively guided by the advice given by their general secretary on these matters. Up to the time I left the Council, Mr. King had at all times adopted the attitude that the position of the P.R.S. was unassailable, and whenever any attempt was made inside or outside the Council to grapple with this question cold water was thrown on the effort by Mr. King. Reference has been made to Mr. Jimmy Glover by Mr. King, and he tells us of that gentleman’s effort to compile a catalogue of uncontrolled music, and he goes on to state: ‘Great as was that able gentleman’s experience, he abandoned the task.” The object, I presume Mr. King had in his mind when he wrote the above, was to give the impression that the task was an impossible one and the difficulties insurmountable. It is well known to Mr. King that this well-known musician, who at the time was the musical director at Drury Lane Theatre, could not continue his work in compiling his catalogue, as he did not receive the support that he anticipated. The early part of last year, during the time the present agreement with the C.E.A. and P.R.S. was being negotiated, Mr. Jos. B. Williams, on behalf of the Musicians’ Union, addressed a very strong appeal to the C.K.A. and asked for their support in an effort that was being made by the members of his Union to tackle this question in a practical manner by refusing to play any other but uncontrolled music. I am not in a position to say if this proposal was ever considered by the General Council. I can only say that, in my humble opinion, if this information had been broadcasted to the branches of the C.E.A., the present agreement with the P.R.S. would never have been signed by the consent of the members. We are informed by Mr. King that the General Council are to take action, and he informs us that the only effective method is the amendment of the Copyright Act. Yet Mr. King informs us that those of us who have been fighting for uncontrolled music have no ‘thunder to: steal. May I-remind him, in conclusion, that this question of the améndment of the Copyright Act has, at all times, been the very thing we have been fighting for. We are pleased to learn that the General Council is to take action, but ‘thousands of pounds would have been saved to.the exhibitor if the agreement with the P.R.S. had never been signed.