To prohibit and to prevent the trade practices known as "compulsory block-booking" and "blind selling" of motion-picture films in interstate and foreign commerce (1939)

TRADE PRACTICES IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY \$ What the Big Eight fear is loss of monopolistic privileges over and above the legitimate rewards of enterprise — privileges that have been enjoyed so long that they are now regarded as vested rights.18 These privileges have given rise to great benefits as indicated by the executive salary list printed in the record. One Hollywood executive received, in 1937, a salary that exceeded the combined salaries of the 96 United States Senators. Most of all, they fear competition. A spokesman for the independent exhibitors declared there was only one thing the distributors had to fear from the enactment of the bill: That is the opening of the business to the competition of independent production. With compulsory block booking abolished, the Big Eight, in common with all other industries, will have to sell their products on their merits. An independent picture which is better than a trust-made picture will supplant it on the screens. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE BIG EIGHT'S TRADEPRACTICE PROPOSALS OR THE PENDENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT SUIT Producers' proposals. — After having failed to make good on promises of voluntary reform undertaken while similar legislation was under consideration in 1936, 19 the Big Eight,20 on the eve of the hearing on this bill, brought forth a proposed voluntary trade-practice code as a substitute for the bill. Objections were raised by the proponents of the bill on the grounds (a) that because of the manner in which the proposal was brought forth and the history of such attempts in the past, the good faith of the gesture was open to doubt; (b) that the committee room ought not to be made a "bargaining counter" for the adjustment between different branches of the industry of practices affecting the ^public ; (c) that since the proposal really amounts to an agreement to perpetuate in modified form the practices in question, it is of doubtful legality; and (d) in any case, it is not a fair substitute for the bill. The producers' proposals do not abolish compulsory block booking or blind selling, but, on the contrary, they propose to perpetuate those practices. Certain of the proposals would slightly diminish the hardships of compulsory block booking, but they would effect no change in blind selling. Belief from the effects of the objectionable practices would be slight, and such as it might be would be accomplished (1) by a limited right of cancelation, (2) by allowing the withdrawal of a picture locally offensive, (3) by allowing an exhibitor to get a popular picture under special circumstances without having to lease an entire block. (1) The proposals insure the perpetuation of compulsory block booking because the cancelation privilege offered would not be available to an exhibitor unless he had contracted for the entire number of feature pictures 21 offered to him at any one time. The proposal is for a 10, 15, or 20 percent cancelation privilege, depending upon the price of the whole block. Thus the right would be a limited one and could be nullified by padding the block with a quota of cheap pictures or "cheaters" upon which the exhibitor would have to exhaust his whole privilege of cancelation. There was testimony to the effect that some of the producers resorted to such tactics '8 The bill of complaint in United State-' v. Parammmt et at., supra, mentions 9 oppressive practices which the Big Eight impose upon independent exhibitors, and 6 special benefits in the leasing of film which they extend to each other but withhold from the independent exhibitors. 19 Hearings before House committee on H. R. 6472, pp. 366, 367, 369, 459. 20 Except United Artists. 21 Except cheap westerns, foreign pictures, and reissued pictures.