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)

10 TRADE PRACTICES IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY These being the facts of trade practices in negotiations for contracts, the provisions of a bill which have application only where a distributor offers for contract or completes a contract for motion pictures "at a designated lump-smn price for the entire block" or group, are futile. It has no meaning. The first clause of section 3 (1) would put a conmiand upon the salesman of a distributor, if he offers more than one fihn, not to require the exhibitor party to the negotiation "to lease all such films or permit him to lease none." Distributors' \\'itnesses testified emphatically that their salesmen do not make any declarations accompanying negotiations with an exhibitor that the exhibitor must take all or none. Nor do they "stand pat" and refuse to license any if an exhibitor refuses to take all. They do seek to persuade an exliibitor to take all of the films they have to oft'er. It is natural that they should do so, and there is nothing reprehensible in such conduct. The bill's provision insofar as it is applicable to proliibiting a salesman from concluding a deal for more pictures than an exhibitor "wished" to contract for at the outset of the negotiations is aimed at the art of honest salesmanship with which no statutory provision should interfere. If a salesman offers a group of pictures and the ofl'er is rejected and the salesman refuses to consider the lease of less than the number in such group until the block has been successively offered to the exliibitor's competitors, there is nothing illegal or unfair in such method of negotiation and insofar as the provision would prohibit such conduct on the part of the salesman, it is entirely unwan-auted. Clearly a salesman ought to be able to refuse to consider an offer for less than a block of pictures imtil all possibility of selling a block has been exhausted. The distributor should not be made to forego the right to sell in such quantities as he chooses and be made to sell only in such quantities as a particular customer desires to huy. The second clause in turn deals with the regulation of prices at wliich motion pictures may be offered or at which contracts for their exhibition may be concluded, and is apparently designed to prevent a distributor from insisting on an increase in prices or from achieving an increase in prices if individual motion pictiires are accepted by the exhibitor. Apparently it seeks to condemn not all increase, but some. How much is not stated. Tliis clause would be operative to control the business conduct of the distributor's sales representatives in negotiations with exhibitors entirely in the area of prices to be quoted or prices to be charged by agreement. It is a price measure and only a price measure. Legislation which would venture into the perilous regions of price regulation in the field where price determination is subject to so many varied factors which differ in each negotiation, ought to be at the least sufficiently certain and definite so that those who are directed to give obedience" to the legislative mandate under pain of criminal sanctions may be apprised of the standards of conduct to which they must give obedience. This second clause of section 3 (1) provides no such standard. It would appear to be an obvious fact that motion pictures which are licensed in groups may be more economically licensed at lower prices than those which are licensed singly. It would also appear to be obvious that there is a variation in the position in which various