« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Mr. ROGERS. Of course, you are on the sales end of it. Do
know, how many authors and composers are entitled to distribution under that set-up?
Mr. COLLINS. Of course, that is not my particular end of the organization, but our entire membership would be entitled to the receipts that we collect. That runs approximately, I would say, now about 2,500.
Mr. AHLERT. Twenty-five hundred authors and composers, and about 450 publishers.
Mr. Rogers. In other words, around 3,000 for whom you arrive at the credit performances that Mr. Harbach has testified to?
Mr. COLLINS. That is correct.
Mr. ROGERS. Now, I assume that the eleven and a half million dollars you testified to has reference to the net collection? Mr. COLLINS. No, that is the gross collection.
. Mr. ROGERS. Before paying the agency?
Mr. COLLINS. That is before our cost of operating our various offices and the staff that we have in New York.
Mr. BRYSON. Is that before taxes also ?
Mr. ROGERS. Are you in a position to break down the approximation of what it takes to operate this organization expensewise, as to the eleven and one-half million dollars that may be collected ?
Mr. COLLINS. I would say roughly that the cost of operation today, which is considerably higher than what it was before, would run very close to 30 percent.
Mr. ROGERS. In other words, it would leave between $7 and $8 million, to be distributed according to the credit performance formula that you use?
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. We operate on a strictly cash basis and all moneys are disbursed after necessary expenses.
Mr. Rogers. Now, when the rights of the individual are assigned to ASCAP, do you make arrangements with the recording companies, Capitol, RCA, MGM ?
Mr. Collins. Of course, I have nothing whatsoever to do with that myself, but I do know that ASCAP has nothing whatsoever to do with the collection of any fees for the manufacture of recordings. We solely have one right that we administer, and that is the performance right.
Mr. ROGERS. That is the performance right when it is for profit? Mr. COLLINS. Public performance for profit.
Mr. Rogers. And ASCAP in the performance under their copyrights does not have any rights or cannot go against any company that makes a recording of these copyrights without permission ?
Mr. COLLINS. That is correct, sir. We do not have any interest whatsoever in recordings.
Mr. ROGERS. In other words, if Joe Blow went down and sang Smoke Gets in Your Eyes for one of the recording companies, so far as ASCAP is concerned, so far as the author is concerned, they cannot collect anything whatsoever?
Mr. COLLINS. ASCAP has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Well, your question, as I understood it, was whether ASCAP has anything to do with or collects anything with reference to records. We have nothing at all to do with it. Of course, what the composer and author and publisher do with the recording companies is something peculiarly within their own province. We have no interest in it whatsoever.
We have the right to administer only the performance right.
Mr. ROGERS. Suppose Tom Smith is a great singer and he is in great demand by the public and they want his records. He is a performer that not only performs on the stage, but radio, and also cuts records for some of these companies who may employ him.
Now ASCAP would not require of Tom Smith, would they, that: he secure a license before collecting a fee for those performances!
Mr. COLLINS. No, sir; ASCAP has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
As I said, our license is issued directly to the commercial users of our members' works, the man who uses the music in a commercial enterprise.
The man to whom you referred, the artist who cuts a record for any recording company—and there are, of course, hundreds of them-does not have to obtain any license from ASCAP whatsoever.
Mr. ROGERS. But suppose he went out as a performer and put on a performance for a profit and sang songs.
Mr. COLLINS. He would not require any license. The man who is using the music in his business would require the license from us.
Mr. ROGERS. What do you mean by the man in a business?
Mr. COLLINS. The man who is engaged in a commercial enterprise of entertaining the public as a means of bringing them into his establishment to sell them whatever he is selling, whether it is food, drink, or dancing. He is the man with whom we do business. He is the commercial operator of the establishment.
Mr. ROGERS. Let us forget the food, drink, and the jukebox for the moment.
Now, if Joe Smith was a performer and he sang songs and he went from theater to theater, ASCAP would collect a fee for that; would it not?
Mr. COLLINS. From the theater owner if it was in the theaterthe man who is using the music in his business. · Mr. Rogers. Yes, and out of that you require, you said, different fees from the establishment, depending upon the size!
Mr. COLLINS. That is correct.
Mr. Rogers. Did you make any study as to how those performances may increase the desirability of the public to replay, or have replayed to them, songs that may arise under that circunstance? I mean by that, over the radio.
Now, you do collect from radio stations? At least they have to have licenses?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir; if they use our works.
Mr. Rogers. Did you ever consider the question of additional revenue for ASCAP because of the uses that may promote popular desire of people to hear songs,
may be registered with ASCAP?
Mr. COLLINS. I am not sure if I understand your question, Congressman. I would say, though, that any song becomes popular through public adoption or public appeal, no matter what the song is, and the amount of popularity I suppose depends on how many of the public it attracts, or how many of the public like it.
But I suppose there is no way of measuring the popularity of the song except by the people who are engaged in the business of selling records or sheet music.
Mr. ROGERS. Now, are you familiar with the contents of this bill, H. R. 5473, that we have before us?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. To the provisions of this act, it requires that for each week that a certain record may be in the machine the tavern keeper, or any person who operates more than two jukeboxes, shall pay to the author 1 cent a week.
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS. I assume that if this became the law, it would necessarily follow that ASCAP as such would be the policing officer to see that the royalties are paid? Mr. COLLINS. Insofar as our members are concerned, I presume that
I we would have the right. We, of course, are not the sole organization that protects the rights of composers and authors in the country. There are other similar organizations.
But insofar as our members are concerned, we would have the right to license such use.
Mr. ROGERS. Let us take the members of your organization. You are acquainted with the sales organization and you get out and sell it to the boys, so to speak.
Just outline briefly, if you know, what plan you may have for the collection of the 1 cent per record per week from each tavern or place that
may have more than two juke boxes. Mr. COLLINS. Of course, in licensing any use, we would naturally like to license it on a basis that would be most economical for us to administer, as well as easiest on the user from the point of view both of collection and mechanics.
I would say that probably the easiest method, if this law should be put into effect, would be to issue a license to whoever is going to be responsible for the payment of the fees on some sort of blanket basis.
Mr. ROGERS. In other words, the easiest thing for ASCAP to do in the event that this law is adopted, would be for them to create a new formula, so to speak, as you now have formulas dealing with licenses you now issue to individuals who have performances for profit, and settle with the man who has more than one machine and by his paying a definite fee rather than 1 cent a week per record ?
Mr. COLLINS. Of course, that would be the easiest method of handling it.
Mr. Rogers. Would there be any other method ?
Mr. COLLINS. Of course, it would depend a good deal on the eventual language in the bill that is passed, but I would say it would be the easiest method if it could be worked out efficiently and effectively.
91590—51-ser. 11, pt. 1--2
Mr. ROGERS. Now, assume we went along with the proposition that the authors were entitled to something, and as this bill is written 1 cent à week a record, it would give to ASCAP, then, a proposition that says they can go to the operator and say, “We will make this kind of deal and that kind of deal.”
Mr. COLLINS. I think we can very easily work out some mutually satisfactory arrangement that would both make it easy for the user and efficient for us to operate under so it would be of benefit to both sides,
Mr. ROGERS. As sales manager for ASCAP, you know that the minimum damage in the event of violation is $250, plus attorney fees?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. If a man failed to make the proper accounting, or failed to get the license, the passage of this bill would subject him to the minimum damage of the $250, would it not?
Mr. AHLERT. Congressman, can I get Mr. Finkelstein to answer that? That is a legal question. I would rather have an attorney answer it.
Mr. ROGERS. That will be fine. I agree with you Mr. Finkelstein knows the legal angle of it. He has been before the committee before.
But let us go one step further. At the present time would you outline to this committee what your usual fees are under ASCAP for those who are performing for profit? What is your minimum, and what is your maximum
Mr. COLLINS. The fees, as I say, are drawn up on a scale which takes into consideration the type of establishment, the size, the amount of music it performs and how many nights per week.
We have a minimum fee which runs approximately $60 a year, about $5 a month. That fee would, of course, be for the small user.' That takes into consideration full-time operation. We do have seasonal licenses which I might also mention whereby the license would only run about $30 a season.
Mr. ROGERS. As an example, in my State we have a number of resorts in the mountains where they probably do not operate over 3 months.
Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir; they do not operate over 3 or 4 months.
We have a seasonal license for that type of operation, but our minimum fee for a full-time operation all year long would run approximately $60 a year. Now that fee varies.
As I say, it could run $90 to $120, and when you come up to an establishment like some of the real larger ones, it could be more.
Mr. Rogers. For a national hook-up on radio, do you license each?
Mr. COLLINS. That is on a different basis. I am talking now about the general type of establishment, the small man that runs a restaurant, tavern, or night club.
Mr. ROGERS. Now, you are familiar with the provision of this bill to the effect that it does not require the payment of a fee if you have only one juke box?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Now you heard the testimony of the president of your association, Mr. Harbach, to the effect that approximately $500,000,000 a year was collected out of the nickel-and-dime operations of these jukeboxes. Are you familiar with any survey that has been made in that regard ?
Mr. COLLINS. I am afraid I am not, Congressman. This happens to be an industry that pretty much, as far as I understand, is what you might call a secretive business. I have seen figures from time to time estimated, but I do not know of any definite figure.
People do not have very much available in printed figures. I have seen some estimations.
Mr. ROGERS. It would necessarily follow that you have no information as to how many places would have one jukebox?
Mr. COLLINS. No, sir; we do not.
Mr. Bryson., There would be a great many more having one box than having a multiple number?
Mr. COLLINS. I should imagine so. Very few places have I seen that have more than one jukebox.
Mr. ROGERS. A very few places?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes, that have more than one jukebox. Offhand, I doubt if there are very many at all that have more than one jukebox.
Mr. ROGERS. Is not the reason for making the liability on two jukeboxes or more to get those places where they do go in more for commercial operation of music? That is to say, if a man sets up a large dance hall and has a box that can operate, and he is bound to have more than one there, that is the fellow you are trying to get at?
Mr. COLLINS. No. I would not say so, Congressman. I think it was very well stated in the letter of Senator Kefauver that was read at the beginning of the hearing that the intention was to exempt for payment the man who actually owns a single jukebox.
Mr. AHLERT. Congressman Rogers, can Mr. Finkelstein answer that?
Mr. ROGERS. Certainly.
Mr. COLLINS. No, I do not, sir. As to the amount of income from the industry, I do not know of any printed figures that have given any information. I have seen some figures as to the number of actual jukeboxes that are supposed to be in existence in the country, printed in some of the trade periodicals, and the figure is estimated variously between 500,000 and 600,000.
Mr. Rogers. Of course, you do not have to answer this question unless you want to.
Do you think that Senator Kefauver's interest in this bill may have been stimulated as a result of his crime investigation?
Mr. COLLINS. Congressman, I am afraid I will have to refer that to Senator Kefauver.
Mr. BRYSON. Congressman Reed wishes to ask you some questions.
Mr. REED. One of your answers was not quite clear to me. Perhaps I was not paying very strict attention at the time.
You said that your gross receipts were around 111/2 million dollars ? Mr. Collins. That is right.
Mr. REED. Your net would be somewhere between $7 and $8 million ?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes.