PLAY METER: With the copyright law about to go
into effect, what has the A.M.O.A. been doing
recently with regard to this matter?
GARRETT: Well, we know the operators are going
to have to pay eight dollars for each jukebox; the
law has already determined that, but what we've
been doing is concerning ourselves with the
implementation of this law. How is the operator
going to have to file? What information is he going
to have to include when he files? These are
important questions. According to the legislation,
the operators are going to have to give their names
and addresses, and either the manufacturer's serial
number for each box or else some other explicit
identification of the phono record player. Now,
what we are going to try to get the copyright
tribunal to go by- instead of the name and address
of the manufacturer and the manufacturer's serial
number is the phrase "other explicit identification
of the phono record." You see, there is no need for
the name of the manufacturer, and it doesn't make
any difference if it's a serial number or a coded
number that is assigned to each box by the
copyright office. We're trying to simplify this law
just as much as possible so that we can comply with
it.
PLAY METER: And what do the performing rights
societies want in the implementation of this law?
GARRETT: To start with, they feel-in fact, they
have always felt-that eight dollars a box is too
low. So obviously they are going to be trying in the
future to jack the ceiling up. But, to answer your
question, what BMI wants from the operator is a
rather lengthy list. They want the name and
address of the manufacturer, the manufacturer's
serial number for each box, the name and address of
the operator, the name and address of the jukebox
lease (if there is one), the expiration date of that
lease, the name and address of the records
di tributor, the number of records that are in the
jukebox, the titles of the selections that are in the
jukebox at the beginning of the calendar year, the
additions and deletions during the course of the
year, and the titles of the selections at the end of
the calendar year. In addition, they also want
separate certificates for each unit, instead of one
certificate for multiple units. It's just impossible to
comply with a request like that. It would take a
stack of records a foot high to comply with some of
their wishes.
PLAY METER: Obviously, BMI is asking for quite
a bit of information. But what about ASCAP and
SESAC. What are they asking for?
GARRETT: Well, ASCAP didn't ask for the same
things explicitly. But to give you an idea, BMI's list
is just two sheets; ASCAP's is maybe twenty. What
ASCAP did was take each phrase of the law and
break it down and give what they are asking for.
PLAY METER: Do you think the final implementa-
tion will be closer to what AMOA is asking or what
ASCAP or BMI is asking for?
GARRETT: Your guess is just as good as mine on
that. It was for that reason that we met with BM!
and with ASCAP and SESAC and held lengthy
discussions with them. The first meeting was with
BMI, and it lasted about 2112 hours, and I think it
PLA Y METER, November, 1977
was a very worthwhile meeting. They asked many
questions about our business, questions which, I
think, showed that they don't know too much about
our business at all. But I think that after their
meeting with us they had a better understanding of
our business. And the same thing held true of our
meeting with ASCAP and SESAC. After that
meeting, I think they better understood our
position and how our business operates. One thing
which really surprised them was the number of
machines that we move from year to year. I
estimate that about forty or fifty percent of the
jukeboxes on an operator's route are moved in a
period of a year. In my own business, for instance,
about forty percent of the jukeboxes are moved
within a given year. I operate in a resort area, and I
might buy 20 or 25 brand new machines to cover my
very best locations at the beach. They demand a
new machine every year. And that new machine
will stay there for about four months. And then,
when the beach season closes, I bring those 20
machines in and put them on my 20 best locations,
and I move the 20 machines that are on those
locations to my second-best locations, and so on
down the line for my third-best and fourth -best
locations. The performing rights societies didn't
realize that there was this much moving going on.
They are familiar with background music where
you put it in and it stays there for fifteen years.
PLAY METER: Do you now feel they will modify
their requests somewhat?
GARRETT: I hope so. The AMOA tried to point out
to them at the meetings that all that is necessary is
for the operators to be identified by name and
address and then there should be a certificate
number or some kind of identification number
which would be issued from the copyright office.
We tried to show them that, because of the
highly-mobile nature of our business, it's just not
feasible for us to list our locations. Besides, listing
by location is not authorized, nor is it appropriate.
Listing by locations serves no useful purpose. If we
had to list the locations then, with all the changes
we make with our jukeboxes every year, in addition
to the initial registration of 450,000 machines, there
would have to be about 225,000 more re-registra-
tions over the course of the year. Obviously, such
voluminous and costly paperwork can only result
in a drastic reduction in the net royalties that would
remain for distribution at the royalty office. Also, if
listing by locations were required, then moving a
jukebox from one location to another would
presumably invalidate that certificate. In fact,
ASCAP had a request to this effect, that the
operator pay an additional eight-dollar fee each
time the jukebox is moved. Our attorney, Nicholas
Allen has pointed out to them in a letter that this
request was "utterly unreasonable, arbitrary, and
capricious." He told them it would make the law
confiscatory and destructive to the jukebox
business. The primary consideration should be,
quite simply, is the jukebox registered and the
royalty paid? If it is registered, then the location of
the jukebox is immaterial. If the box is not
registered, then, obviously, it is in violation of the
law. And such a result flies in the fact of the
9