OPERATING
Tribunal requires location lists
Jukebox operators across the
country are still reeling from the
major setback they received at the
hands of the Copyright Royalty
Tribunal. September 6 the five-
member panel handed down a ruling
which requires operators to disclose
their jukebox locations to facilitate
the distribution of royalties under the
new jukebox copyright law .
That new law, which went into
effect January I , requires operators
to pay eight dollars per jukebox per
year as payment for the right to use
the copyrights of the records played
in the jukeboxes. The money
collected under this law is then
disbursed to the three performing
rights societies-ASCAP, SESAC ,
and BMI-which own the copyrights .
However, when the Copyright
Tribunal made its ruling concerning
location listings, it stopped short of
giving ASCAP and SESAC every-
thing they requested, which was also
to be allowed access to the interiors
of the phonographs to check the
popularity meters. Notably, one of
the performing rights societies, BMI,
sided with the operator's national
association (AMOA) in saying that
location listings and checking the
AMOA
defends mailing
The A.M.O .A , in its monthly
newsletter (The Location) , defended
its actions of mailing out jukebox
licensing forms to member operators
when the jukebox copyright law went
into effect in January .
The national association had come
under some criticism by member
operators who, although registering
their jukeboxes , felt that such a
mailing by the A.M.O .A. was not the
proper function of the association .
The mailing , these operl1tors con-
tended , gave the impressivn that the
AM .O .A. was not looking out for
the best interests of the operators but
was serving the opposition instead .
However, the response in the
monthly newsletter pointed out that
many association members also felt
that the A.M.O .A. also stood to be
criticized for failing to inform its
members if it had not mailed out the
applications .
10
phonographs' interiors was not
necessary and was , in fact , dupli -
cating information already available
in the music charts of the trade
magazines .
Thomas Brennan , chairman of the
Tribunal , told PLAY METER that
one of the main reasons the Tribunal
did not give the performing rights
societies the right to access to the
interiors of the machines is because
the Tribunal Hdid not want to place
an undue burden on the operators .
When asked if in fact didn't location
lists place an undue burden and
jeopardize the business confidentia-
lity of operators, Brennan said it was
the opinion of the Tribunal that the
lists were not necessary confidential
information and that the requirement
did not place an undue burden
on operators .
Brennan did say, however, that
the Tribunal would possibly entertain
a motion from the AM .O .A. which
would stipulate that the location lists
be used only for the one purpose of
locating jukeboxes and that a
violation of that principle by any
performing rights society would
constitute its forfeiture of any
royalties for possibly a year .
Presently there seems to be a
II
question as to whether or not the
Tribunal has given operators enough
time to comply with the new
regulation . Operators who have
already registered their jukeboxes
have until November 1 to supply the
Tribunal with location lists, and
operators who registered their
jukeboxes after October 1 have ten
days from that time to come up with
the lists . It appears , however , that
there may be an attempt by someone
before that date to obtain an
injunction and then test the new
ruling in court.
Brennan also said operators will
not have to supply location lists at the
beginning of each year when they
register their jukeboxes, but rather
will have to come up with the
location lists by October 1 .
According to a recent estimate by
the Copyright Office , most jukeboxes
still remain unlicensed . The Copy-
right Office estimates that about
268,000 jukeboxes are operating in
the United States without a license
and that only 132,000 jukeboxes
have secured licenses. This repre-
sents a collection in royalties of only
$1.1 million . The Copyright Office
was anticipating a pool of $4 million
in royalty collections .
Simplify, simplify, and
Now that operators have had
more than six months to live with the
new copyright law , more and more
operators are saying that it is difficult
at best to comply With , that it is too
complicated , and that compliance
would be much greater if the
requirements for obtaining licenses
were simpler .
Recently the AM .O .A. had asked
its operator-members for their
comments on the implementation of
the new law , and operators let loose
with a barrage of complaints about
the new law .
What purpose is served , many of
them asked , by requiring the
manufacturer's name and serial
number of each jukebox when
applying for licenses? And why must
the whole thing be further compli-
cated by prohibiting the transfer of
licenses from one machine to
another when a machine is sold or
pulled off the route and another put
in its place? Would there really be
such a great loss of revenue , many of
them asked , if they were permitted to
transfer certificates from one ma-
chine to another?
HI have fifty machines , explains
one operator, "and I buy 50-plus
licenses: some extras to cover
anticipated additions to my route , but
if I sell some machines or if I make
replacements, it would be much
simpler to transfer licenses from one
machine to another. The main thing
is to keep my machines licensed .
Another operator summed it up this
way : HI believe that there would be
better compliance if all an operator
had to do was send in a check for a
II
II
PLAY METER, October, 1978