copyright owners 'pleased'
by the BMI, and $70 sought by
AS CAP, she stated; the fact that $50
falls directly between those sums
was "coincidental," she said.
At BMI, General Counsel Ed
Chapin on being told the CRT's
decision, said, "We're generally
pleased we got close to $30 in the
initial $25 fee, and that it is raised
from $8."
For SESAC, which received some
$60,000 in 1980 as its share of
approximately $1 million collected
from jukebox fees, its Vice President
Albert Ciancimino said he had a
mixed reaction that there was not a
higher fee immediately. To the
extent the Tribunal at least initially
decided to allow $25 in 1982 and '83,
we are somewhat disappointed-but
I'm pleased the Tribunal is in effect
phasing in a $50 rate, an apparently
realistic figure.
"I think the rate from 1987 on is
satisfactory to us and ASCAP
because it will increase substantially,"
Ciancimino added.
He also noted AMOA General
Counsel Allen's "difficult row to hoe"
in the case which resulted in a
"com promise, " in the SESAC
officer's term. Ciancimino said Allen
presented "a good argument to the
Tribunal to phase in the higher
figure."
He added that, although the
royalties society sees the new fee
scales as a "more realistic rate," it
views a higher fee justified by the
years before 1978, when the jukebox
royalty fee first went into effect.
The effect of higher fees on
ju kebox sales may well be
depressive, a spokesman for Rock-
Ola Manufacturing said . "Any
increase has got to affect the
jukebox operator's philosophy," the
officer said, but he declined to
comment at length on the CRT
ruling. (Rock-Ola personnel gave
time and testimony in the hearing
process before the CRT in
Washington, D .C . during 1980,
supporting the case of the operator
and the AMOA.)
The added cash for performing
artists was argued by ASCAP on the
basis of "marketplace analysis," or
what jukebox operators and the
performing rights organizations
would theoretically negotiate face-
to-face, if there were no Copyright
Tribunal involved.
Last year , the major rights
organizations approximately divided
the $1 million collections in equal
parts, with five percent going to
SESAC for its members. That sum
was based on 1978 collections.
The licensing agency for the
jukebox is the Licensing Division of
the U.S . Copyright Office, Library of
Congress. That division's chief,
Walter D. Sampson, Jr., appealed to
jukebox operators to comply with
the requirements to register.
Renewal applications were to be
mailed in the last week of December
to operators licensed in 1980-
135,000 machines. Also, his office
seeks "potential operators," who are
not known to be jukebox operators
but who show up on the larger U.S .
cities' lists of licensees for vending.
Sampson said he expects to mail a
total of 500,000 forms asking
compliance with the registration fee
requirement. That is the estimated
total number of jukeboxes in
operation. (However, the results of
the 1980 Play Meter Anuual
Subscriber Poll showed slightly over
320,000 phonographs in actual
operation in the United States.)
Collections from fees at late 1980
were nearly matching, or slightly
exceeding the $1 million-plus
revenue from 1979 collections.
The licensing division chief told
PLAY METER, however, "We get
calls from operators saying, 'the guy
across the street isn't licensed-
what are you going to do about it?'"
The Copyright Office itself has no
enforcement powers; compliance
with the licensing law is, effectively,
voluntary. Action against those in
non-compliance is left up to the
performing rights societies to take to
court. That continues to be done, as
operators in alleged non-compliance
are found by agents of BMI and
ASCAP.
In 1981 , a computer was
scheduled to be utilized by the
Licensing Division. It will pair
operators licensed in 1980 with those
returning the renewal form by the
January 31, 1981 deadline-to
produce a printout of potential
unlicensed machines in operation.
Sampson in October told PLAY
METER that follow-up mailings to
operators licensed in 1979 produced
a number of responses of "out of
business."
The question apparently had not
been settled by early 1981, but a
measure of enforcement rests in
Washington, beyond the Copyright
Office's door. By one observer's
interpretation, copyright infringe-
ment as defined by the 1978 law is a
federal offense. It mainly provided
protection for the copyright owner
to take civil action in court, but
technically the U .S . Justice
Department can prosecute alleged
violators. While such action has not
been reported, Justice Department
officials have investigated the
possibility, said Sampson.
As a matter of record in the
Copyright Office, fewer jukeboxes
were licensed in 1979 (136,000) than
in 1978 (144,368).
The funds taken in by the License
Division are invested, and after the
operating expenses of the division
are deducted, the remainder is
turned over to the Copyright Royalty
Tribunal to distribute to the
performing rights societies.
The chairman of the CRT,
Clarence James, declined to
comment for publication on the
reasoning of a particular per-box
dollar amount assessment until the
Tribunal's actions were registered in
the federal record.
The ruling was the resolution of
the verbal battle that began in
hearings during spring 1980. With an
AMOA appeal possible, the end to
the issue was not yet in sight as the
new year approached.