EDITORIAL:
The copyright spiderweb
Now then, what was it the spider said to the fly in that
fable?
Something about "Welcome to my parlor"?
Jukebox operators are feeling a whole lot like that fly
right now, ever since they were led by the copyright
spiders into the webbed parlor of governmental
bureaucracy.
You're supposed to expect unbiased and even-handed
treatment at the hands of governmental agencies. But
jukebox operators are slowly starting to realize that's not
necessarily the case. For it seems the non-profit special
interests groups (in the jukebox operators' case, the
performing rights societies) have too much influence
over the machinations of these bodies.
Take for instance a tribute this past fall by the
Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) .
NSAI presented its seventh annual President's Award to
Barbara Ringer, the former U.S. Register of Copyrights
in Washington, D.C., for being the individual "who has
personally contributed the most to further the aims and
welfare of the songwriters this year."
Ed Cramer, president of BMI, one of the major
performing rights societies, was on hand for the
presentation. He called Ringer "a true friend of the
songwriter and a staunch defender of copyright. She is
universally recognized as the principal architect of the
new copyright law which has substantially extended
recognition of the rights of copyright holders."
Ringer, in accepting the tribute, stated, "There is no
group of creators today that means more to American
culture than you (songwriters) do."
Perhaps Ringer can be forgiven for her effusiveness
since, after all, the award she was receiving was coming
from a songwriters association. Obviously, there's
something amiss with any such sweeping statement that
would seem to elevate the cultural contributions of
creators of songs (that oftentimes don't last much longer
than a sixty-second commercial) above the cultural
contributions of novelists, poets, playwrites, artists,
sculptors, and other creators.
But the award does point out the patronizing
familiarity of special interests groups , such as BMI, and
governmental bureaucrats, who in their assigned tasks
are not supposed to be representing any one side on any
one issue.
It's been obvious to everyone closely concerned with
the compulsory jukebox copyright law, for instance, that
the members of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, another
government agency, are hardly unbiased. Play Meter has
documented several instances where CRT members
have allowed their prejudices to show through. Much of
it is now part of public record, from the testimony at the
various CRT proceedings. It's something that, for the
most part, both sides have chosen to ignore. But past
associations and close kinships between CRT members
and the performing rights societies cannot be ignored.
Instead, they cast a cloud of doubt over the fairness
these bureaucrats can show in any issue that closely
affects a side they are friendly with.
The payoff for that friendship came December 10,
when the CRT decided to raise the per-jukebox fee from
PLAY METER, March, 1981
$8 per jukebox to $25 per jukebox in 1982-an increase
of more than 300 percent. Then they will double that fee
to $50 in 1984. And three years later, they'll raise it again,
according to an inflation index.
The jukebox operators' national association, the
AMOA, has appealed the ruling, of course, saying the
rate is too high. But ASCAP , one of the performing rights
societies, though it has already said it was pleased with
the rate adjustments made by the CRT , is also appealing
the CRT decision, saying it is too low.
Why are they doing that? Look at it this way: What
would you think if you were the judqe at such an appeal,
and one side came in saying the rate is too high, and the
other side came in saying the rate is too low? The
reaction will be that apparently the rate is just right.
Now operators can continue their fight, haggling over
the price of music, or else they can start a grassroots
political movement to get a new law, something which
has been needed from the beginning. From the mood of
the electorate this past November, the timing is good for
such political action. Special interests groups , like the
performing rights societies, have lost a lot of the liberal
support which has given them a free hand. The mood is
to lessen government's interplay with private industry,
not to expand it.
But operators are going to have to get politically active
to take advantage of that sentiment. Otherwise, they had
better get used to getting all tangled up in that
bureaucratic web that is the spider's parlor.
David Pierson
Editorial Director
Patsy Bruce of NSAI and Ed Cramer of BMI offer tribute to
governmental employee, Barbara Ringer, right. Can bureau-
crats fraternize with special interests groups and still remain
objective?
5