UP FRONT
AMOA's secret deal:
What do you think?
In the "Letters to the Editor" section of this issue,
the outspoken and oftentimes controversial New York
operator Millie McCarthy contends that the recent
agreement between the jukebox operators' national
association (AMOA) and the performing rights societies
was, in effect, a sellout, a case of bad leadership fashion-
ing a bad deal for operators .
She wrote, "The Copyright Tribunal was given the
right by Congress to do us in ... so I don't fault them for
trying to get all they can. However, our side didn't have
to second the motion. This is America. We had a right to
know. This country was founded because of Taxation
without Representation, and now we find we're victims of
a secret agreement."
Since we received that letter, we've talked to
numerous state association executives to find out what
their operator members think about the deal. And we've
talked to numerous independent operators across the
country on the matter. And, quite honestly, we're getting
a very disturbing reading of the operators' sentiment on
this issue.
A few do contend the AMOA pulled off a coup, that
they gained a rebate from the performing rights societies
on nothing more than a bluff. They said AMOA gained a
rebate from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (the performing
rights societies) in exchange for dropping a legislative
push that the performing rights societies didn't know was
doomed to fail anyway.
But others contend the performing rights societies
are not dummies, that they knew as well as everyone else
on Capitol Hill that AMOA's legislative push was
doomed .
Some say, under the circumstances, what AMOA
achieved was the best solution the industry could
possibly hope for. After all, the other side had all the
money, and Congress was getting sick and tired of
hearing AMOA's plea to help save the jukebox operator.
Yet others contend the AMOA achieved nothing.
They say the agreement AMOA reached with the per-
forming rights societies was in the works long before
that. They've even said AMOA actually tried to censure
and silence operators who were working independently
toward this very same compromise .
A great number of operators complain because they
never got the chance to vote on the deal before it was
approved by AMOA's leadership.
But many are upset with AMOA agreeing to any
quotas on jukebox registrations because that furthers
the arguments by the performing rights societies which
contend the low number of jukebox registrations is due
to operators disobeying the law, rather than the simple
fact that there are fewer and fewer operators operating
fewer and fewer jukeboxes today . By AMOA agreeing to
higher and higher quotas, these operators contend, the
performing rights societies will be in a position, when
these quotas aren't met, to paint a picture of the jukebox
operator as a lawless businessman, and that will be the
basis for their exacting further concessions from
operators.
6
(A pathetic sidenote on this subject is that another
industry publication has already endorsed the AMOA
quota system and claimed there are untold thousands of
"free riders out there who haven't paid their license fees
yet.. .Right now, all we want is for those free riders to
pony up." Again, this helps only to further ASCAP's
future claim that there are untold thousands of jukebox
operators violating the law. After all, if the operators'
own association and one of its publications agree , then
surely the lawlessness must be yampant .)
Some claim they've cancelled their AMOA mem-
bership because they see the agreement as a sellout that
has cost them more in dues over the years than they will
ever realize in rebates .
And still others say the whole mess is a dead issue ,
that they've gotten out of the jukebox business a long
time ago. Still more claim they wrote off long ago
anything good ever coming out of AMOA's fight over
jukebox copyrights and that there are more important
issues facing the industry today.
But nearly everyone is in agreement about one
thing. They don't think AMOA has the right to enter into
any arrangement with the performing rights societies
and then keep that arrangement secret from its mem-
bers . And this, more than anything else , is eating away at
AMOA's membership. Since this agreement affects
jukebox operators directly , they feel they ha ve a right to
know all the terms of the agreement their association
made.
In hopes of opening a dialogue on this subject, we're
offering you the opportunity to voice your opinion in
letters to the editor on the subject. What are your views
about the AMOA compromise? In a future issue, we will
give our view. But we want your views now.
What are your feelings about the AMOA entering
into a secret agreement with the performing rights
societies?
Are you satisfied with that agreement?
Do you think more could have been achieved?
Are you satisfied with the direction of the AMOA?
Are you satisfied with AMOA's leadership?
Do you think changes have to be made within the
association?
Does the jukebox copyright issue warrant further
attention - politically, legally, even editorially?
Or should the industry-especially AMOA -
refocus its energies into other areas?
Whether you want to praise , condemn, impeach, or
promote- we want to hear from you . The specter of a
secret agreement should not have the effect of muzzling
the operators in this industry; and, for that reason, we
want to hear from you .
9c
David Pierson
Editor
PLAY METER. July 1. 1985