Play Meter

editorial
Q voiding the tOYQI sceptte
We don't think the jukebox industry is dying, but
it could get killed if Congress sticks the royalty
shaft to it.
That's why we have always supported and
continue to support the Music Operators of America
position on performance royalty, mechanical royal-
ty, artists' royalty and the Copyright Tribunal.
Throughout its history, the jukebox has re-
mained exempt from review of the royalty fee its
owners have paid by any group other than
Congress. But now, because of a provision in the
Senate copyright revision bill [So 22], jukebox
operators are threatened with having the annual
per box fee they pay subjected to review and
possible increase by an appointed bureaucratic
body known as the Copyright Tribunal.
The Congress, of course, is tired of hasBliDa with
the complex, thorny problem of copyricht law,
which governs everything from the poem you wrote
in seventh grade to the playing of a radio by a
restaurant owner for his customers. A Copyricht
Tribunal would take some of the load off SeDaton
and Representatives by deciding every five or _
years whether people who pay to use another
person's copyrighted material should pay more or
less. The natural tendency, of course, is to make
you pay more.
Fortunately most of the other points of conten-
tion between jukebox interests and the music
business' recording rights interests in the proposed
copyright law were ironed out and compromised
before the Senate voted in February to pass its
version of the law.
Unfortunately, the Copyright Tribunal stayed in
the version that swept through the Senate on the
voting day. The bill currently before the House [H.
2223] does not have this provision, but the final
draft that both houses must agree upon could have
8
the tribunal provision if operators throughout the
country don't let their Congressmen know what
such a provision could do to them.
And don't think that just because you're a strictly
-games operator or only a minor music operator
that you won't be affected. If, in the foreseeable
future, a Copyright Tribunal decides the presently
proposed and agreed-upon $S per bo.x per year fee
is not enough and that a SIS, S20 or S25 fee is
needed, think of the blow it would cause not only to
strictly-music operators, but to the manufacturers
as well, to the coin-op amusements industry as a
whole.
The games segment of our industry has a stake in
this issue as well. Ruination of one segment of the
business by Congressional action could easily lead
to destructive action against another segment,
especially with the continuing search for new tax
bases with which to keep government running.
For all these reasons we ask that you support
MOA' efforts to have the tribunal segment of the
proposed law deleted before it reaches the
President's desk. For your information, the
tribunal references are contained in Sections SOl [b]
[1] and 802 [a] of S. 22. We also ask that you support
the 2.5 cents mechanical fee in Section 115 of S. 22
and oppose the 3·cent fee proposed in H. 2223.
Oppose also the proposed royalty for recording
artists asked for in another house bill, H.R. 5345.
The reason for all the number is so that you can
quote them to your Congressman. Fact sheets on
the history of the issue will be made available by
MOA soon; get to know the facts and make sure you
help in the lobbying effort when asked.
While we often talk about one segment or the
other of the industry, please remember that it is
still one industry--music and games.
PUt' Itf£TER