Play Meter

COMMENTARY
IT AIN'T SO, MR. DAVID!
In the February 17, 1984, edition of the New York Daily News , Hal David, president of ASCAP, charged
that operators don't want to pay copyright fees for the music in their jukeboxes. In a counterpoint charge ,
Play Meter asserts that jukebox operators have been paying copyright fees to songwriters all along-they
just haven 't been going to Mr. David's ASCAP.
Getting a fair play from the jukebox
By HAL DAVID
I
AM A SONGWRITER and. over the years. I
have been fortunate enough to enJOY a good
deal of success-success that I attnbute to a lot
of hard work. a little b it of luck. and f~rst and
foremost. liv1ng 1n a country that has always
fostered a cl1mate of creat1ve freedom Freedom to
choose the kmd of work you prefer. freedom to
pursue your obJeCtive 1n your own way The other
day. I completed a song lyric wh1ch tells th1s
story-my story , and that of so many others l1ke
me. I call 1t "Amenca Is ... and the words go
something like this: " America IS a telephone man
who climbs up a pole. a mmer who d1gs deep down
in a hole. and each one 1n search of his own pnvate
goal m America."
I wonder how many of you are aware of a pro·
blem that exists nght now wh1ch threatens to
destroy the very fabric of our Amencan cul ture Let
me explam
The Federal Copyright Law of 1909 gave certa1n
nghts to the mus1c creators a1med at protecting
their property and enabling them to rece1ve JUSt
compensation for the fru1ts of their labor-their
mus1c Translated mto pract1cal terms. 1t stipulated
that anyone who uses music for profit had to get the
permission of the copynght owners in order to
perform the~r mus1c in public Th1s was Congress'
way of not only helping to sustam the individual
creator. but also the music of our country. And
the music of Amenca has long been one of our
major resources
For. wherever our mus1c goes. we take pnde 1n
the good w1ll 1t generates But m add1t1on to
generating good will. our mus1c generates good
dollars It IS. 1n short. a very prof1table bus1ness all
over the world. Now let's take th1s one step further
In the Un1ted States the sale of records and tapes
came to $3 5 billion 1n 1982 Add the momes
generated by concert tours. mus1ca l theater.
spec1al events. sheet music . folios . f1lms and so on .
and you could make an 1mpress1ve case for the
contribution of music to the world economy
And yet. there ex1sts a peculiar dichotomy 1n our
country On the one hand. the mus1c cre ators are
trying to make a liv1ng at creating something the
whole world wants-the~r songs: and on the other
hand. the music users are trying to get the mus1c .
which is the bread and butter of the~r business. for
as little as poss1ble and preferably for free
The most dangerous example of th1s tug of war
IS happen1ng nght now An enormous group of
mus1c users. the JUkebox operators. through the~r
powerful lobby m Washmgton . have pressured
Congress mto draftmg a p1ece of legislation wh1ch
would. if 1t IS enacted. rob the mus1c creators bf JUSt
compensation for their mus1c and turn ups1de down
the whole not1on of copyright protection
What the jukebox interests are press1ng for . in
fact. is that they pay a one·tlme fee of $50 per
jukebox. or a buy-out of any and all of the mus1c
perfor med on the~r mach1nes 1n perpetuity
Daily News, Friday, February 17, 1984
Mr. David has appealed to the publicfor sympathy, but
he's ignored one important fact . Jukebox operators have
been paying a royalty fee to the songwriters all along . Each
time an operator buys a record , he pays a mechanical
royalty fee which goes directly to the copyright owner.
Operators do not buy a song once, they buy it in volume.
That means the copyright owner is already paid in multiples
for a single creation.
The current schedule (beginning July 1) for the
mechanical fee is 4.5 cents per song or .8 cents per minute of
playing time, whichever is greater. On a typical 200-
selection jukebox, the operator is already paying a $9
mechanical royalty fee for the selections on the jukebox . If
that's not enough for songwriters then-dammit!-raise it.
The mechanical royalty fee was raised but only sl ightly.
Jukebox operators would have preferred an even higher
assessment there instead of creating the present
abomination where a blank machine is assessed an
additional charge.
Mr. David insists jukebox operators don't pay royalty
assessments. How can he say that? Why do you suppose Mr.
By way of background . the rev1sed Copyright
Act of 1976 established that jukeboxes would pay
the nd1culously low fee of $8 per box annually. In
addit1on. Congress create d the Copynght Royalty
Tnbunal to adJUSt th e fee to a reasonable level.
After extens1ve heanngs. the dec1s1on was to
phase m an annual $50 fee per jukebox over a four·
year penod. The JUkebox operators appealed this
dec1 s10n to the courts and lost.
N
ow. when you th1nk of it. $50 is not an unrea·
sonable number when you consider that
JUkeboxes literally live off the mus1c they
perform. W1thout the music they would have no
purpose. The ~rony of that mstead of supporting the
raw matenal that g1ves them their livelihood. the
JUkebox operators persist in destroying their
golden egg along w1th the goose
I'm calling this s1tuat1on to your attent1on because
you . the publ1c, w111 be the ultimate losers if the crea ·
tors no longer have an 1ncent1ve to create. and the
mus1c stops
And tha t's just the beginning. Once one area of
the arts crumbles. what's to stop a similar chipping
away at the other areas of the arts?
CHal Dav1d 1s pres1dent of the American Society
of Composers. Authors and Publishers. Among
his best-known works as a lyricist are "Raindrops
Keep Falling on My Head." "A lfie " and "What the
World Needs Now Is Love.")
.
David chooses to ignore or forget this royalty fee which
comes in the form of mechanical royalty payments?
It's simple . With a mechanical royalty fee, the
songwriters get their royalty payments up front through the
Harry Fox Agency i n New York City without the need for an
intervening agency like Mr. David 's ASCAP. Since jukebox
operators are quite willing to pay higher mechanical rates
and do away with the copyright assessment on a jukebox-
one must ask: Is Mr. David more interested in what' s good
for songwriters or what 's good for ASCAP?
The fa~t that AMOA is willing to go along for any per-
jukebox fee concession does not show it to be a" powerful
lobby in Washington .. . " It's actually an association that's
willing to make concessions that even its members find
ridiculous.
Not ridiculous you say, Mr. David? It's not ridiculous to
pay a copyright royalty fee for a jukebox? It's just as absurd
as paying a copyright fee for a blank cassette tape. The focus
of this issue should be raising the mechanical royalty fee to
accomplish the end result of giving the songwriters more
money.
•