Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ii.

Register of Copyrights, Report to the House of Repre-
sentatives, May 1958, Part 6, p. 58.

RRNA Study.
See Note 6.

See Note 3. In terms of real (1965) dollars, this has
been a 43$ decline. (Beginning songwriters, requiring
little capital investment to pursue that line of
work are -- like the small farmer of an earlier genera-
tion --apparently undeterred at least in the initial
stages by an inequitably low return for their efforts.)

10. CBS Records president Goddard Lieberson in a May 1974

address in London, and RCA Records executive Chet
Atkins in April 1965 both emphasized that "the song's
the thing" without which the best artists, musicians
and recording equipment and technicians cannot be
successful.

11. Congress feared that the Aeolian piano roll company was

seeking & monopoly by making exclusive contracts with
most of the important proprietors of musical copyrights.
It thus provided in the Copyright Act of 1909 that,
once the copyright owner of a nondramatic musical work
had exercised his exclusive right to license the mechanical
reproduction of that work to one recording or piano
roll company (or record it himself), any or all other
companies had the right to purchase a license to make
similar use of that work, without some statutory
ceiling on the royalty to be charged, Congress then
decided, such a right was unworkable; and after consi-
derable deliberation that ceiling was fixed by law at
2 per selection for each record or piano roll manu-
factured. Talking machines were new, and record prices
varied widely in a range far below their present level.

1969 Report on Mechanical Royalty Rate on Sound Recordings by Mr. Edward Knight of the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service.

[blocks in formation]

15. Por a single, of course, the maximum increase would be

3€ per record (one selection on each side) over the
level noted by the House a decade ago. Juke-box con-
panies, which in the last year alone paid an increase
or 25in the cost of singles purchased wholesale from
the record industry (Statement of Fred Collins, Jr.,
President, Music Operators of America, Billboard,
July 19, 1975, p. 3). are thus unlikely to Teer any
noticeable economic impact from even this maximum
three penny Increase.

[graphic]

16. See Note ).
!' $. Rep't 93-983, 1974, p. 148.

(Emphasis added.)

See Pro!. Clover's testimony, for example, on pp. 19,
#4, 689, 901. 822. 16, 777, 810 and 773 of the June
1965 Mear irge before the House Judiciary Subcommittee
or. yright. Prof. Glover also warned that increas-
11 theme hani.al rate ceiling right require a
tection in the number of songs per album. The ceil-
ir has not been raised but the reduction (from 12 to
IC! occurred anyway, thereby increasing the record

ary'. price per song and decreasing the composer's
toyaity per altum.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Saie. Urits Priceli?! Ps $ 5 192M $2.6.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

:::mare 1962-68 International Record Survey. Pp. 10-11

1. June 1 5. p.). --

I

n the aralysis contained in this statement relles e osarily on pulis liet prices, the age-old prevalence ct di&unt at the retail level does not alter the conclusions trav poretre, ramu. S it i. he relative change in prices watete last 10 years that matters and there i. no evidence tate ratio of realised actual retail price. to list prices

a. Se line. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that Hey have den in the art ten years, thus ignifying an even lar fer eftective price et Selection increase than the 1100 cited in the text.

See Mr. Davis'. deniny. pp. $19-516, March 21, 1967
Sonat. Judiciary

S

i ttee Nearing.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

fax, en hia tax vs. res ealed, vever, the in ustry test to fire at the bare love and poleted the 196 per record notead of passing thi. Having. on to the consumer.

iv.

23.

Billboard, March 9, 1974, p. 4.

24. Billboard, February 1, 1975, p. 3; See also Billboard,

August 17, 1974, p. 8: "... the record tape industry is
recession-proof." See also New York Times, July 23,
1975: "even in a recession, there are huge profits to
be made in recorded music..." "There's nothing like
the record business,' said Marshall Blonstein, a vice
president of Ode Records:

People talk about big hits in the movies. You know how much it costs to produce a record? - about $40,000, and you can make millions."

25.

26.

Billboard, April 5, 1975, p. 4.
Billboard, July 6, 1974, p. 4. See Transcript of testimony
of Joseph B. Smith in U.S. V. Taxe et al.
In truth even this under states the record company's
profit and overstates the music composers' and publishers'
income because the current prevailing tape price is
$7.98, not $6.98, and, as shown above, the royalty rate
of the majority of selections is below the 2¢ ceiling.
The New York Times also estimates a much higher gross
profit margin. Op. cit. supra, Note 24.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »