Chris Castle’s Comment to Justice Department on 100% Licensing: Part 2 — Artist Rights Watch

A look back at comments to the Department of Justice by our regular commenters–whose input was ignored along with everyone else from the music industry who took the time to provide the Obama Administration with practical solutions and on the ground observations. Was the “public comment” process rigged? via Chris Castle’s Comment to Justice Department on […]

@musictechpolicy: The Obama Administration Is Lame Ducking An Unworkable Burden on Songwriters: 4 Reasons Why It’s Bad Law — Artist Rights Watch

If the Obama Administration wants to lame duck their way out of amending (or terminating) these ancient consent decrees, they could at least do songwriters the courtesy of requiring their revolving door appointees to tell songwriters to their faces at a public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, the Administration encouraged songwriters to wrack […]

Canadian Music Publishers, Indie Labels and US Indie Publishers Reject Obama Administration Position on 100% Licensing — Artist Rights Watch

In what may be a foreshadowing of the WTO arbitration yet to come, the Canadian Music Publishers Association joined A2IM and AIMP in condemning the Obama Administration’s position on 100% licensing to protect the largest corporations in the world from collective action by songwriters. via Canadian Music Publishers, Indie Labels and US Indie Publishers Reject Obama […]

Why Has the Obama Department of Justice Gotten Stealthy on 100% Licensing?

The Obama Department of Justice has been conducting invitation only conference calls with songwriters about the DOJ’s proposed 100% licensing regime they’d like to impose by means of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. And these are the calls we know about–I have to assume that the Administration is doing the same with Digital Media Association, Public Knowledge and who knows who else. It is unclear whether any of those comments received or transcripts of conference calls will ever be subject to…ahem…the Freedom of Information Act.