Archive

Archive for the ‘DOJ’s New 100% Licensing Rule’ Category

The Return of 100% Licensing and the Expansion of the Blanket License

November 21, 2019 Comments off

Who can forget the nightmare of the Justice Department’s counterproductive flirtation with 100% licensing the last time the DOJ reviewed the consent decrees.  (We covered the 100% licensing head fake in a podcast and a guide to 100% licensing.)

Since then, the Congress passed the Music Modernization Act, which includes a massive overhaul of the mechanical licensing system which is currently the subject of an implementing rule making.  What does the MMA have to do with the PRO consent decrees?

More than you might think.  If you recall, one of the big justifications for supporting the MMA legislation that did not include a terrestrial performance right for sound recordings was due to the lobbying firepower opposing the terrestrial right.  We were told that artists were never going to win the terrestrial right (which is what the #irespectmusic campaign is all about) so we should just give up and think of England, so to speak.  Or more precisely, support the MMA.

If you drill down on Title I of the MMA (which creates the Mechanical Licensing Collective, etc.), what it does at a high level is create a compulsory license for certain activities, a global rights database, and a regulatory authority for all of the above.

Note–“certain activities.”  At the moment, those activities are limited to digital phonorecord deliveries, including on demand streaming, limited and permanent downloads.

But–guess what?  Those activities could be expanded to include compulsory blanket licenses for other exploitation rights of songs, like general licensing (bars, hotels, restaurants), broadcasting and anything else the lobbyists can jam through.  All administered by the Mechanical Licensing Collective, which if such an amendment comes to pass probably would have to change its name to something catchier like, you know, Skynet.

And remember, we don’t stand a chance against these lobbyists, right?  Remember?  Now whoever saw that coming?  And how might the lobbyists get involved with a DOJ consent decree review?  Well, because of what I call “Title IV,” which is the provisions of Title I that relate to Congressional approval of any consent decree reform for the PROs and a couple other things the PROs wanted.  (Congressional review because you have to keep an eye on the anticompetitive leanings of those pesky songwriters against MIC Coalition members with a $5 trillion market cap.)  So who are these masterminds and lobbyists?  (There is no actual Title IV by the way, that’s just a teaching tool.)

MIC Coaltion Members 2019

The MIC Coalition

Billboard reports that we’re not the only ones worrying about this angle:

Sources further say the PROs and some songwriter groups both fear that if the issue goes to Congress [under Title IV], the music business will face several industries with more lobbying power than themselves, all intent on getting legislation for a compulsory license. Even worse, music licensees would also likely push for the law to include 100% licensing — meaning only one songwriter’s consent would be needed for a song to be used— an outcome which publishers, songwriters and PROs have described in the past as a disaster.

But don’t worry, the smart people will figure this out.  Don’t bogart the popcorn.

Major Defeat For Google-Era Justice Department, Huge Victory for Sanity and Songwriters

December 19, 2017 Comments off

Great news today that the appeals court upheld BMI’s ruling by the BMI rate court judge that there is no such thing as 100% licensing under the consent decrees.  Although it’s like winning an appeal that the Sun really does rise in the East (attention Berkeley students), it’s good to put that issue to one side and to poke a stick in Google’s eye.

hesserenata

More on this to come, but who can forget the Kafka-esque insanity of Renata Hesse and David Kully, two former Google-era Justice Department antitrust officials who saddled thier colleagues with one of the most bizarre cases in the history of the music business:  100% licensing under the out of date, anticompetitive and frankly destructive PRO consent decrees.

Hesse and Kully’s behavior was so bad that songwriters actually had to sue the DOJ for, among other things, a brilliantly argued claim for unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation as a result of  what clearly appears to be Google-inspired overreach (see MTP’s timeline on Renata Hesse’s assault on songwriters and Scott Cleland’s timeline on how Hesse always seemed to be there at just the right time and just the right place to protect Google’s interest from the government oversight that Google loved to focus on other people–like those pesky songwriters.)

A little tea leaf reading suggests that there may be some appetite at the DOJ for at least cutting back the consent decrees if not sunseting them altogether, particularly since we have GMR and others trying to get into the PRO market in the US.  (A fact that is probably not lost on the MIC Coalition price fixing cartel which no doubt would like to see any new MRO take over PRO licensing for the true one-stop shop.)

More to say on this once I get a chance to read the opinion.

We all owe a big thanks to BMI for taking the fight to the government despite the odds against prevailing over the MIC Coalition cartel.  Truth may be stranger than fiction, but truth has a way of prevailing if you ride toward the guns.

Now maybe the DOJ could reopen an investigation of the real antitrust violators–Google and the MIC Coalition.

A Guide to the Department of Justice Ruling on “100% Licensing”

December 11, 2017 Comments off

[Editor Charlie sez:  This is a repost of the original from September 2016 in light of the recent appeal by the Department of Justice.]

By Steve Winogradsky and Chris Castle, all rights reserved.

The recent ruling by the U.S. Department of Justice in United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc. and United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers has left many songwriters, publishers, motion picture and television producers and, yes, even lawyers scratching their heads to understand the import of the ruling.  Not to mention Texas Governor Greg Abbott who has written to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking her to reconsider the DOJ ruling.

The authors have summarized the ruling in the chart that follows.  The thing speaks for itself.

As you will see, the left hand column lists the various roles of a music creator (starting with “Songwriter”) or music user.  The rows describe some of the potential combinations of co-writers who will run afoul of the DOJ’s ruling.  The chart is followed by a list of descriptions of what rule will apply to your situation.

If you find yourself in the left hand column, scan across the rows to see if you fit in any of the co-writer positions.  Then look for which note applies to you in the list of notes below the chart.

For example, if you are an ASCAP songwriter who has co-written with a BMI songwriter (1st box in column and 6th row across), Note E applies to you.

This chart is based on the authors’ interpretations of the DOJ’s statement and is not dispositive or based on a court ruling as there has been none as of this writing.  Obviously, this is not meant as legal advice and you should not rely on it.  This is a complex area that has gotten even more complex, and you should consult with your own lawyers.

For further background, listen to the MTP podcast with Steve Winogradsky, David Lowery and Chris Castle and read Steve’s book Music Publishing–the Complete Guide.  And essential reading on the issue is that evergreen resource for legal research on takings and other government behavior in the digital age, The Trial, by Franz Kafka.

By popular demand, download a copy of this post with the chart here.

 

100% ASCAP or 100% BMI (single writer or all co-writers belong to the same PRO) 100% SESAC and/or GMR

(single writer or all co-writers belong to one of these PROs)

100% Foreign PRO/ASCAP Collects in US 100% Foreign PRO/BMI Collects in US Co-write

ASCAP & BMI

Co-write ASCAP or BMI with Other U.S. PRO Co-write foreign writers, where 1 is represented in the U.S. by either ASCAP or BMI and the 2nd is represented by a different PRO
Songwriter Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note E, below Note E, below Note E, below
Publisher Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note F, below Note F, below Note F, below
TV Producer Note C, below Note B, below. Note C, below Note C, below Note G, below Note G, below Note G, below
Film Producer Note C, below Note D, below Note C, below Note C, below Note G, below Note G, below Note G, below
Webcaster Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note G, below Note G, below Note G, below
TV Broadcaster Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note H, below Note H, below Note H, below
Radio broadcaster (terrestrial or satellite) Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note I, below Note I, below Note I, below
Interactive Streaming (Subpart B&C) Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note J, below Note J, below Note J, below

Notes

A. All songs may be licensed under either ASCAP or BMI’s blanket licenses

B. All songs may be licensed under both SESAC and GMR’s blanket licenses

C. Obtain synchronization licenses from each party for their respective shares, as is current custom and practice. All songs may be licensed under either ASCAP or BMI’s blanket licenses

D. Obtain synchronization licenses from each party for their respective shares, as is current custom and practice. All songs may be licensed under both SESAC and GMR’s blanket licenses

E. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI unless the co-writers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-writer agreement and PROs setting up a structure for paying non-member writers. Depending on their songwriter/publisher agreements, writers could issue direct licenses to users upon request and collect performance royalties directly

F. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement and PROs setting up a structure for paying non-member writers & publishers. Publishers could issue direct licenses to users upon request (which might include the writer’s share) and collect performance royalties directly

G. Obtain synchronization licenses from each party, as is current custom and practice. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. TV, film or webcaster producer could request directly performance licenses and pay parties directly. If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, producer may not include songs in their productions.

H. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. Broadcaster can either require TV & film producers to obtain direct licenses or broadcaster can obtain them directly from publishers (which would include the writer’s share of royalties. If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, producer may not include songs in their productions.

I. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. Broadcaster can obtain direct licenses from publishers (which would include the writer’s share of royalties). If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, broadcaster may not include these songs in their broadcasts.

J. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. Streaming service can obtain direct licenses from publishers (which would include the writer’s share of royalties). If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, broadcaster may not include these songs in their streaming service.

 

 

Will Congress Bring Songwriters a Lump of Coal or Justice?

October 17, 2017 3 comments

It is axiomatic that as government expands, liberty contracts. Songwriters are among the most highly regulated workers in America, so on the continuum of liberty, guess where songwriters score? Most people are surprised by that unadulterated, and rather bleak, fact. After all, songwriters don’t make anything toxic or build in places they shouldn’t or dump chemicals in a waterway. Songwriters don’t have monopoly power. Songwriters don’t even get to set their own prices—the government largely does that in a very expensive and Kafka-esque process. They just write songs.

Not only are songwriters highly regulated workers and are forced by the government (or to use a term from political theory, “the Sovereign”) to bend a knee, the Sovereign has abdicated the enforcement of the laws protecting songwriters to the songwriters themselves except in rare criminal cases. Not only has the Sovereign failed to afford songwriters the same level of protection as the desert tortoise, the Sovereign actually requires songwriters to enforce the laws themselves. Sounds like a reality show.

So rather than getting even more government, songwriters are due for either getting the Sovereign out of their commercial lives, or if justice fails them yet again, at least getting the Sovereign to actually enforce the law.

Why is this important now? Because the Congress has conducted a “review” of the laws affecting songwriters and it’s possible that the Congress now is about to actually do something in the waning days of the current session of Congress. For songwriters, the holiday season is a good time to remember the most terrifying words in the English language: I’m from Washington and I’m here to help.

The Royalty that Time Forgot

The Sovereign compels songwriters to license their songs in two principal ways: The compulsory license for “mechanical” copies (Section 115 of the Copyright Act) and the rate courts (under a 1941 consent decree for ASCAP, the longest running consent decree in history, and a comparable one for BMI dating from 1964). The government set the mechanical royalty rate for the compulsory license at two cents per song per copy in 1909 and then forgot to raise it until 1976 when in its largesse, the Sovereign raised the rate to 2.75 cents per copy—inflation alone would have put the mechanical at 12 cents in 1976. That shadow of that injustice has dogged songwriters ever since and to this day.

Imagine for a moment if the Sovereign had set any other wage in 1909 and then forgotten to raise it for 67 years.

Today that same rate is 9.1 cents where it was set and forgotten in 2006—eleven years ago. So songwriters live in the shadow of that “minimum” statutory rate for which they never got relief from the Sovereign.

The Current Landscape

The main threats to songwriters from Washington come from one bill and the failed administration of two agencies: The Copyright Office and the Department of Justice. All these threats emanate from what is likely the largest lobbying cartel in history, the “MIC Coalition” an organization created for one purpose in my view: to crush songwriters once and for all. The MIC Coalition seems devoted to fixing prices for songwriters at zero or as close to zero as they can get them as far as I can tell.

The bill in Congress is the proposed Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act (HR 3350) which is fully backed by the biggest of big businesses (MIC Coalition) to the detriment of the smallest of small businesses (songwriters). This legislation would impose yet another formality on songwriters by creating a massive database that would supersede the current copyright registration system for one purpose—denying songwriters the right to sue for statutory damages and attorneys fees in cases of copyright infringement. According to this legislation, if your song is not on the government’s list, then you can’t use the one big stick to drive compliance with the Sovereign’s own rules governing compulsory mechanical licenses.

Why is that? Because you are most likely to be suing a member of the MIC Coalition, or more precisely suing a member of one of the several trade association members of the MIC Coaltion—the DIgital Media Association (or “DiMA” in the logo above). The Digital Media Association is comprised of Amazon, YouTube, Apple and Spotify among others and has long been a stake in the side of the creative community. That’s right—one trade association member of the MIC Coalition represents three of the biggest corporations in the commercial history of the United States.

One alternative to statutory damages would be for the Department of Justice to assume a greater role in the enforcement of the copyright law. But the MIC Coalition has no intention of allowing that. No, no, no. The plan is to create a Gargantuan “gotcha” in order to take away statutory damages and attorneys fees as a right of any copyright owner to sue and replace it with….nothing.

Agency Failures

It is well to remember that the U.S. Copyright Office is a pre-New Deal legislative branch agency that has none of the civil or criminal enforcement powers we have come to associate with post-New Deal regulatory executive branch agencies. While the Copyright Office issues regulations, the Sovereign predominately leaves the enforcement of these rules to creators, publishers and labels to enforce at great expense. This is the one place that the Sovereign seems to want the market to work—the part where the Sovereign abdicates its primary purpose, that of protecting the people. Like I said, the desert tortoise fares better than the songwriter.

The Copyright Office does have power to affect the market by refusing or failing to act, however. For the last two years or so, the Copyright Office has permitted over 50 million and counting “address unknown” notices to be filed on compulsory song licenses using a backwater loophole of the Copyright Act. The loophole deems a song owner to be “unknown” if the owner’s contact information and song ownership is not available in the public records of the Copyright Office. This means that unless you have gone through the expensive and lengthy formality of registering with the Copyright Office for all your songs, you are “unknown”. If a cover recording of your song appears on a digital music service, then rather than track you down before using the song, the service can simply file—at great expense—an “address unknown” notice with the Copyright Office. This has resulted in approximately $5 million in filing fees to the Copyright Office to date according to an estimate from Paperchain.

And who is filing these notices and paying these fees? Google, Spotify, Amazon, iHeart, Pandora—all members of the MIC Coalition price fixing cartel. Think that’s a coincidence? Using this loophole, these corporate giants pay a zero royalty for their compulsory licenses. Hence, the cartel attempts to fix the price for songs at zero or as close to it as they can.

The Copyright Office permits these filings to occur and to my knowledge has raised no objection to it. They are unmovable on this point while they watch songwriters burn down. (I have a longer article on this “address unknown” issue here.)

The Department of Justice is currently engaged in a massive charade called “100% licensing”. This new and abrupt change in the way the DOJ interprets the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees was brought about under the auspices of a former outside lawyer for Google who was installed as a senior official in the antitrust division of the DOJ. What this interpretation means is that on co-written songs, the longstanding practice of each songwriter on a co-write administering their share of the song is thrown out the window. Instead, each songwriter is required to license 100% of the song, including their co-writer’s share. (Recall that Irving Azoff challenged Google by forming Global Music Rights and requiring a separate license for his writers who withdrew from the government-regulated PROs.)

The BMI rate court judge ruled against the DOJ—but the Sovereign is now appealing that ruling. The DOJ’s handling of the situation was so bad that songwriters actually sued the DOJ.

What is to be Done?

First—the DOJ should drop the appeal of the BMI rate court ruling against 100% licensing.  It’s a waste of time and creates substantial hostility among songwriters.

Second—the Copyright Office should stop accepting address unknown filings and refer the matter to the Congress to close the loophole. Digital services could also refuse to post recordings for which they have no publisher information, which is action most likely to produce unknown information from the market.

Most importantly—the Congress should not introduce yet another distortion in the market with some unicorn database that will never work.

As we approach the season of hope, it is well to echo what songwriters and publishers have told Congress for years: Songwriters need more liberty, not less.

Google Shills and Pandora’s MIC Coalition Want DOJ to Appeal BMI Ruling–Soviet Style

September 21, 2016 Comments off

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested….”And why am I under arrest?” he then asked. “That’s something we’re not allowed to tell you. Go into your room and wait there. Proceedings are underway and you’ll learn about everything all in good time….”

From The Trial, by Franz Kafka.

Right on cue, one Google Shill after another is floating the idea that the U.S. Department of Justice should appeal their latest oopsie to the Second Circuit.  Talk about ungrateful–Judge Stanton, the BMI Rate Court judge was also the judge in Viacom v. YouTube and the accompanying artist-oriented class action against Google.  In the YouTube case, Judge Stanton ruled for YouTube.  Back then he was hailed by Google Shills everywhere as a great jurist, the peoples’ judge and hero of the disruptive class, because he poked a finger in the eye of bourgeois artists.

Talk about your sore losers–Judge Stanton went from #hero to #goat in record time as CCIA’s Matt Schruers told Bloomberg:

Matthew Schruers, vice president of law and policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association [CCIA], which represents technology companies like Pandora and Google, said he expects the department to appeal the decision.

“Today’s decision will increase uncertainty for music licensees and threatens to complicate an already opaque licensing landscape,” he said in an e-mail.

The CCIA is an OS–Original Shill, which is of course what they get paid to be.

As is Public Knowledge, who we heard from next:

pk-google-shills

Here’s a press release from the Chief Gloater at Google Shill Lister Public Knowledge, which can be summed up in the well-known edict from Miniature, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH:

The following be attributed to Raza Panjwani, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge:

“We are deeply disappointed by Judge Stanton’s summary dismissal of the Department of Justice’s carefully-considered interpretation of the BMI consent decree. The plain language of the consent decree, BMI’s statements to the DOJ, BMI’s marketing language about its licenses, and appellate precedent all support the DOJ’s interpretation. Fractional licensing threatens to deprive the public of access to music by undermining a licensing marketplace that generates over a billion dollars in revenue annually for BMI alone, and which hundreds of thousands of business and outlets rely on to use and play music. This decision introduces uncertainty for users, opens the door to anticompetitive behavior, and should be appealed and reversed.”

Good thing they never asked a songwriter what they thought.  Because if this fake problem actually exists, it’s existed for decades–which, as every songwriter knows, it hasn’t.

And then of course, there’s the MIC Coalition which is how all this got started from the way I read the tea leaves.

The MIC Coalition is the supergroup of astroturf, a bottomless pit of money and venom built around Pandora, Google, Clear Channel (aka iHeart), the National Association of Broadcasters, and some other smarminess:

ccia-mic-coalition

MIC Coalition Members

CCIA is a member of the MIC Coalition, as you can see.

Never heard of the MIC Coalition?  You only think you haven’t, which is astroturf done right.  If you attended SXSW this year (or last year) you may have attended a panel moderated by the long-time Washington lobbyist Maura Corbett pushing the astroturf Berklee-ICE “transparency for thee but not for me” proposals from one Panos Panay and wondered to yourself–who is that person and why is she here?  Lobbyist for the MIC Coalition, silly.  Naturally she disclosed that…no, wait, she didn’t.  I know, I sat through the entire panel (Unlocking the Future of Music with Transparency)–the only transparency on that panel was from Alex Ebert (Magnetic Zeros) who pretty clearly was not in on it.

So the MIC Coaltion has an interesting website–they seem to be a major client…sorry…outlet…for Public Knowledge’s recent work product attacking the Copyright Office.  That website has this post about the BMI ruling:

MIC Coalition Urges DOJ to Appeal Judge’s BMI Consent Decree Decision

The MIC Coalition released the following statement in response to Judge Stanton’s recent declaratory judgment in the BMI consent decree case:

“Judge Stanton’s abrupt judgment hurts music lovers across America. By overturning DOJ’s correct and necessary affirmation that the BMI consent decree requires full-work licensing, this ruling undermines the decades-old efficiencies provided by the BMI license, ignores the consent decree’s explicit requirement—affirmed by the Supreme Court—that it indemnify the public performance of works in the BMI repertoire, and turns a blind eye to BMI’s own contracts and statements that make unambiguously clear they have, and continue to, recognize the consent decree’s longstanding requirement to license works in their entirety. All of this, while robbing both the Justice Department and interested parties of their due process, since this declaratory ruling was issued off-the-cuff at a pre-motion conference.

“If left to stand, this decision eviscerates the entire purpose of the BMI blanket license, hurting every restaurant, bar, hotel, winery, local broadcaster, digital music service, retailer and other venue that plays music. This judgment does nothing short of create the exact kind of anti-competitive music marketplace our antitrust laws guard against, causing immeasurable harm to these local establishments and services, their many millions of customers, and to the songwriters and musicians to whom their royalty dollars are paid.

“The mission of the Antitrust Division is to promote economic competition. The DOJ staff took this important responsibility seriously, and should vigorously defend their work of more than two years to fully investigate, listen to all parties, and then take appropriate action under the antitrust laws. We urge DOJ to expeditiously appeal.”

###

Judge Stanton was “robbing the Justice Department and interested parties of their due process”.   Really?  Funny, that’s just what the songwriters are suing the DOJ about.

“The DOJ staff took this important responsibility seriously”.  Really?  Here’s what they took seriously:

hesse

hesserenata

So once again–Google and Pandora are behind yet another blatant attack on songwriters.  What’s different this time is that songwriters are fighting back, thanks to Songwriters of North America and songwriters Michelle Lewis, Thomas Kelly and Pamela Sheyne who are suing the Department of Justice, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the acting head of the Antitrust Division Renata B. Hesse.

Google and Pandora are doing what multinational corporations always do in litigation–they bring out their shills to talk to the press about an issue that neither the press nor the shills really have any visceral understanding, but which is absolutely clear to songwriters.

Mr. Kafka kind of summed it up:

They’re talking about things of which they don’t have the slightest understanding, anyway.

Franz Kafka, The Trial

Original Sin and Obama’s Missed Opportunity: What’s Next for the ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees? — Music Tech Solutions

September 19, 2016 Comments off

For the moment, songwriters are in a holding pattern but with the wind at their backs. I’m still looking forward to an explanation of why Google, Pandora, Clear Channel and a host of other giant multinational corporations with hundreds if not thousands of lobbyists need the awesome power of the U.S. Government to protect them from…songwriters.

via Original Sin and Obama’s Missed Opportunity: What’s Next for the ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees? — Music Tech Solutions

The Harder They Fall: Kafka 1 DOJ 0

September 16, 2016 Comments off

Details to follow, but the BMI rate court judge ruled against the Department of Justice on 100% licensing.  Here’s the important part of the ruling:

Nothing in the Consent Decree gives support to the Division’s views.

That’s what I call the ontological definition of losing.  You know…gloating is so unbecoming but sometimes it’s really hard not to.

Here’s the BMI press release:

BMI PREVAILS OVER DOJ IN CONSENT DECREE DISPUTE
NEW YORK – September 16, 2016 — Today, federal Judge Louis Stanton issued an order rejecting the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) recent interpretation of the BMI consent decree, and concluded that BMI is free to engage in the fractional licensing of musical works.  This decision immediately followed oral arguments heard today from both parties. Judge Stanton’s ruling is now the controlling interpretation of the BMI consent decree, and a copy can be found HERE.
Below is a statement from BMI President & CEO Mike O’Neill on today’s decision:
“As we have said from the very beginning, we believed our consent decree allowed for the decades-long practice of fractional licensing and today we are gratified that Judge Stanton confirmed that belief.  Our mission has always been to protect the interests of our songwriters, composers and publishers, and we feel we have done just that.  Today’s decision is a victory for the entire music community.”
ASCAP CEO Beth Matthews said:
“This is terrific news for all of us in the songwriting community as we continue to work on modernizing the consent decrees to reflect the real world.”
And Mr. Kafka said, no shit.
%d bloggers like this: