Alt view of Consent Decree

[jonnybutter]

I'm going to get rid of this link, because I think it's FUD. It's not hard to find if you want to read it.

[Cruciform]

I would say consider the source. "Public Knowledge" are lobbyists funded by tech companies. They are not advocating in your interests. They are operating to advance the agenda of corporations who benefit from relaxing your rights as a creator.

[jonnybutter]

I would say consider the source. "Public Knowledge" are lobbyists funded by tech companies. They are not advocating in your interests. They are operating to advance the agenda of corporations who benefit from relaxing your rights as a creator.

I *always* consider the source, buddy! I live in the USA, where just about *everything* you see or read or hear is a pitch of some kind!

How do you know that they're funded by tech companies? Not saying you're wrong, just wondering how you know. They look like they're funded by Ford Foundation, McArthur Foundation, et. al. I wouldn't call foundations 'impartial' but they aren't tech companies. Also don't understand why a tech company would care about writers not to be able to share credit inter-PRO.

I'm honestly curious about this issue. I don't like the upshot of the ruling (inter-PRO), but there's more going on than I really understand in this, and was just curious what ppl think.

[Cruciform]

Look at their funding page. Read their policy agendas. https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-u ... knowledge/

[andygabrys]

well I found out this week that my PRO (BMI) is launching a lawsuit against the DOJ on this issue, so that likely tells you two things:

1) Rob is likely correct that any organization that considers the DOJ ruling to be a step forward stands to make a lot of money, or make a lot of money off those who are making a lot of money (which would figure in the lobbyists). I think its believable that steamrolling the rights of the little people (us) who are represented by the PRO's to make it easier for corporate interests to do what they want is likely what all the corporate figures want. Less money put out for advertising for example if music rights can be secured much more easily for less money.

2) PRO's like BMI either stand to lose significant income, or lose significant bargaining power and clout in the music licensing marketplace. Like for example restaurants and bars that publicly perform music have to secure blanket performance licenses from ASCAP / BMI. Who knows what would be the long term implications of the DOJ interpretation. Would it go beyond performances on TV etc.?

Just my opinion.

Checking some of the links that Rob posted, check this: https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/ ... ensing.pdf

look at the table of contents on page 13

Code: Select all

III. SIMPLIFYING MUSIC LICENSING BY CREATING DIGITAL MUSIC RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................................................................ 10
A. DMROSSHALLACTASLICENSINGCLEARINGHOUSES...............................................10
[color=#FFFF00]B. TO PROMOTE COMPETITION BETWEEN DMROS, THIS REFORM WILL REMOVE COMPULSORY MECHANICAL LICENSES FOR DIGITAL PHONORECORD DELIVERIES..... 13[/color]

page 3

The Harry Fox Agency (―HFA‖) is the authorized licensor for the reproduction and distribution rights of a relatively large number of musical compositions17 and is currently the only centralized distributor of these rights. However, HFA‘s catalog does not cover all nondramatic musical works.18 HFA appears to offer a type of blanket license for its catalog,19 but some features of the HFA process complicate licensing.20 Furthermore, without entities to offer blanket licenses for the rights to all musical works, a digital music delivery service often faces the daunting task of privately negotiating licenses on a song-by-song or owner-by-owner basis.21 For online music services aiming to make available as many songs as possible, the transaction costs of this licensing regime can be cost-prohibitive.

So since Pandora is one of the paid supporters of Public Knowledge, would you suppose they would stand to gain if using our music was easier and more importantly CHEAPER?

Page 4

 The creation of digital music rights organizations (“DMROs”): These organizations would consolidate licensing for the reproduction, distribution, and public performance rights to nondramatic musical works, making it easy to find and obtain licenses. Under the proposal, DMROs are required to offer blanket licenses to their entire catalogs of works, to offer ―gap‖ licenses that cover any works not found in other catalogs, to employ reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing terms, and to establish and maintain a searchable online database of the works they are authorized to license.

We know what has happened with blankets in Production music. Sure its simpler for a Production company to use great amounts of music for one cost. There is no negotiation, and arguably there has been some "race to the bottom" in terms of fees. Some libraries with older contract language don't even acknowledge blankets as a source of composer income and don't forward any of it.

If you really want to extend that, now there are performance free music uses as well. One huge library started offering that about a year back. I am sure many people pulled their tracks as I did, but my few tracks represent such an insignificant portion of their HUGE holdings that I am not sure it would ever make a difference.

There is at least one cable channel with a number of shows that also do not deal with PRO's, instead dealing directly and getting performance free licenses. One time blanket, no royalties.

Page 12

Our proposal would also allow rights-holders to authorize multiple DMROs to license the same copyrighted nondramatic musical work. Although PROs currently do not allow a rights-holder to authorize multiple PROs to license the same performance right,74 we believe that requiring non-exclusivity would facilitate competition between DMROs and strengthen the rights of copyright owners. If rights-holders are not locked into license agreements with single DMROs, they will have increased bargaining power to obtain fairer deals.

Still trying to understand how this is going to be of benefit to me as a rights-holder? Anyone?

[jonnybutter]

Look at their funding page.

Ouch! FUD.

Apparently they have more than one funding-type page. The other one is very different.
Yeah, never mind....

Thanks guys

[mojobone]

I'm still sifting the info, but this is maybe a less adversarial view of the situation vs the hypothetical.

https://www.soundstr.com/consent-decree-infographic/

[mojobone]

I'm still sifting the info, but this is maybe a less adversarial view of the situation vs the hypothetical.

https://www.soundstr.com/consent-decree-infographic/

A couple of things they left out of that infographic, or that might be better understood. My understanding of the publishing industry as a whole is imperfect, but it seems to me these decisions would likely lead to more direct licensing by publishers, cutting out the PROs as 'unnecessary middlemen'; trouble is, they're the only dog in this fight with a vested interest in protecting the rights/income of songwriters.

The other side of that argument is that the PROs are archaic, inefficient and a general drag on the data/information economy. While I remain in favor of a transparent and friction free automated licensing environment, I'm not sure the need to tip over the PROs' applecart is a fact yet in evidence, and God & Leo Fender only know what the publishers will do.