Texas Governor Greg Abbott has formally asked the Department of Justice to reconsider its recent decision regarding consent decrees and fractional licensing.
In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch dated Aug. 29, Gov. Abbott wrote to express his disagreement.
He wrote, in part, “The Texas Music Office is housed within my office and is charged by law with promoting the Texas music industry. As the head of that office, I must object to the DOJ’s position in these cases, which is both legally flawed and threatens to harm the music industry in Texas. I respectfully request that the DOJ reconsider its position.”
The August 4th decision by the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) not to modernize the consent decrees that govern performing rights societies ASCAP and BMI, and its plans to force a “full-work” licensing model into the market, are the equivalent of an earthquake for the global music community, and most of all for songwriters. It opens a new era full of uncertainty for the music industry.
CISAC, which regroups 239 societies from 123 countries, including ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and AMRA in the United States, has been monitoring the evolution of the licensing ecosystem in the US with much concern. Because of the size of the US market and its influence in the world, any changes in the way our US members operate has consequences for sister societies, songwriters and music publishers worldwide.
We had high hopes that the DoJ would have taken these factors into account and come up with solutions to ensure a better, more efficient licensing system in the US in its two-year review of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Yet for some reason the much-needed reform of the US licensing landscape took a wrong turn at the expense of creators, music publishers and their societies.
Professor Stephen Carlisle gives us a point by point refutation of the DOJ’s astroturf position on 100% licensing.
Let’s look at the implications of the DOJ 100% rule for the writers of the 5th most popular Hip Hop Song in the US this week. These are the four samples in For Free, by DJ Khaled featuring Drake. Each of those sampled songs also has multiple writers. Consequently the list of writers for […]
In its home market, the U.S., Uber certainly is well ahead of chief rival Lyft, in fundraising as well as market share. Its advantage is especially big among business travelers, who value its presence in more cities — for them, the network effects are at least partially national. But business travelers are a small minority among those who use ride-hailing apps, and Lyft has claimed major market-share gains in a few big cities where it has concentrated its efforts recently.
Lyft has been able to do that in large part thanks to $1 billion in new cash it got this year from General Motors and other investors. It has also been part of a nascent global anti-Uber alliance with Didi, which invested $100 million in Lyft last year. With Uber and Didi’s CEOs sitting on each other’s boards, as Monday’s deal calls for, it’s hard to see Didi staying involved with that effort. Also, Uber’s stake in Didi will make it an indirect part owner of Lyft, at least for a while. It’s all very incestuous.
It also seems to bespeak a less directly competitive future.