Originally Posted by Dave Rice
I'm curious to know how they invoke the "Compulsory License Rule" on songs I have withdrawn from distribution from CDBaby and others... when they imply that they will be using my original songs from the cancelled albums. I would understand and be amenable to them providing their own recording of my original songs by another artist (preferably someone with talent and a following) but I resent the hell out of them attempting to "steal my work" and investment by claiming their right to use my original recordings under their misinterpretation of the "Compulsory License Rule." I have informed them this is by no means agreeable with me as both, an ASCAP Writer and Publisher and have not received a response from them.

For the record, I "pulled" a couple of Albums from CDBaby digital distribution because my musical skills were minimal at the time and I've either re-recorded or re-written almost every song on both albums if I believed they had any real potential. This sounds like "dart-boarding" by an intern at Music Reports to me.

Originally Posted by Brian Austin Whitney
I am simply going to suggest you ask for guidance from your ASCAP rep. They should take an interest in this topic and I am interested to learn their reaction to these activities. Let us know. Perhaps Jody can offer more insight or even ask his SESAC rep what they think of their policies.

I'm guessing that Brian is referring to this particular post by Dave...

First off, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC even SoundExchange have nothing to do with Music Reports. Music Reports is like Harry Fox, they are a mechanical licensing company. That being said, in all transparency, SESAC and their owners also own Harry Fox.

Dave, you have asked this question before, and I posted a response. Here's a response to this one.

To think that a mechanical licensing company is going to record your music for you and provide an artist to sing it - where do you come up with a theory like that?

Reality is this:

1. They are working thru a list of material that was given to them via whatever digital streaming service asked to get the license. It wasn't Spotify as Spotify uses Harry Fox. Nor is any music under your name on Spotify. What this actually means is that you would eventually see more than one NOI for any song you have released digitally. You will eventually see an NOI for ever service that comes online where a song is distributed.

2. It would still be relevant for them to have had a need to send out an NOI based on the fact (that you admit) your music was on the services at some point. Resent them all you want, they're following the laws that have been imposed on them.

3. If you have taken this type of tone in reaching out to them to inform them about a process they've been hired to do by a 3rd party, they probably gave the 3rd party the information that the NOI was sent and then left you alone. There is no further action on their part and there's thousands of artists they have to process. They're obviously not collecting any money for you for music that isn't distributed. Though I do see a song called "A Flower for the Ganges" on Spotify. Harry Fox would be collecting mechanicals for that and Music Reports would be collecting the mechanicals for that as well from services like Apple Music, Tidal, etc.

4. Again, they are not attempting to "steal your work" - they are following the law. It is law that the streaming services have to get a compulsory license for music that is appearing in their service. If you're that concerned with your catalog - hire a lawyer and seek said lawyer's advice on your perceived theft and use of your work.

Brian, I'm not really concerned what SESAC thinks about the NOIs that I get all the time. I know what they are for and I also understand that the services are following what the law is asking them to do.

Jody Whitesides
A Funky Audio Lap Dance For Your Ears!
www.jodywhitesides.com