The ASCAP model, written quickly on a Sunday morning:

Organization is owned by the people who receive the payments.

50/50 payment split between songwriters and music publishers.

Songwriters can also be publishers if they choose, and thus receive 100
percent of earnings. Many elect this option.

Songwriters earnings are not subject to recoupment, regardless of the
status of any music publishing advances.

Songwriters receive their money directly from ASCAP, not through their
publishers.

Everybody, songwriters, composers and music publishers, can audit their
payments from ASCAP..

ASCAP can also audit the customers who pay into the organization.

ASCAP must license anyone who asks, and then work out a fair rate.
Permanent rate court is in place.

The organization cannot say no to a license request.

Board of Directors is 50/50 songwriters and publishers, elected by the
membership.

Payment structure is based on recommendation of the Board.

so how do the "little people" thiinking big join this so called ASS-cap

The creation of a so-called New PRO is a necessity in the digital age. We need a fresh biew of copyright. And we're not going to let the content cartel to take it over.

Quite a controversy about how to "meter" or do proportionate samples. Wm. Terry Fisher is coming out with his book that caps a 3-year research project under auspices of Harvard that answers every exhaustive detail. Other valuable academic commentators are Neil Netanel, Tim Wu and Jessica Litman.

Congress has agreed to pass these laws. But ASCAP and the RIAA are in bunker mentality and refuse to budge. In my opinion, this blackmail has had a devastating ripple effect throughout the economy. The billions of dollars that Qwest and Level 3 and World Com invested to wire the world has gone "dark-fibre." Other countries like China and India are not so strangled-up in over-regulation and will proceed to beat our ass in intellectual pursuits.

Nonetheless, the complexity of the 30,000 lines of Copyright Code now rivals the Federal Tax Code in sheer internal inconsistency, stupidity and self-loathing amongst IP lawyers, none of whom agree on whether the sky is blue or red. This barbed-wire rat's nest of special carve-outs and exemptions took 25 years of bloodshed to accomplish, culminating in the passage of the notorious DMCA in 1998, which time has proven to be impossible to police.

Now ASCAP and Fox have written in a one-word technical correction in a law (HR 1417) just passed in the House. It grants special anti-trust exemption so that the various licenses for mechanicals and performances can be rolled into one, all for one-stop convenience. This little technical clarification was not discussed. No one knows how it got there. It is on its way to the Senate and we have to kill it. The Internet was not invented by anyone and no one has the right to claim proprietary rights to meter, charge tolls, extract rents or tax. It is a Commons and deserves a quasi-regulatory agency. The creation of a title database is no little matter, either. But we've got the brains on board, and many hands. It's a matter of community collaboration.

Although the work has been done by academics, the nay-sayers and hold-outs manage to derail the collection issues by claiming that a new PRO is a "tax." Apparently nobody can get anything done in a hysterical age of anti-tax hatred.

The parties who are left out of negotiations are guaranteed to keep coming back year after year in the courts. In the case of the DMCA, the Congressional bribery accommodated publishers and distributors quite nicely--and disenfranchised librarians, academics and oh yeah----the original creators.

There is no easy answer. It will work itself out over long periods of time in Federal courts and legislature. But the foot-dragging of the "hoarders" (i.e., the content cartel, RIAA, Harry Fox, NMPA and ASCAP) amounts to a refusal to license or "copyright abuse", a new crime in my book.

As technology leaps forward, the slow glacial pace of the courts are creating new joblaw that no longerhas any real world applicability. Programmers keep sharpening their skills with evasive tactics, driving the sharing culture deeper underground in the "darknet."

An example would be, a judge recently admitting that publishing of DeCSS code is moot, given that it has proliferated all over the Net. I would call that a trade secret that has fallen in "generic," such as what happened to the trademark names Thermos, nylons and the Monopoly Game.

Rep. Rick Boucher is considering various collection plans. But you will want to take a look at his own proposed legislation, Leflaw. It is the DMCRA. It is at this link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.107:

A number of us believe that the "hoarders" in the RIAA and music publishers are welcome to take their shit and stay in the walled-off garden. For this purpose, Jessica Litman proposes that they be given a new suffix (".drm") for their precious copy-protection infected files. Boucher claims a use of the suffix "@" (circle a) standing for "aephemeral."

If a hoarder like Paul McCartney or the Beach Boys don't want to participate in a new royalty pool, that's fine. Eat your hearts out. Watch Neil Young and others "who get it" transition to a new money-making industry and a new fan base.

The fact remains that "the rest of us" are the 90%. RIAA crap is the 10%. The Federal Judges now get the fact that a commercial minority cannot shut down or cripple the internet for their hard-goods protectionist reasons.

The industry is in it death throes. Edgar Bronfman has strangled Warner Bros, and BMG is merging with Sony. These hardened heartless money pigs are squeezing the last drops out of these corporations and will sell off in 18 months. It's called the busting of the "Mass Media Bubble" which held sway in the Great American Arts Renaissance 1908-2004... R.I.P.

I have no patience with those who say we should consider the historic practices of ASCAP. That's a joke. ASCAP has no more understanding of database science than the FBI. "Desired inefficiency" is a phrase I picked up from Jim Griffin--it's another word for "black box," the dreaded practice of making no effort to track down songwriters or heirs to pay. Meanwhile millions of dollars accrue in interest-bearing accounts.

I'll take a breath now and wade into the positive aspects of what Leflaw is trying to accomplish. Thanks! Keep coming back.

For the "rest of us," with marvelous Jeffersonian elegance, Leflaw manages to grant control to the "circle c people." The Original Creators. The songwriters. Read that Declaration of Self-Determination he has written again.

The historic promotional efforts of so-called publishers have no place in the Internet. If Dmusic Radio rolls out a broadcast stream of great American music, and pushes it to the desktop of office workers, that's where the money is! And it takes excellent songs! "No problemo."

However, "new Radio" cannot use your tunes if some publisher comes out of the woodwork and wants to sue. You do acknowledge, Dmusic creators, that you are the sole owner of the song. You wrote it. You didn't ask ASCAP or BMI to interfere with your rights to Internet distribution.

I call this a 'fused right." A simple thing, really, your promise that you haven't sold off your first-born. It's the same thing that RIAA and Harry Fox want---but that is a little matter called restraint of trade, and several consent decrees are in place that bind their ability to collect multiple licenses.

They created it and will have to live with it: real world collection of radio royalties and hard-goods sales. That's not our problem. The contracts that major-label individual artists signed with publishers, record labels and PRO's have no provision for ephemeral promotion copies.

The Internet will continue to evolve and it will be a beautiful thing. Throw off your chains!

(Note to Leflaw: if my enthusaism doesn't fit your purpose, utilize the mighty Gnutella delete button and vaporize my comments.)

But you forgot the infamous "sampling" procedure, wherein people who monitor the airwaves for music they recognize determine who should be paid.

On the ASCAP "annoying persons" list? You won't be sampled. An independent that the sampler never heard of? You're ignored. Internet? Webcasting? Not their domain.

ASCAP is in bed with the RIAA. And they snuggle.

I question the use of the word in the title "The ASCAP Model." That's why I write at length, invoking their corrupt model raises my hackles. Which is certainly not Leflaw's intention. Far better to change the title to "PACSA"----in honor of a copyleft model. Like a rearview mirror. Heh.