Blanket contracts have always had these unsurmountable problems:

1. No one know what songs are covered, as no list (catalog/repertoire) is issued with the license. And even if a list was given to licensees, it would already be obsolete, as the catalog/repertoire changes continuosly.
2. No one know how the money is to artists/songwriters.
3. No one knows how much money is diverted (stolen if you may) before any of it reaches the artists/songwriters.

The UMG-MS deal have the same flaws plus some more, Here are some concerns:
- are recordings are sold through sub-contractor or sold outright to another record company covered by the blanket agreement?
- who notifies who when changes are made to the licensed repertoire?
- is he right to copy tranferred when the devise is sold to another person and the new owner has no proof of purchase?
- have songwrites authorized the blanket license that may include their songs?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

He’ll use the defense that he owns a Zune. A portion of the funds he paid the retailer to get the Zune went to UMG, so in effect, he already paid UMG for any “illegal” downloading of their MP3s.

That argument will get shot down, and this whole agreement will be shown for the farce it is.

UMG will be double-dipping