Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Ok. Look it that way: I'm a very small label. To have a little exposure of the products of my label (i.e. I've got licenses from all the artists/owners of the rights of the 'songs') I decide to put up a small non-commercial webcasting radio. Now here it comes the CARP and tells me that I have to pay them for songs that are 'mine or administered by me' to get the artists/label paid. What it's all about? If I have the legal rights to exploit my own work, why should I pay someone else to exploit it and then pay me minus a %? Think of it. You sell a cd (of your music, created, arranged and recorded by you). You get the money (minus the taxes, obviously). It seems quite simple. Then comes authority X that decides arbitrarily that to sell the cd you have to use authority Y to receive the money. Authority Y wants to get paid for the service of gathering money for you. There it goes that you get the money minus the price of the service authority Y gives you (and then minus the taxes). Not that simple anymore, right? Another passage. Authority X decides that you have to pay authority Y for the past two years of servicing you (even if it really didn't) and you should be happy, because they are doing it for you (not against you) - heck, in the end you'll get money from them, no? This seems like something the ex-president of SIAE told in a conference. "Free music doesn't exist. If someone wants to give his music for free he has enough money and therefore he has the money to pay SIAE (put CARP, it sounds the same) or he has something illegal behind it." - In other words... If I want to stream my OWN music for free on my own web-radio station I have to pay CARP so that they'll gather money in behalf of me and they'll give them back to the author (ME) minus a percentual for their work of gathering money. At least it seems like this to me (and in Italy it actually IS like this), from a quick read to the CARP. Peace Luigi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kim Flint" <kflint@loopers-delight.com> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:03 PM Subject: Re: OT: CARP passed- this sucks. > At 01:40 AM 6/24/2002, Luigi Meloni wrote: > > > >I guess my main issue isn't that the RIAA is trying to gather money for > > > >it's artists, that's actually a good thing. It's just that I see >the > > > >industry, and it looks very very lopsided to me. It seems like 10% of > >the > > > >talent is making 99% of the money. If SOMA FM gets charged .07 >cents to > > > >play one of my songs, and then Sting ends up with .02 cents of it, that's > > > >NOT OK with me. > > > > > > That shouldn't be ok with you. Does the law say that Sting gets part of > > > your money? I haven't read the law myself, but I really doubt it. If money > > > is collected for you and owed to you, then go demand it. You wouldn't be > > > the first person or the first set of laborers that had to scrap a bit to > > > make sure you get paid your fair share. If the RIAA got themselves signed > > > up to collect money for you, then it is their problem to see to it that > >you > > > get paid your share. But if they don't pay you it is your problem to go > > > stick up for yourself and protect your own rights to that money. Nobody is > > > going to fight that battle for you, but if you ask me it seems like a > > > pretty easy battle. > > > > > > kim > > > >---Just as long as you've got enough money to put up a legal battle against > >RIAA. > > actually, that's the easy part. Get a large enough group of people > together, and hire a legal team on contingency. I've done that before, >its > very easy if you have a good case and there is money at stake. You don't > have to be rich to fight for your rights. I won easily against much >richer > people than me, because we were right and they were wrong. > > Assuming this payment thing ever even became a real problem, to me it > sounds pretty straight forward to win. It wouldn't be hard to get good > legal representation. Probably the issue would be settled really quickly > since I can't even see how the RIAA could have any legal ground for not > paying people in the first place. At this point, the whole idea that they > won't pay people is just paranoid speculation anyway. > > > >The real problem seems to me to be the two-years-back payments. > >0.07 cents can seem to be a small amount of money, but multiply this for two > >years of 'hypotetic' webcasting numbers and you come to some money. > > well sorry, but to me if a webcaster has been playing other people's >music > for years without paying them for it, they've got it coming to them. If > they did that without any plan for how they would ultimately pay the >bill, > they're just stupid. This law was passed quite a while ago right? so it's > not like they didn't have any warning. > > But anyway, I still don't see what the big deal is. you got a big payment > to make in order to keep your business? Don't have that much cash on >hand? > Is your business viable? Yes? Can you show a way to profitability that will > ultimately pay that big bill off? Here's how that situation is handled > every day in the real world: financing. Work up the business plan, go to > the bank, get a loan. If the bank doesn't believe you, find somebody else. > Venture capitalists, angel investors, mortgage the house, Mom and Dad, > whatever. Then roll up your sleeves and go to work to make your business > pay for itself. That's what everybody else has to do, I don't see why the > internet is any different. > > kim > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Kim Flint | Looper's Delight > kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com > >