Re: OT: CARP passed- this sucks.

["Stephen P. Goodman" <spgoodman@earthlight.net>]

Thanks Luigi.

Some folks forget that this struggle against the RIAA isn't as much about
webcasting as it is about access, and true competition.  The Big Five, as
ridiculous as it sounds, is trying to prevent that competition from
occurring much less gaining a foothold on what it considers THEIR business.

Think of this metaphor.  One sees an anthill and the residents of it 
around.
One steps on it, at least temporarily decimating the anthill, and killing
quite a number of ants.  However, the vast majority still remain, and will
rebuild, and will regain the status they all had before one put their foot
into the anthill.  It's obvious this process of 'spreading-out' of the
so-called "home recording" market isn't going to reverse itself, bring back
a Golden Age for the Big Five.

But what if you're one of the ants that was crushed?  Unless you believe in
reincarnation, you're basically eliminated from the picture.

I have absolutely, positively NO ARGUMENT with the idea that we all get 
paid
for the work we create, record, etc.  But I sincerely believe that the Big
Five have so repeatedly abused their role in managing careers and 
especially
the money involved, that someone else needs to have the chance to do so.
The RIAA efforts in this and many other cases have an aim that cannot be
seen as anything other than anti-competitive - possibly even covered by 
RICO
(anti-racketeering) legislation.  So while the RIAA and their pals all put
forward this argument about how being against this royalty structure is
"anti-musician", I believe the entire premise is disingenuous at best, and 
I
don't believe anyone can come up with evidence to the contrary.

And Kim, thank you for this forum in which we may discuss and otherwise
argue about this and other issues.  In an RIAA-controlled Internet, we 
might
not even have that.

Stephen P. Goodman
EarthLight Productions
*
http://www.earthlight.net/Studios - The Free Loop of the Week!
http://www.earthlight.net/Gallery_Front.html - Cartoons!
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack.html - More Cartoons!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luigi Meloni" <Luigimeloni74@libero.it>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 13:24 PM
Subject: Re: OT: CARP passed- this sucks.


> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>