Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
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