Slashdot Mirror

As they have sown, so they shall reap. All hail the false idol of money and bow before the might of the corporate gods.

Mammon

The counter to them actually getting that larger piece isn't to have them ask for less...it's for the other people providing value to the business to say no.

Sadly, isn't it true the labels can do pretty much anything they want with (to) new and unsophisticated artists? Don't most just sign "the contract" without reading it because "my God we're going to be BIG they're giving us a MILLION DOLLARS to record our first gold record!" The percentages and revenue sources in the contracts will simply change and it's done. No chance for ANYONE to say "no". I'll bet the labels as a matter of course helpfully refer new artists to a list of "independent" attorneys who will really do a great job of reading those contracts and representing them. This is an old story, the business unsophisticate's getting screwed by the sharks, that takes advantage of unequal bargaining power. Possibly, pre-successful musicians need an honest union (most unions are probably honest and work hard for their members).

Either that or the megabands need to help recognize and promote talent to the point it begins to succeed without the likes of Sony/BMG, the most expensive "agents" in the world.

Who but, say, Radiohead is in a better position to know what new, great music is? Let them include some links on their site to encourage attention to these bands.

You know, they say power corrupts; and we KNOW money does. Sony was well-liked and well-respected, I think, until they bought media rights and essentially became a media company. Greed, it seems, can poison anything. What do consumers around the world think of Sony now?

You know, Ray, I was cheered to see a Federal class action under RICO against the mafiAA, but then I began to read the counterclaim, and I realized that all of the complained-of acts are complained of because of the way plaintiff-in-counterclaim wishes to characterize them-- and in my experience, this is the easiest kind of complaint to defeat, since all you have to do is "reframe" the acts to show a colorable alternative interpretation (an arguably applicable statutory basis for the act), and BAM! Now you have to litigate the whole statute or at least whether some too-nebulous combination of deeds falls within or without it, which you ain't going to do in the context of an action by a copyright holder against an alleged infringer without the wealth of Croesus... How can you, as a Plaintiff, meet your burden of proof if there is a halfway reasonable alternative to calling the acts "extortion", for instance? Big Music says well, even if there is some evidence this was in fact extortion, there is an equal weight of evidence we are properly using the statutes, ambiguous and unlitigated as they are... In short, the counterclaim looks good, but is doomed, I think. Charlie Nesson, on the other hand, is doing God's work and doing it well. (grin)

Must be a fun job to use the law to destroy evil. Kind of like that old movie The Rainmaker. If I were Ray Beckerman, I would feel like I were in a movie.

I'm sure Charlie Nesson feels that way too. If Nesson wins, it just about pulls the rug out from under *all* of the **AA lawsuits. Go Charlie! Go Harvard! (Even misguided as Harvard was to deny my application for admission many years ago. All is forgiven now.) (grin)

Must be a fun job to use the law to destroy evil. Kind of like that old movie The Rainmaker. If I were Ray Beckerman, I would feel like I were in a movie.

I'm sure Charlie Nesson feels that way too. If Nesson wins, it just about pulls the rug out from under ALL of the **AA lawsuits. Go Charlie! Go Harvard!

If plaintiffs were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.

...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.

Unfortunately the RIAA do set forth a cognizable rationale for a new trial. It may be that a judge who has set aside a jury verdict won't want to take the rap for a wasteful second trial stemming from that decision, and will let the Appeals Court rule. Now, I'm not predicting the Appeals Court is going to reverse his setting the verdict aside, but we may very well see them taking up the issue.

Even the DOJ doesn't like the **AA's game plan. It's falling apart on them.

It's difficult to see how you can say this when the Senate has just passed the Pro-IP Act. The **AAs are popping corks on the Dom Perignon about now.

We no longer live under a system of capitalism. American capitalism has become corporatism.

Yes, but this is the kind of thing they really want:

http://plexipages.com/gesta.jpg