site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR

reply to ThrowDemsOut

Re: What we really meant . . .

said by ThrowDemsOut:

said by newview:

quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"

Translation:
We haven't figured out a legal way to screw the artists completely and keep all the money for ourselves.
No. they don't know how to divvy up the money. The fines collected were not tied to music downloaded on specific artists. So, how do they decide who gets how much? No matter how they split it, some artists are going to feel they deserved a bigger piece of the money than other artists. I'd bet money that that is what is holding everything up.
Honestly I bet they don't care. They certainly have to know what songs were "Distributed"(I'll not use the word downloaded) otherwise they wouldn't be able to come up with a money value settlement to begin with. To begin with they can only attempt suits against song sharers who's artists were with RIAA which not all artists are. Thus some songs are off limits. I'll bet it has gotten to the point where they(RIAA) does not keep a database of who's songs where shared/settled thus negating the money split. The artists depend on the RIAA to help them but in actuality they are simply trying to line their own pockets. Many artists are already being screwed by the record labels as it is.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

They should because if they had to take you to court for it they would have to have specific songs that you were distributing. The court rarely works on broad terms and with this it would certainly require specifics.


Monday, 13-Feb 06:05:00 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online! © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics