As the Rolling Stones began their tour while welching on the more than quarter of a million dollar deal they made with my Friend, I started this e-Blogazine journal to document some of my experience of the fallout, and to create a forum for discussion and resources to reform the Music Industry. May Artists, Musicians, and Free People everywhere find it useful.
Got Something to say? Are You a Musician, Artist, or Person with an opinion about the Music industry, music downloads, contracts or royalties? Are You concerned about the RIAA and other industries' assault on our cyber-Freedoms? Copyright and Intellectual Property law? Well?
This site is our Music, played on a virtual sidewalk. This button is our hat in front of us. If You dig the Vibe, toss in a few coins so we might live. Thanks.
Our Publisher has been engaged in a discussion over at GrepLaw about Delene Garafano's possible options to getting paid for her time since March, and the expenses she has incurred in working for Mike "Mick" Decaro and the Rolling Stones.
Here's a bit of the discussion.
One Person said,
"There is nothing wrong with an oral contract.... She should sue for both breach of contract and copyright infringement. The burden of proof is usually on the potential infringer to prove they had a licence, so I would think they would get into pretty hot water pretty quickly by trying to say that there was no agreement that involved them paying money unless they have evidence to back that up..."
And another Person noted,
"...That's the whole dilemna. It's all hot air. Nothing in writing .. or very little. To me it looks like this:
"Either they contracted for 2 years of this Person's *time*, or some deliverable thing, like a newsletter or website (or a series of items over the term).
"If they contracted for this Person's time , then they are in default qua having not paid anything since the contract began at the beginning of March, 2002. The term was March 2002 to March 2004.
"On the other hand, If they contracted for a deliverable , say, the website, then they are in default by virtue of the fact that they have made no payment for the site before, during,or after it's creation.
"So either way - they're in default..."
One Person wound up their comment saying, "If they're flaky enough not to pay, they tend to be flaky enough that suing them isn't magic. "
Another Person, (sounding suspiciously like Stoned Out Loud's publisher) responded at length. Here's a bit of it:
"She could chalk it up to a bad experience, send them a regular bill repeatedly, and then write it off her income tax as a bad debt..."
and, later in the comment,
"...that only covers immediate redress, from the client representative/liason who let the contract initially. The real target that might offer adequate solvency to satisfy the defaulted amounts due is the Rolling Stones, Musidor, and their Raindrop organisations. After all, why beat around the bush? The client is the Rolling Stones; and this Person, Contractor, has suffered real and continuing pain and suffering as a result of continuing mental abuse inflicted by the Rolling Stones' employee/representative who let the contract, as well as financial harm (accumulated expenses).
"To say this interlocked directorate of organisations' revenue stream dwarf's the contractor's income would be an understatement. The Stone's are rumored to be spending around a billion dollars staging this tour, a big sponsor is e-Trade (I'm not privy to these numbers). Now, e-Trade will get publicity from the Tour by having it's logo prominent and probably other promotional tie-ins, and the Stones wouldn't be spending this much (if they are) on staging the 2 year international tour if they didn't think they would not make back four or five times that much as a result (speculation)..."
Furthur on he continued -
"With those kinds of revenues, I would think they should just pay her off and keep Decaro on a leash from now on. That would seem to me to be the simplest solution all the way around. They wouldn't have the kind of public relations and business pr problems they are going to have if they fail to nip this in the bud.
"Here's what I mean...a number of news organisations...have already been made aware of this story. Sooner or later somebody is going to start asking questions, other than Stoned Out Loud.
"When they do ...and the story spreads...what kind of public relations will that be for their corporate sponsor, e-Trade? Big companies already have enough problems with credibility, what with Enron, Global Crossing, MCI collapsing, double- booking revenues, getting loans and booking them as revenues, etc.
"Should the client continue to do nothing about this defaulted contract of theirs, it is not unlikely (I speculate) that as the story spreads ... e-Trade may decide to pull out as a sponsor .... They probably would not want to be associated with an organisation under fire for not paying their contractors or debts."
There is more to the discussion. Click Title link to go directly to it, the scales to get to the top of GrepLaw.
All in all, an interesting discussion about the alternatives available for a contractor who is getting screwed, and what they might be able to do about it, short of going into court.
By the way, Stoned Out Loud is actively seeking contributed articles from Artists, Musicians, and anybody interested in reforming the Music/Film industries, and cyber-Freedom. Plain text files are preferred. Please address them to g.moss@lawyer.com . Got an opinion? Send it in! Stand Up and Be Counted! Get More Gigs! More Girls! More Fans! Free Beers! - Become a Published Author on Stoned Out Loud.
"Speak, that we may See You" - H. Marshall McLuhan
