7,575 artists SoundExchange can’t find
p2pnet news view | P2P:- CounterPunch’s Dave Marsh once said of Fred Wilhelms, the Nashville entertainment lawyer, “If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its ‘ethicist-in-chief’.”
At the end of April he and I started Project Unfound Artist, an experiment in crowdsharing to see if the ordinary denizens of the Internet could cut into the 7,872 names posted on the SoundExchange website as artists they had been unsuccessful in getting registered.
The project was stimulated by the report of John Simson’s [Soundexchange's noble leader] comments at Harvard in which he admitted that there were actually over 40,000 artists who were owed money.
Fred generously includes me in this, but he did all the work.
I originally posted Fred’s write-up, together with the entire list, 11 days ago. It was on line for a while but the whole thing mysteriously vanished about seven days back, as far as I can tell,and now WP steadfastedly refuses to allow me to re-post it.
So I’ve saved it as a .txt file which you can download by clicking here.
I have no idea why that happened and I can only guess since the list is so huge it was somehow deleted by Word Press, which definitely has its moments.
Be that as it may, here’s Fred’s original write-up.
Cheers! And thanks …
Jon Newton – p2pnet »»»
Jon and I figured if we could reduce the number of artists that SoundExchange admitted they couldn’t find, they might focus more energy on the other 32,000+ they haven’t identified yet. We posted an announcement of the project on p2pnet.net, and pretty much stood back to see what happened.
.
Since the project started, 297 names have been removed from the website list. That doesn’t sound like a lot, and in overall terms, it is only 4% of the list as it existed when we started. Comparatively, however, it is an astounding success. In the 17 weeks between January 1 and the start of the project, SoundExchange, left to its own efforts and those of a few individuals like me, removed 145 names from the list, or fewer than half the names removed in the 11 weeks since the project started. In fact, the artists registered in the less than three months since the Project began exceeds the number of artists registered by SoundExchange in the previous EIGHT months.Although the pace has slowed down in the last couple weeks, I still consider the Project to be a success on several levels.
There are 297 artists getting paid who weren’t getting paid before. That’s a success.
The totally volunteer, totally cost-free project makes moot the excuse about not spending excessive amounts to pay out small accounts. This is “spending nothing to pay a dollar.” It doesn’t get any more cost efficient than that.
You might wonder why SoundExchange hasn’t bothered to try this on their own initiative, but only if you thought that SoundExchange had any real interest in finding these artists in the first place. You would think someone at SoundExchange would find the idea worth pursuing. I guess they’re too busy working for musicFIRST to pay attention to the job they’re supposed to be doing now. After all, there’s new turf to be claimed and power to grasp, no matter how badly you do what you’ve promised to do already.
In my own efforts to locate and register artists since the project started, I have had direct contact with several dozen individuals for whom SoundExchange held money. Almost all of them have responded to my contact by registering themselves, and many of those names have now disappeared from the list. I have to note that of the artists I have been in contact with, NOT ONE of them said that they had been previously contacted by SoundExchange. Given that SoundExchange’s spokespeople and supporters have been most insistent that they have been in contact with many artists on the list who just didn’t follow through and sign up, you would think that I would have heard confirmation of that claim from some artist by now. It just hasn’t happened.
Tellingly, my offers (private and public) to SoundExchange to personally follow up on all those non-responders have gone unacknowledged, let alone accepted. But we already know how hard it is to find these artists. SoundExchange has done an excellent job of telling people just how difficult it is. You would think they would gladly accept help, but I guess they can live with the idea there are 40,000 artists they can’t find.
I have to wonder if those “artist representatives” on the SoundExchange board feel any responsibility for those 40,000 artists. Probably not.
After all, it’s not like artists can actually influence what their “representatives” do for them or to them on the Board. Artists didn’t put them on the Board and artists can’t remove them. The only people those artist representatives have to please are the RIAA puppeteers who invited them to sit at the table.
There are still 7,575 artists SoundExchange can’t find.
Please take a couple minutes. Scan the list. Identify some artists youknow and find them. Find some artists you don’t know, too. If you’rereading this on the Internet, you already know how to do all that. Don’t forget to check the social sites; a lot of these artists have MySpace and Facebook pages.
Write to them.
Thank them for the music.
Send them to the SoundExchange site and tell them to sign up and get paid.
Once again, click here for the list.
Fred & Jon
July 15th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Oy! what a list.
SE must be mighty upset that you are ‘taking their money’.
If you are wondering why they don’t look I’m guessing it is quite simple, the money gets to stay in some bank account, or they invest it, and profit. I wonder if after some years they just get to keep the money as well. If so they have no incentive to find people, people need to find them.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Your surmise is on target. The Library of Congress regulations under which SoundExchange operates permits them to take money that has been unclaimed for three years and use it for its own expenses, which include paying for Christmas parties for lobbyists and Congressional staffers, and subsidizing the musicFIRST campaign on terrestrial radio performance royalties, which SoundExchange seems to think is permitted under their charter to collect and distribute (sometimes) Internet and satellite radio license fees.
The forfeiture provision was expressly asked for by SoundExchange. The excuse they gave was that there was a parallel provision covering performance royalties due from NPR stations to composers of “orphan works,” songs for which no legitimate recipient can be found after three years of duly diligent searching. Of course, the “orphan works” royalties rarely hit four digits in a given year, and there are literally millions in unclaimed royalties at SoundExchange.
There are going to be some artists and their heirs who just cannot be found. Bunk Johnson, the New Orleans trumpet player, is on the list, and he died 59 years ago. His grandchildren could be dead. SoundExchange should be permitted to eventually do something with the royalties he is entitled to. Whether that “something” is spend it on themselves is another matter, but since the Library of Congress never met a big trade organization it didn’t like, it will sure to be something the RIAA can live with.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
You know, I posted a bit about this when I did the Mechanical Turk thing with these missing artist lists, but it’s worth mentioning again: this list that SE puts out would be a hell of a lot more effective if they posted more than just the artist name.
Consider entries in here like “702″ or “Stir” or “Yeyo” (to say nothing of the foreign names) It would be 10X more efficient if they included a couple of track or album names to help people make matches.
Or for that matter, give people like us a simple form to fill out on the SE’s website – one where we can CC: the artist we found – just where we can say “You know what? I found this person for you. Here’s their email address.”
Such simple, basic mechanisms like that would go a looooong way. And the SE process lacks them.
Contrast this with, say, what Last.fm is gearing up to do with their “Artist Royalty Program”. Over at Last there’s already a bunch of FAQ’s and back-and-forth discussion and honest-to-god explanations re: how they’re doing their royalty accounting. Last.fm looks to be building a system that’ll tell artists “Hey, you got played X number of times. Here’s $Y in royalties we credited to you” and then back it up with their playlist data.
This is called /transparency/, and it is exactly the kind of thing these artists deserve. So looking at that, and looking at this huge lost artist list – yeah, I’m pretty stoked about the Last.fm system, let’s just put it that way.
(Consider also that SE is currently auditing Last.fm, but that’s another discussion entirely … )
-bhance
July 15th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I used to pass email addresses to SoundExchange, but when the names never came off the list, I followed up myself. I was usually told SoundExchange never contacted them. I went back to reaching out myself, just to make sure it was done. I’ve made new friends around the world, including a Satanist band in Florida (really nice guys) and a percussion ensemble from South Africa (also really nice guys.)
SoundExchange’s concept of transparency is different from the one most people use. For them, it means we just can’t see what they do and shouldn’t even be looking.
The real punchline to the last.fm audit is that last.fm has now signed direct licenses with the four major labels, so all that license money isn’t going through SoundExchange at all, and little of it will probably reach the artist anyway. The benefactors are the majors, who audit last.fm on the artists’ dime. Not a bad racket.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I took one random name and here’s what I found …
“FLASH AND THE PAN”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_And_The_Pan
July 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
[quote]# Reader’s Write Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I took one random name and here’s what I found …
“FLASH AND THE PAN”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_And_The_Pan
[/quote]
Somebody call Angus Young and tell him his little bro has some money waiting on him.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I’ve posted to the thread on the Velvet Rope (StarPolish site), and it’s worth asking here, too.
Firstly, thanks, to you folks for all you’re doing on this issue to alert artists.
Question – in order to collect the money that SoundExchange has collected on their behalf does an artist have to register with their program and authorize SE to collect for them in future?
We’re increasingly in an age where one-size-doesn’t-fit-all, and this reality doesn’t appear fully reflected in the approach of the PROs, in the online or offline domains.
SE has been collecting monies without the express approval of many artists’, and, pretty much for the same folks, without even their knowledge. It seems an odd practice that the law sanctions, and, a lot of people would say – so what? – who doesn’t want a cheque, even if it’s for $20?
Of course, there’s much more complexity and variety in this digital age. There’s plenty of free music sites, blogs, podcasts, etc., and ways of releasing music – such as though Creative Commons – that can, and will, make artists, particularly of the indie/grassroots nature, much more money than they’ll ever receive from the PROs such as ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN or SoundExchange.
I don’t know how SoundExchange works, but, with the old model PROs, the artist in registering, assigns certain song rights to the PRO – which may conflict with the other, potentially, more profitable, new model usages for promotion and marketing.
So, there’s a split forming, but, as yet, there is no collecting body that appears to differentiate in how it collects and or administers song rights. Naturally in its the PROs’ interest to be able to take the monolothic, one size fits all approach. Still, that doesn’t necessarily serve the artists’ interest.
Today, though, there appears no choice. You either sign up with a PRO and have them collect monies from a multitude of folks – some of whom the artist may appreciate payment from, and some of whom are better left as free/promotional services. If you sign up to SoundExchange, is the artist’s right of choice of how the songs are administered lost – in the same way as when one registers with SOCAN, ASCAP, BMI et al?
Earlier this year there was a lot of concern raised about the small podcasters, webcasters et al.
Just wondering, if you register to get your cheque of $20 or $200 – are you legally joining a team that can, one day, drive out of business or existence the same folks who’ve supported and built your career as an artist?
July 15th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Here’s my reply to Adrian, as posted on the Rope. I’ve altered the format to put Adrian’s comments in quotes, so it is a little easier to follow my interspersed replies.
Fred.
“Question – in order to collect the money that SoundExchange has collected on their behalf does an artist have to register with their program and authorize SE to collect for them in future?”
No. Technically an artist has no option. SoundExchange has been established by law as the collection and distribution agent for all recordings. This arrangement allows a broadcaster to obtain a blanket license by agreeing to pay the royalty rate established by the Copyright Royalty Board, a three-member judicial entity within the Library of Congress. A broadcaster may negotiate a lower rate with specific copyright holders (as last.fm has done with the four majors), but as long as the broadcaster agrees to pay the CRB rates for everything else, he can play anything else he wants.
This is somewhat parallel to the compulsory mechanical license that anyone can get to record any composition (after first use). The negotiated lower license fee is equivalent to the “negotiated” controlled compositions clause in the standard recording contract, but a bit less one-sided.
“We’re increasingly in an age where one-size-doesn’t-fit-all, and this reality doesn’t appear fully reflected in the approach of the PROs, in the online or offline domains.”
It does, in one important respect. Blanket licensing means that a creator will receive compensation equal to that paid to any other creator for the exploitation of his or her recordings without having to negotiate individual licenses with every potential broadcaster.
That makes the flow of music a lot less restrictive, and allows the musicians to actually practice and write new stuff.
“SE has been collecting monies without the express approval of many artists’, and, pretty much for the same folks, without even their knowledge. It seems an odd practice that the law sanctions, and, a lot of people would say – so what? – who doesn’t want a cheque, even if it’s for $20?”
The system works to free broadcasters from the threat of infringement complaints by assuring them they have the rights to play all music under a blanket license. If you accept the premise that a statutory or judicially set license fee is not arbitrarily set too low, then the compensation is probably going to be fair.
Problems arise when the statutory rate is set too high for the market to bear, as in the current rates set by the CRB for Internet streaming audio. While the rates, if paid, theoretically mean that many artists will receive substantial royalties from Internet play, the reality is that the rates are so high as to run off most webcasters, thus reducing the overall amount of royalty revenue, and the amount each artist will receive.
The few outlets able to pay the high rates, like Clear Channel simulcasting terrestrial stations, are going to be focusing on only the most popular music in order to draw audiences large enough to justify the high ad rates necessary to pay the fees, so the money will get paid only to those artists played on those stations. A big check for Rhianna. No check for the Carolina Chocolate Drops.
The compulsory license system has proven to work pretty well for songwriters over the years. I know that some of them chafe when they feel a song has been butchered by some cover version, but for every one of those, there are a thousand thankful guys like Otis Williams who wrote “Little Darlin’” and who has lived comfortably off the royalties from the Diamonds’ cover.
“Of course, there’s much more complexity and variety in this digital age. There’s plenty of free music sites, blogs, podcasts, etc., and ways of releasing music – such as though Creative Commons – that can, and will, make artists, particularly of the indie/grassroots nature, much more money than they’ll ever receive from the PROs such as ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN or SoundExchange.
I don’t know how SoundExchange works, but, with the old model PROs, the artist in registering, assigns certain song rights to the PRO – which may conflict with the other, potentially, more profitable, new model usages for promotion and marketing.
So, there’s a split forming, but, as yet, there is no collecting body that appears to differentiate in how it collects and or administers song rights. Naturally in its the PROs’ interest to be able to take the monolothic, one size fits all approach. Still, that doesn’t necessarily serve the artists’ interest.”
But remember that SoundExchange deals (today anyway) only with Internet and satellite radio performance royalties. This is really only one slice of the complete exploitation picture. Uniformity of treatment inside the wedge shouldn’t be extrapolated over the entire pie.
“Today, though, there appears no choice. You either sign up with a PRO and have them collect monies from a multitude of folks – some of whom the artist may appreciate payment from, and some of whom are better left as free/promotional services. If you sign up to SoundExchange, is the artist’s right of choice of how the songs are administered lost – in the same way as when one registers with SOCAN, ASCAP, BMI et al?”
Not really. SoundExchange only collects and distributes royalties derived from Internet and satellite radio airplay. The artist, in essence, gives up the right to negotiate individual performance licenses, a right he never really had under law and which would become a full time job, in return for compensation that has, at least, the promise of being set at a reasonable level.
“Earlier this year there was a lot of concern raised about the small podcasters, webcasters et al.”
It hasn’t gone away. Negotiation between SoundExchange and large and small webcasters has stalled, and probably won’t pick up again until a new Congress reconvenes and starts asking why nothing has happened while they’ve been busy with the election.
“Just wondering, if you register to get your cheque of $20 or $200 – are you legally joining a team that can, one day, drive out of business or existence the same folks who’ve supported and built your career as an artist?”
As SoundExchange seems determined to prove, they are going to try to drive those people out of business whether or not the artists register.
To be blunt about it, SoundExchange doesn’t exist to serve artists. They got stuck with the job because it was the only way they could achieve their real goal; giving the RIAA a role in deciding who gets to play what on the radio. There isn’t enough payola money in the world to influence enough webcasters to play the Pussy Cat Dolls to make them megastars, but if you can run off the niche webcasters by forcing royalty rates they can’t afford to pay, you are going to be left with the usual suspects; the big terrestrial broadcasters who just love to do deals with the majors in return for favors.
Look at everything SoundExchange does. Run it through a very simple filter. Does their conduct promote the interests of the RIAA or the interest of recording artists? I assure you those choices are mutually exclusive. Not paying artists and getting to keep the money doesn’t help artists, no matter what kind of spin you put on it. Simson and his gang are very good at sounding like they love artists, but judge them by what they do, rather than what they say.
There are nine “artist representatives” on the SoundExchange board. All nine were invited to join the Board by the RIAA. Their absolute silence in the face of such anti-artist conduct as the failure to find and pay 40,000 artists is as clear an indictment of their complicity as anything could be. They have betrayed the artists they say they serve.
In an earlier age, those Quislings may have risked being dragged out of the Board Room on to K Street and being horsewhipped at high Noon. Other than Ted Nugent, I don’t think there’s anyone capable of that kind of action these days.
More’s the pity.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
…once again, Fred nails it. Well put.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am
they can’t find DALIAH LAVI ?
Hm, at least I know her by name and heard songs of her on the radio when i was a kid
maybe i should check my HDDs if i have some song, pirate that as torrent and when MAFIAA comes and wants me to sue for $750 I tell them to tell the artist about me 
“Oh, wann kommst du”…
… mit dem Geld an die Künstler rüber SUX?
http://hitparade.ch/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Daliah+Lavi
July 16th, 2008 at 1:34 am
even wikipedia knows where she is to find!
“Nach einem letzten Hit im Duett mit Karel Gott im Jahr 1994 (”Ich bin da um dich zu lieben”) beendete Daliah Lavi ihre Gesangskarriere und lebt seitdem zurückgezogen mit ihrem 4. Ehemann, dem US-Industriellen Charles Gans, in Asheville, North Carolina, USA.”
July 16th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Fred wrote
“I’ve made new friends around the world, including a Satanist band in Florida (really nice guys) and a percussion ensemble from South Africa (also really nice guys.)”
Fred keep those 2 “specialists” handy. maybe the satanist guys can help you in counter spells once Mr. Simson(sp?) of Soundexchange starts his evil curses at you for ruining his party arangements by depriving him of the money and the percussion ensemble can play some nice drums for the right athmospheric spirit when the satan guys do the counterspells.
*SCNR*
July 16th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Fred further wrote:
“There are nine “artist representatives” on the SoundExchange board. All nine were invited to join the Board by the RIAA. Their absolute silence in the face of such anti-artist conduct as the failure to find and pay 40,000 artists is as clear an indictment of their complicity as anything could be. They have betrayed the artists they say they serve.”
those “artist representatives” are known by the names:
1)
2)
3)
[...]
please Fred, fill out the blanks so that “the public” at large knows who are “the true rats” to artist then!
July 16th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Here are the nine “artist representatives” handpicked by the RIAA:
Jay L. Cooper, Recording Artists’ Coalition
Kim Roberts Hedgpeth, AFTRA
Patricia Polach, AFM
Daryl P. Friedman – The Recording Academy
Perry Resnick, Music Manager’s Forum
Walter F. McDonough, Future of Music Coalition
Michael Hausman, Michael Hausman Artist Management
Patrick Rains, PRA Management
Jay Rosenthal, Recording Artists’ Coalition
Three managers, three lawyers, two union officers and a guy from the outfit that brings you the Grammys. The union reps are there mostly to legitimize the fund that takes 5% of the royalties for session musicians and back-up singers.
And before you say “Hey, there aren’t any actual artists on there!”, please take note that Michael Hausman was Aimee Mann’s boyfriend once, so I guess that counts for something. He was also the drummer for ‘Til Tuesday at the time.
Artists did not pick these people, and artists can’t replace them. To be blunt, these folks don’t even have to talk to artists about what they do in the Board Room. The RIAA is letting them sit at the cool kids’ table, and that’s all the legitimacy they need to “represent” artists.
To believe they are watching out for artists, you have to believe that not finding artists is good for artists, and that forfeiting artist money when they can’t find them is good for artists. And you have to believe that artists will be best served by royalty rates that drive almost all webcasters off the air. You can either believe what they say, or your own lying eyes.
This is the “other” side of the table:
Mitch Bainwol – RIAA
Steven M. Marks – RIAA
Alasdair McMullan – EMI
Andrea Finkelstein – Sony BMG
Michael Ostroff – UMG
Paul Robinson – WMG
Dick Huey – Matador Records
Tom Silverman – Tommy Boy Entertainment LLC
Michael Bengloff – American Association of Independent Music
Two direct RIAA representatives, four (one each) from the RIAA labels, one (Dick Huey) who has proven himself a willing thug for the RIAA even though he swears he’s independent and says he’s working to change SoundExchange from the inside, even if we can’t see any evidence of that, one representative from A2IM (aka RIAA Lite), who once acknowledged on their own website that his members had to produce the artist poster children for musicFIRST, because “no one would believe Mariah Carey if she asked for more money,” and Tommy Silverman, who actually sits on the RIAA Board of Directors although his label (Tommy Boy) is no longer an actual member.
Just to complete the picture; John Simson is a former RIAA employee. SoundExchange COO Barrie Kessler is also an alumna. SoundExchange’s original counsel had been in-house at the RIAA, and the guy who replaced him last year was too.
At the same talk at Harvard where he admitted to being unable to locate 40,000 artists, John Simson insisted that SoundExchange was not controlled by the RIAA and that he was working very hard to battle the misconception. Once again, we find ourselves given the choice of believing what Simson says he is doing and believing the visible evidence of what he is actually doing. I’m sure he’s fighting just as hard as his handlers let him.
The board and executive suite population at SoundExchange is what we can expect when the government creates a monopoly and turns it over to a trade group. We get the kind of operation that serves the needs of the people running it, rather than the people it is supposed to serve.
Those first nine names in the post should be embarrassed that they are part of this fiasco, but clearly they are beyond embarrassment. They know what they are doing, and why, and for whom. There’s no other explanation for their participation.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Brian Zisk wrote an article for Royalty Week once that really called this one out well:
–snip–
Simson: I mean Steve really isn’t the legal face of SoundExchange. We’ve actually just hired a new general council, Mike Huppe. Mike was actually very happy to come over [from the RIAA] to SoundExchange to become general council. One of the realities we live with is that we live in a statutory licensing world with Section 114, Section 112 and there’s a very limited number of people who are really expert in that. And so we’re really excited to find somebody who I think also has more of a big picture view of the things that we can be doing to serve our constituents – the performers, the independent labels as well as the majors. Michael is currently the assistant general council, I think he may be senior VP of business affairs at the RIAA and he’s coming over. So he’s going to come over and join us.
Brian Zisk: Now would hiring someone from the RIAA to be General Counsel help the perception that SoundExchange is not associated with the RIAA?
John Simson: He’s a great litigator by training, and one of the reasons we brought him in was to help our licensing committee with his experience. I mean it just basically helps us save money, RIAA lawyers have in the past have come over and given us the value of their expertise and they don’t charge us for that.
–snip–
And that’s surprises me a bit about the artist representatives list you posted – I’ve heard Walt McDonough speak at a few places before, and he’s obviously on the FMC which is Brian Zisk’s thing to begin with … and yes, he’s a lawyer, but he always seemed on the right side of the fight, so to speak. So I’m curious where he stands on this one, or why he hasn’t perhaps raised his voice on the matter.
Walt? You out there?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Alant,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply. Either the artist representatives are fully on board with the way SoundExchange operates or they have been told not to engage in public discussion of the organization’s flaws. Neither option bodes well for those members actively standing up for artists in the Board room.
It does appear to me that there is a gag order in place. A gag order explains why Mr. Dick Huey weaseled out of his promise on p2pnet to answer any questions about SoundExchange. He said it was so he could concentrate his time and energy on looking for the real killers inside the organization, or something like that. It explains why John Simson made the same promise on the Velvet Rope and then simply walked away when people pointed out the distance between what he had already said there and what SoundExchange was actually doing.
Please remember that SoundExchange has a lot on its plate right now, and talking about their flaws isn’t part of their game plan.
Firstly, it is using all that forfeited artist money to fund the musicFIRST campaign as the stalking horse for the RIAA. And then there are all those ongoing webcaster rate negotiations.
It appears that SoundExchange isn’t going to risk what it thinks it can gain in those two areas by actually trying to justify their lousy performance on finding artists and sucking up all that forfeit money. If I was a monopoly that only had to keep a majority of 535 elected members of Congress on their side, I probably wouldn’t let criticism bother me either. Walter McDonough isn’t going to explain, either because he doesn’t feel he has to, or he has been told not to. Designated drive-by goon and “independent” Board member Mr. Dick Huey isn’t going to surface, either. If the RIAA thought that a response was appropriate, we would have already heard from Simson via press release.
It is clear that they have decided that public discussion of SoundExchange doesn’t do them any good. If there were justifications for their anti-artist policies and practices, we would have heard them by now. The operative saying goes “Silence Is Golden.” In this case, the more SoundExchange is silent, the more gold the RIAA is likely to collect.
Simson used to make a lot of sincere sounding noise about achieving transparency at SoundExchange. It appears he has accomplished it in a way no one else expected. People outside the organization have become transparent, whether it is an artist they can’t find or a critic they can’t hear. Those artist representatives on the board are on the inside looking out.
Leave a light on in the window, Alant, but don’t set out another plate for dinner. They ain’t coming. They have nothing to gain by explaining themselves.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Some of those “artist representatives” have public mugshot faces.
View them here:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16405