1. I'm unfamiliar with the vagaries of US law but, if the registration fee has already been paid at a reduced rate because you are performing (making the discount effectively a payment for services rendered), wouldn’t the terms of the original point-of-sale contract be binding? Even if you chose not to sign to the release agreement? If so, then you should still be able to attend and perform. Wouldn’t the new release require additional consideration (payment) for it to be binding?

Posted at 1:29AM on Jul 5th 2007 by skribe

2. Yes, under the Uniform Commercial Code (1976) - as soon as the fees are paid, no additional terms, conditions or restrictions can be lawfully imposed.

Posted at 1:31AM on Jul 5th 2007 by Tateru Nino

3. There's no way in the world I'd sign away all rights to any content I created in that way. No way at all. Sounds like a RIAA strong-arm contract, where you sign away all rights to your material, and they get all of the benefits.

Posted at 3:19AM on Jul 5th 2007 by Kahni Poitier

4. Actually it is all about the content and the who. Yes, the timing is one of the problems. But the release form is by far no standard release form - it hands over far too many rights to the broadcaster. Read the comments, especially those from musicians in the biz for some years. None of the musicians say this is a normal release form. It's not about just a few additional rules. It's not just little broader than usual. It's not just Slimmy and a few who decline - it's hit a broad wall of non-acceptance in the musicians group.

And how can it not be about who gets the rights assigned, if nowhere in the discussion the organizers a) say who actually this Phreak Media LLC is (instead residents have to dig that up) and b) nowhere in the discussion Nethermind Bliss actually tells people that she is on both sides of the fence - on the side of TFU as SLCC organizer _and_ on the side of Phreak Media as the PR person of Phreak Interactive, who according to their own press release where "chosen" to broadcast in February allready?

Really. Dig in the comments. Read the stuff and look at what people found out on their own. Saying it is all just about the timing is rather ignoring all the other problems in that discussion.

Posted at 3:40AM on Jul 5th 2007 by Barney Boomslang

5. Well, from where I'm sitting, the timing is the showstopper. It renders every other aspect essentially moot.

Posted at 3:49AM on Jul 5th 2007 by Tateru Nino

6. Well, a timing error can be fixed for next SLCC. A loss in trust can't be fixed that easily - and lots of what happened around that boils down to me as a "loss of trust" problem (especially the not-public intermingling of TFU as non-profit and Phreak Media as for-profit). Add to that the fact of the rather ill conceived "community standards" they posted (why does everybody has to pull the community into this when it's just a bunch of ppl who write something?) and there is even a similar request for talkers at that conference:

http://www.ericrice.com/blog/?p=603

scroll down to Peter Haiks comment - they asked talkers for exclusive rights to their talk, too, for later publishing. But you know, you don't need to get _exclusive_ rights for publishing ...

Yes, timing might be the show-stopper for this year, but there is much more in that thing than just bad timing. And some of that might come back to them in a bad way next year (like the rather clumsy music organization with musicians playing in front of empty rooms due to problems with the drinks from the free bar outside not allowed inside comes back to them now in the discussion).

It's one thing to be amateurish when running an amateur event. It's another thing to go amateurish when you put out hard contracts and stuff like that.

Posted at 4:07AM on Jul 5th 2007 by Barney Boomslang

7. The initial version which was circulated wasn't a final, approved version by the TFU board. What has also been continually left out of various stories on this is that we have been working with SL musicians to come up with a mutually agreeable waiver. Just about every convention or appearance I've ever made has required a waiver: when Jenn and I were featured on CNBC, when I've spoken at Universities and they've videotaped it, when I appeared in BusinessWeek; and I signed all of them after the interview and/or taping had occurred, but before print or airing. At the recent VW2007 conference in March, all panelists had to sign a waiver, and it wasn't given to them until the week of the conference. It is standard to have a waiver for performers and panelists, and the one we're working on with performers and panelists is going to be much less restrictive than a typical boilerplate waiver. Thanks to everyone who's given their input to us directly on this issue - it's been a big help! :)

Regards,

-Flip

Posted at 9:23AM on Jul 6th 2007 by FlipperPA

8. If these are trully the terms .. they are completely unacceptable.

>>>
I hereby grant to Phreak Media, LLC and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable, perpetual, unrestricted, global and exclusive license to broadcast, record, distribute, and/or publish any audio in which I am included, on

August 24-26, 2007

at

Second Life Community Convention and related events, Chicago, IL

for any purpose, without compensation. I hereby release Phreak Media, LLC and its legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said audio. I further waive any right to inspect or approve the live audio and/or audio recordings or any printed or electronic matter that may be used in conjunction with them.

Posted at 12:23PM on Jul 6th 2007 by Concord Comet

9. “8. The initial version which was circulated wasn’t a final, approved version by the TFU board.” and “Posted at 9:23AM on Jul 6th 2007 by FlipperPA”
+
Nethermind disseminated ~1 July: “If you feel that it is either unfair or something that you cannot abide by in exchange for performing at SLCC, I understand and will accept your resignation from SLCC’s music lineup”
+
Post #3 # FlipperPA Peregrine July 2nd, 2007 | 5:11 pm with NO mention of this
=
Which strategy genius advised you this might be a good move to try Flipper?

And this is starting to show a complete lack of respect for peoples basic intelligence. Whichever way you look at it it’s either gross incompetence or gross misdirection. *picks jaw up*

We know a new contract is being negotiated, and nobody feels a need to mention it because we know it’s being done. It’s going to be very interesting to see when they publicly post it on their site for all to see their new openness and transparency process!

Flipper, your attempt to imply people are stupid because a waiver was foisted up them, I repeat from before:
@Crow: We know release forms are standard, we are not complete avatards. The issue is the extreme one-sided nature of the Phreaking release form presented.

Posted at 8:50PM on Jul 6th 2007 by Komuso Tokugawa

10. This is NOT just about the timing, ALL the points I and others raised are important and VALID.
The document sent out was not just badly timed, it is also NOT a standard release form as it would appply to Musicians.
If you read the document it clearly says the word' EXCLUSIVE" , It has NO limitations either.
That for starters is a total NO brainer.. no one in their right mind would give exclusive rights away to a company because they happen to be 'streaming' your performance.
Then as we look more closely you look at the links that exist between Phreak and Future United. All is not as clear as one imagined.

This IS about the TERMS of that document.... and do you think if they had handed this out at the beginning when they 'auditioned' SL musicians that any of us would be performing at all ?
Not in a million years!


Slimmie

Posted at 6:15AM on Jul 7th 2007 by Slim Warrior

11. [removed at commenter's request]

Posted at 6:21AM on Jul 7th 2007 by Slim Warrior

12. If the form sent otu was not the final one:

Why wasn't that clarified on the next day instead of telling til friday "standard form"?

Taco - responsible - said they have been unaware that th emusicians do not know. but _never_ said: The form content was an error.

FlipperPA: you are trying to cover the shit with fog.

A timing problem now is only, that the musicians would have said "no way, not with me" earlier. It is the content of the form, which is the real problem and the missing transparency.

It the event is a community event, complete transparency is needed.

for thse who haven't read the other blog:
- 2. february - Phreak Interactive (no error, yes) publishes they are choosen with their subsidiary Preak Radio as broadcaster.
- April 2007 - contract between TFU and Phreak (Media or Interactive or whatever was signed) - content unknown
- 1. july - Form was sent out by member of TFU in person with employee at Phreak Interactive

As all, who are involved repeat over and over again, that it was a standard form - wich wasn't - I am sure, that there can be no doubt about the plans - timing was bad for them though. But better timing would not have made anything better than the fact the musicians would not have booked already.

Welcome to Web 2.0, where everybody seems to try to make use (business) of the content others created.

Posted at 8:50AM on Jul 7th 2007 by Bibi Book