0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lie #1 – “the SoundExchange Board elected not to release those funds”It is a lie to say that SoundExchange “elected not to release those funds.” SoundExchange did indeed “release” funds from the first forfeiture in 2006. In fact, they proudly explained they had established a “reserve” containing a portion of that money to allow for “late” registrations, but warning that when that reserve was exhausted, there would be no further payments for the covered period to the artists who had money taken from them. That behavior is inconsistent with the claim that “the SoundExchange Board elected not to release those funds.”I will leave it to Mr. Huey to explain whether the statement is a mistake, or simply a lie intended to rewrite history. I would ask Ms. Williams, but I’m not holding my breath she’s ever coming back here to discuss this stuff.Lie #2 – “the list has not been updated “The list WAS updated, numerous times between September, 2006 and July 2008. In fact, SoundExchange’s home page used to feature a counter of the number of artists on the list who had registered, and those names were removed from the list. In fact, over 2,600 names were removed in that time, according to both my calculations and the counter. Claiming the list had not been updated is a lie.Furthermore, names were added to the list in January, 2007 when SoundExchange planned the second forfeiture, which was scheduled to take place in June, 2007. That, in and of itself, makes the website’s claim a lie.I will also leave this to Mr. Huey to explain why SoundExchange is denying history. He’s obviously alright with it. It might also be interesting to have his take on the fact that SoundExchange blocks the Internet Wayback Machine from looking to see what actually was on the old website. After all, he was the one who said we could “hold him” to his promise to make the organization more transparent. (Another promise, another lack of actual change. So what else is new?) Now that his efforts in that regard have clearly failed, (if, in fact, he actually made any efforts) I think it is time for him to admit the organization is no more forthcoming now than it was then, and that, despite that, his continued participation on the Board is his endorsement of this conduct. That’s how I intend to “hold him” to the promise he made. I’ll bet he wishes now, he made that statement on the SoundExchange website, because now he could deny that he ever said it.Lie # 3 – “We do not update the list on the website”See the above. This is a lie. They updated the list. Then they stopped when it became clear that outsiders like “Project Unfound Artist” was doing a better job than they were.Lie # 4 – “it was a one-time release of artists who stood to lose money in a 2006 pool release”Another lie. It wasn’t a one-time release. A second one was announced (but only on the website) within weeks of the close of the first forfeiture. The second one was subsequently suspended, and then abandoned, after the near-secret plan was publicized by critics. SoundExchange clearly would have taken the money if they could have done so without public exposure. They didn’t stop out of a love for artists, or they wouldn’t even have started. They stopped because they were exposed as muggers and thieves.Lie #5 – “(which was later cancelled in favor of ongoing efforts to find artists)”The 2006 forfeiture was not cancelled. Period. Claiming it was is simply a baldfaced lie.Ms. Williams goes on to say “This is clearly stated on the list.” It is true, the current website language makes the same claim. Asserting that it must be true because it appears on the website now, is simply playing everyone for fools. We’re not, Ms. Williams. No matter how you want to rewrite history, there are folks out here who saw what really happened.Lie #6 – “Names come off the unpaid list all the time, but the website list was a static, one-time release.”This is just an outright falsehood. Names came off, and names were added. I would think Mr. Huey would be embarrassed by this, but clearly, he’s fine with it, as we haven’t heard a word out of him to contradict this, even though he knows the history well enough, and he knows everyone outside the organization knows it, too. Clearly, if SoundExchange wants to distort history, Mr. Huey’s in favor of it.