time out here...i never questioned anyONE's honesty or integrity, nor did
i say anything related to trust...as i stated in an earlier post, this is
a contractual issue...assuming its a standard contract, any party can
request an independent audit of the financial arrangements involved...if
party b states that they are "...unfeasably scrupilously fair with
royalties..." , then they should be able to prove it to party a...not to
this list or anyone else...that is not a judgement on anyone or any
institution involved...and i think it is of greater significance than
whether or not i paid u the $ 5.00 i owed u....my interest in this issue
began with the word "fair"...that is a value judgement, not a financial
one...if u lent me $ 5.00, and i say the return on investment is really
only a "fair" $ 3.00, what would u say?...and as i said, experience
proves that the artist gets screwed...
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:00:06 -0500 Adam J Weitzman
<weitzman@individual.com> writes:
quoted 71 lines Chris Fahey wrote:
>Chris Fahey wrote:
>>
>> He never asked for facts/proof with any greater degree of
>> self-righteousness than anyone else has when they ask for
>facts/proof
>> about any other list topic. He never claimed a "right" to anything,
>nor
>> that he or anyone else on the list "deserved" anything. Why do you
>> perceive that he has?
>
>Tom suggested that unless Warp could produce an independent audit of
>their books, that Greg's honesty could be called into question, viz:
>
>> > >>i hope this statement can be verified by an independent
>audit.....
>
>and suggested that IDM-ers need not trust him unless he does. This
>suggests in turn that for us to ever trust him again, we "deserve" to
>see the results of such an audit. I'm using the word a little more
>loosely than I want to, but I can't think of a better one for this
>purpose. Perhaps it would be better to say that Tom thinks Greg
>"owes"
>it to us all.
>
>If I say that you never paid me for something, and you say you did,
>and
>someone else on the list said, "I hope you can back that up by showing
>us your bank statement," would you do it? I don't think so. I think
>that showing it to me should be plenty, and if I have any honor at
>all,
>I would admit my mistake publicly, and if I didn't then you could show
>me up publicly; either way, the issue gets resolved without an
>"independent audit."
>
>> He's only saying that if you're going to publicly dis someone, it is
>in
>> everyones best interest to back it up, otherwise everyone will reach
>the
>> same conclusion that you and I have - that they are probably both
>wrong.
>> What's wrong with pointing that out to the person who made the issue
>> public in the first place?
>
>Actually, it was Ken who made the issue public. Greg didn't dis
>anyone;
>he only said that Warp was above board and that Ken would get paid on
>time. My opinion is that just because Ken decided to make this public
>shouldn't open Warp up to any more scrutiny than you or I would
>undergo
>in the same circumstances. They're under no more obligation to reveal
>their numbers to you or me than they are to reveal them to the next
>guy
>that walks by the office or the next NME reporter who calls. He owes
>Ken an answer, for sure, but that's really it.
>
>If Ken were to sue, then surely Warp's books would be scrutinized as a
>matter of law. But the IDM mailing list is not a court of law, and we
>are not judges. Like I said in my earlier post, if Ken or Greg feel
>that something is not right, I'm sure they'll speak up and we'll know
>about it. In the meantime, you and I are perfectly capable of
>deciding
>for ourselves whom we believe more in the absence of any more
>information.
>
>--
>Adam J Weitzman "Getting [your computer] to work is no more
>Individual, Inc. difficult than building a nuclear reactor
>weitzman@individual.com from wristwatch parts using only your
>teeth."
>http://www.individual.com - Dave Barry
>