[Harp-L] A quick look at the archive

[Ken Deifik <kenneth.d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's a Deifik post from 2008 discussing the rights request:

harp-l.org/mailman/htdig/harp-l/2008-December/msg00394.html

Apparently they did withdraw the original terms and conditions after 
Richard Hunter, Emile D'Amico, I and evidently several others exposed 
those terms for what they were.  Good for PFOS.  I doubt they realized 
just how unprofessional they were being until we pointed it out to 
them.  They then did the right thing.

Have a look and you'll see why I remembered what I remembered and what 
pissed me off then and now.

Scrolling down you'll see Mr. Sloban's quoted post, the one I'm 
responding to at the top of the page.  He's clearly bitter that I 
mentioned all that inconvenient stuff about not paying the harp players, 
having granted himself vindication based on the nobility of his endeavor 
otherwise.

Take note that he sincerely hopes the harmonica players who participated 
in the film get paid for other things.  Says so right there in his 
response.  I believe he means it, too.  (To be fair, he hopes they get a 
'benefit' from having appeared in his movie. I don't doubt his sincerity 
for a nano-second.)

Below that sits my previous post, the one he's responding to.  In that 
post I say

> Does anyone else find it remarkable that the filmmakers are able to shell
> out for promotion (and prints of the film and tools to make the film) but
> somehow they couldn't pay the harp players?

So I'm still whining about the same stuff in 2013. I feel consistent.

So, sorry, no apology for saying you demanded all rights for the 
privilege of entering your contest, Mr. Slobin.

HOWEVER - BIG, HUGE, BIG TIME PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR HAVING FORGOTTEN THAT 
YOU CHANGED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND REMOVED THE WORST OF IT.  You 
did the right thing, and you probably would have never ever have dreamed 
of putting those terms and conditions in the original invitation if you 
had realized how offensive they were. Hats most seriously and sincerely off.

That was a very big deal, changing that was, and I should have 
remembered it.

I repeat: Todd Slobin did the right thing in the end about the Terms and 
Conditions to enter his 'contest'.  Actually, since those nasty bits 
were removed I'll remove the quotes around the word contest. There, I 
did it.

My other main point still stands, though I'll remove the producers of 
PFOS from my complaint. This no longer refers to anything they did:

If everyone is working for free, and I mean everyone, it's a labor of 
love.  But if other people are getting paid and you are not, if caterers 
and film stock suppliers and musicians who like to make a living are 
getting paid and you are not - well then that happened, didn't it?

It doesn't have to.

And if you say you don't want to work for free and the other guy replies 
"Fine, I know people who will" then you will begin to understand why I 
find such behavior detestable.

Sure, play on your friends' demos for free.  They are friends. However, 
before you begin to play make sure you say "I know you will return the 
favor someday when I ask."  That's very important.  Say those words.  
They really work.  You will need help moving someday or painting your 
kitchen.  Your friend now owes you.

If none of us worked for free, we would all get paid for our work. 
That's not as much of a tautology as it might sound like.