London Sound Survey Crisis

[MrGongGong]

Surely part of the problem is that some people can afford to get themselves clever lawyers and others are unable to do so regardless of the situation?

If its naive and foolish to ask for help when you need it then we really are in a horrible place.

[french frank]

Is this thread appropriate for this Forum? This is an active legal dispute which could perhaps end in court proceedings. It's a sensitive matter.

Is it 'active' in the technical sense? These would be civil proceedings; if they went to court, once a date had been set for a hearing it would then become active. I'm still not clear about the one party asking for regular payments to 'licence' the other. Surely, if the one party wished to be 'fair', he could include the 'disclaimer' of any connection with the 'small notice' on each and every page of the website (easy to set up so that it automatically appears on every page) which the other party asked for.

[Gordon]

Surely part of the problem is that some people can afford to get themselves clever lawyers and others are unable to do so regardless of the situation?

That is is the way it is, right or wrong. Ideally all are equal before the law but we know that is not so in practice because of discrepancies in wealth and influence. We may ask ourselves where that wealth might have come from? It does not have to be won by dirty deeds but by successive judicious busness decisions. The legal profession itself in in a position to moderate the situation but not to eliminate privilege. Lawyers always have a choice about taking on a case and, one might say, a duty to serve justice first. There is the legal aid system.

One might hope that a lawyer for Mr Solomons might advise him bluntly not to be so greedy but all he will do is go down the road and find one that will take his case. It only needs one. It is the right of a citizen to seek justice and to expect representation - even if he's wrong. A fact that we all have to live with.

If its naive and foolish to ask for help when you need it then we really are in a horrible place.

It isn't naive and foolish to ask for help. It is naive and possibly even foolish to go into a business enterprise [especially in the notoriously loosely regulated internet] without considering all the aspects of what is involved. Business is not risk free and can only act within the limits of its resources ie small businesses are more vulnerable than large ones. One should not assume that the world of business is wholly honest and trustworthy and espouses the same moral principles our social responsibility as ourselves. In a successful "honest" business all the reasons "why not" are balanced by an optimistic outlook and not a little courage but combined with a healthy dose of realism. A bit of luck also helps a lot but isn't reliable long term. You have to make your own luck.

If this environment is a "horrible place" then it only reflects what people are like - it's more horrible for idealists and public spirited folk than it is for the hard hearted who simply recognise a truth and accept it and exploit it.

I am sympathetic to Mr Rawes' predicament but, being very frank about this case, it worries me that Mr Rawes and/or his enterprise is so strapped for £300 that an appeal has to be launched. Why has the business so little cash flow, credit or so few assets? It rather exposes the parlous state of the business and that itself raises other questions, some rather obvious, of how this campaign is to be sustained. It seems unlikely on the basis of what we have learned here that Mr Solomons would be strapped for £300. We might ask why? Sorry to be blunt.

[Gordon]

Is it 'active' in the technical sense? These would be civil proceedings; if they went to court, once a date had been set for a hearing it would then become active. I'm still not clear about the one party asking for regular payments to 'licence' the other. Surely, if the one party wished to be 'fair', he could include the 'disclaimer' of any connection with the 'small notice' on each and every page of the website (easy to set up so that it automatically appears on every page) which the other party asked for.

The question to ask is: what is the asset that underpins and justifies such a licence? Does Mr Solomons actually legally own anything tangible? Do other people actually pay him money? If so, what made them do it? Did they consult or simple give in to bluster and pressure and take an easy way out eg pay up or just change and move out of his way?

[MrGongGong]

I am sympathetic to Mr Rawes' predicament but, being very frank about this case, it worries me that Mr Rawes and/or his enterprise is so strapped for £300 that an appeal has to be launched. Why has the business so little cash flow, credit or so few assets?

Because, and I know some people find this idea difficult to grasp
It's NOT A BUSINESS

Not everything is set up with the aim of expanding or making money

If this environment is a "horrible place" then it only reflects what people are like

Maybe in your world but not in mine

[Gordon]

Because, and I know some people find this idea difficult to grasp
It's NOT A BUSINESS

Not everything is set up with the aim of expanding or making money

I'm well aware from the web site of what kind of "business" Mr Rawes has - but like it or not it has pitched up in Mr Solomon's territory and he doesn't care what kind of operation it is.

It is a very good web site and well produced. This quality implies a great deal of dedicated, presumably voluntary effort on the part of not a few people who have to live. It has obviously got to this stage of development over a period of time. The donation system seems to be what has kept it going, paying the non avoidable costs, and will presumably carry on doing so as long as the donors think it worthwhile. What I don't get is why £300 is such a deal. Are the finances so tight that £300 makes a such a difference requiring an extra appeal? Is there no float provision against a rainy day? It may not be a normal "business", and maybe I was wrong to call it that knowing that is was not a commercial enterprise, but it still must have a financial structure and someone to manage it. A potential donor might be wary of making a donation if they were not sure that there were sound financial management practices in place. It must also have a daily or weekly cost that must be balanced by the donation rate. What is that rate? Do just the donors get that information? Or do they just pay on trust? How many donors are there anyway? London is a big place and finding 100 people there to cough £3 each might seem easy.

Maybe in your world but not in mine

Come off it - you've lived long enough now to see how the world works, there is no yours and mine, they impinge on each other just as Mr Rawes and Mr Solomons have clashed. My world has been really horrible in the past because other people made it so and this has tempered my natural liberal tendencies but has not erased them. I am not a cynic but I have learned to ask questions.

This is not the place to air my past. We know very little about each other as individuals and I am not one to antagonise for the fun of it. I simply have some questions for Mr Rawes that are not answered by what information is available.

[MrGongGong]

I don't think you understand at all Gordon

Many of us set up things and develop them with NO money, no formal arrangements and no "float" or anything of the kind
One of the wonderful things about current technology is that it IS possible to do this.

Why do you assume that everything has a "financial structure" ? Many things don't

It's a website setup by someone who is passionately interested and extremely knowledgeable about the subject and supported by a large community of people involved in phonography and sound recording research.

The idea that somehow the "world works" in one way isn't what I see. I'm watching the news at the moment where i'm seeing many highly skilled medical practitioners in West Africa who have gone there for reasons other than money.

How do you think this messageboard works?

[Serial_Apologist]

Well said Gongers.

I can't conceive what can possibly be considered dodgy about Mr Rawes or his project.

[Beef Oven!]

I don't think you understand at all Gordon

Many of us set up things and develop them with NO money, no formal arrangements and no "float" or anything of the kind
One of the wonderful things about current technology is that it IS possible to do this.

Why do you assume that everything has a "financial structure" ? Many things don't

It's a website setup by someone who is passionately interested and extremely knowledgeable about the subject and supported by a large community of people involved in phonography and sound recording research.

The idea that somehow the "world works" in one way isn't what I see. I'm watching the news at the moment where i'm seeing many highly skilled medical practitioners in West Africa who have gone there for reasons other than money.

How do you think this messageboard works?

But

[Gordon]

Many of us set up things and develop them with NO money, no formal arrangements and no "float" or anything of the kind
One of the wonderful things about current technology is that it IS possible to do this.

Don't be surprised then if something comes along that knocks you down. Where did that technology come from? NO money? Really??

Why do you assume that everything has a "financial structure" ? Many things don't/

That's why Mr Rawes has a problem with Mr Solomons and wants someone else to get him out of it.

I'd be happy to give him his £300 if I could see firm evidence that it would end the matter and shut Solomons up. Come to think of it why hasn't somebody already done just that? Why not set up a busking gig with a few musicians? Record it and put it on the site.

AFAIK there are NO "donors" to the London Sound Survey, why should there be?

So why is there is a "Donate" button on the front page? And the rights page via a link also states that the rights system used to help contributors is supported by donations.

It's a website setup by someone who is passionately interested and extremely knowledgeable about the subject and supported by a large community of people involved in phonography and sound recording research.

That's clear and it's highly commendable. So they all live on fresh air and have bus passes?

The idea that somehow the "world works" in one way isn't what I see. I'm watching the news at the moment where i'm seeing many highly skilled medical practitioners in West Africa who have gone there for reasons other than money.

How do you think this messageboard works?

We must each see the world as we wish then. We must acknowledge the dedication and courage of medics who have gone to work in W Africa. Where did the resources come from to send those people to Africa and supply them? Without resources all the compassion in the world fails to achieve. That does not mean I think we should give up, just that the degree of voluntary support for compassionate causes depends on the cause. I can't make a connection between Mr Rawes and Ebola in W Africa.

The message board works because someone somewhere is paying for it. Mark Sealey [I think] still runs the server system and his outfit [support via donations or a trust unless I am mistaken] pays for the software licence. And you and I are paying our ISPs to connect us.

After 70 years on this planet I don't understand many things but, after 15 years helping charities, outfits running on shoestrings isn't one of them. I know about kindness and compassion and the lack of it from personal experience so I don't need lectures in charity from anyone.

Anyway, I've gone on enough on this thread and have said my piece. If others disagree that's fine.

[Gordon]

Well said Gongers.

I can't conceive what can possibly be considered dodgy about Mr Rawes or his project.

I have to defend that!! I have never said it was dodgy and don't believe it is, why would you think that from what I've written?! I just want to know how he got into the position he's in.

[ahinton]

I don't think you understand at all Gordon

Many of us set up things and develop them with NO money, no formal arrangements and no "float" or anything of the kind
One of the wonderful things about current technology is that it IS possible to do this.

Why do you assume that everything has a "financial structure" ? Many things don't

It's a website setup by someone who is passionately interested and extremely knowledgeable about the subject and supported by a large community of people involved in phonography and sound recording research.

The idea that somehow the "world works" in one way isn't what I see. I'm watching the news at the moment where i'm seeing many highly skilled medical practitioners in West Africa who have gone there for reasons other than money.

How do you think this messageboard works?

Whilst what you write is largely true, so is Gordon's response. Nothing in life can be achieved without someone spending some money somewhere. Charity shops have to be funded by the charities concerned. Everything that involves financial transactions should have a financial structure, otherwise there's no control over it.

If either party in this dispute wishes to instigate legal proceedings against the other, money will be required even if a lawyer's prepared to do a certain amount of work on it on a pro bono basis; the input of a court, counsel and all the rest won't all be provided for free.

People over 60 who are entitled, regardless of income and assets owned, to receive free NHS prescriptions, apply for free bus passes and the rest only get these benefikts because someone else pays for them.

It simply is not possible, technology notwithstanding, to set up and run a business without any money, whatever the funding source might be; technology can certainly help to reduce outlay in many cases, but it cannot remove the need for it altogether.

[ahinton]

Because, and I know some people find this idea difficult to grasp
It's NOT A BUSINESS

It has been set up to fulfil some functions for the benefit of others, which means that there will be transactions, financial or otherwise, so it IS a business and needs to be run like one. Many people say that NHS isn't a business because most of its services are supposedly free at the point of use, but it can't and doesn't run on air any more than can any of its massive number of employees. Even if Mr Rawes' business is not primarily geared towards profit generation, it still requires some funds to run and, like any other business, it needs some kind of float in order to be able to address the issue that Mr Rawes currently faces is Mr Solomons decides to proceed.

Not everything is set up with the aim of expanding or making money

Maybe in your world but not in mine

We all live in the same one, actually!...

[MrGongGong]

Blimey, all I said was that not everything is run the same way and some people choose to spend their time doing and making things in different ways.
I don't really need to be told that someone was paid to make the train i'm on

[ahinton]

Blimey, all I said was that not everything is run the same way and some people choose to spend their time doing and making things in different ways.

True as of course that is, it wasn't quite ALL that you said; you did also write of Mr Rawes' operation "It's NOT A BUSINESS"!

I don't really need to be told that someone was paid to make the train i'm on

Indeed - but then no one IS telling you that, or anything like it!

I run a small business myself; I had to borrow money to set it up and spend more to keep it going. I didn't set it up for the prime purpose of generating a profit but if it doesn't generate one the business will fail and so will I. It is severely compromised by the actions intellectual property thieves against whom I cannot possibly take legal action, so it's very hard to keep going. That said, technology has enabled many things within its operation that were not possible without it and, frankly, I reckon that it would otherwise have collapsed before now. It doesn't make much money but it's still a business, as HMRC knows well.