>
>However, many of the bands on the label haven't been
>paid properly for records sold.
not true.
> The
>financing/ownership of the label comes from a
>Microsoft
>investor guy who keeps a low profile and uses Chris as
>the labels "indie" identity.
not true.
> I may be completely
>misinformed, but the impression I got from bands at
>the time was that UP was created and funded by this
>silent partner guy as an investment during the era
>that independent labels were selling off
>ownership to Majors for multimillion dollar figures
>(Warner's 49% share of Sub-Pop for $20 million,
>Matador's alliances with Atlantic then Capitol)
not true.
>The intention was allegedly to build a roster, then
>either sell the label or else sell off individual
>bands contracts to Majors when they became
>interested (Warners with Built to Spill, Epic/Sony
>with Modest Mouse)
not true.
>UP has a reputation for giving you enough to make a
>record, printing nice album artwork, then never paying
>any royalties.
not true.
>Another warning sign of where UP's priorities are came
>when they actually tried to sue the band R.E.M. for
>putting out the album titled "Up". They tried to
>shake R.E.M. down for money claiming that people
>would be confused by the album title and think that it
>was an UP release.
not true.
>In life in general, I think bringing legal action (and
>
>lawyers in general) into situations where you don't
>need to, in a desperate effort to grab some cash is
>pretty gross. This seems to be business as usual
>for the guy silently running UP.
what guy "silently running UP"?
>
>
>Some interesting claims in there... any comments???
not true.
Colin
