The Surface Unsigned hoo-har rolls on, it seems
Right, so, it’ll be back to the blogging of Lots Of Things I’ve Seen And Done soon (probably. You know what I’m like), as well as a a meme that has been slapped on my back in the manner of the ‘Kick Me’ sign that you actually appreciate. In the meantime, though, this Surface Unsigned nonsense (see previous post) seems to still be going on.
Check it one time. SU themselves are now claiming that bands didn’t actually need to sell the specific quota of tickets to play/progress to the next round. I’m not sure whether to believe that or not. Leaning towards ‘not’, really. In the face of their insistence that it wasn’t pay-to-play, someone else posts saying that bands connected to him had to pay £25 which was never refunded. Someone else insists that we should we ‘do our research’ about who the judges were and the connections with record companies, but frankly that was all a bit vague for my tiny little mind.
Funny stuff, though. One gets the impression that the S’Unsigned sunshines still really feel themselves to be the aggrieved parties after using legal threats to tell other people to shut up. Judging by the comments they’ve left on CIB, they may also like to investigate the newfangled invention known as ‘paragraphs’.
EDIT (half an hour or so later): I’ve just noticed something I’d previously missed. Your SU representative claims that the initial “take this down or suffer” letter came about as a result of “the harsh criticism about a speech impediment of a female presenter”. A copy of what was actually emailed is reprinted here. It doesn’t seem to mention anything of the sort, as far as I can see, and just speaks of the nonsensical copyright claims. Are they fibbing again? God forbid.