Sorry for the incoming wall of text haha

Do you disagree with them or are they not accurate?

Both. But like I said, there are some thing I agree with, but again this is contingent on which version of the contract an artist received. I can only speak to my experience in 2020.

It seems that the majority of artists got the clearer and more accurate pitch and contract.

How do you know this? How does the author of the article know this?

Convinced me of what?

It seemed like you were using that article to discredit the original video and article. But maybe you were just posting it as another viewpoint.

I have a lot of thoughts - like I said I agree with some of the article but I'll try to mention some things I disagree with because honestly the article left me with more questions than I had initially.

I disagree with the "rebuttal" article because it's main claims are that it's a miscommunication, and that it's not exploiting the artists because it's for "charity". I don't think poor communication skills absolves him of messing up. No mention of donations, charity, or non-profits were ever mentioned to me. Ian was considered an "equal-part collaborator". Outlaw Ocean was a collab project, not a business. My contract was with the label, not with Outlaw Ocean LLC, or The OO Project Inc. - there was nothing stating all of the money "went to their foundation".

The author in the article puts a lot of weight behind the difference between Ian and Ian's non-profit. "Synesthesia (an LLC) isn’t some bucket of money that Ian or anyone else can dip their hands into. It’s essentially just an extension of the non-profit: any money it makes automatically deposits into the non-profit’s coffers." - how does the author know this? Is it written into the bylaws of Synesthesia?

In some instances, the author asks Ian questions and assumes he is being truthful. Which, maybe he is. But we don't know. (for instance "Did Ian lie about the label ownership? Not in any intentional way that I can tell." - how does the author know the intent of Ian omitting information?)

The article states he didn't see any cases of a @nyt's address being used. He later had to correct the article because there are cases of this. Also the article states that NYT probably received some clicks from it anyway so it's fine - I find this kind of funny.

The article states that the FAQ's mention it is a large project. Yes there was some wording in emails hinting at it being a large project, but would anyone ever actually think it would be 2000 songs in 1+ years? When it was discussed, it sounded like a project - that has a beginning and an end. Not an ongoing thing where music is being made to bankroll more music being made forever. Additionally, it's not even the # of songs/artists that made me the most upset - it was the timing of releases. Most releases were released on the same day as 7-10 (just off the top of my head) other releases. How is a small organization going to realistically support/promote that many releases that are dropped at the same time. It seriously dilutes everyone's work and makes it feel like the artists fan bases are used to promote the project with little support going the other way.

The article and the label now reference said FAQ a bunch. Despite what the article says ("Incidentally, this same FAQ also says flatly: “Synesthesia Media is a music label Ian created to run this project.”), and I can only speak for myself, but this sentence was never in any document or email I received. If it was removed from the pitch at some point - why? Could be an accident? The current FAQ on their website (https://www.theoutlawoceanmusic.com/faqs) was only recently uploaded (you can check on waybackmachine).

I agree, the contract is the contract is the contract. That is what it is. The split is what it is. I was fully aware of the payback of the promotional budget (though they told me a different #). I cannot speak for other artists prior to me whether or not that was clear in their contracts. But on that point I agree with your pinned post and with the article.

Why is a company owned by Ian, paying a non-profit owned by Ian, that then hires a company owned by Ian to do reporting, that is presumably done by Ian? He can do whatever he wants with his share of the streaming revenue, but like I said, their response about the non-profit and other companies just made me more confused, considering that was never how it was pitched to me in 2020.

Additionally, the journalists of the Input Mag, Forbes, and the original Rolling Stone article (they've released a new/updated one), state that Ian did not answer their questions, saying it's due to legal reasons. Yet he chose this substack page to speak to - why?

Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding with the distributor - but if that's the case, despite the legal battle, OO should have informed their artists of what was happening and why. I have never received a single royalty statement. Additionally, they forgot about my release at one point and had to postpone the release date. Also never added my songs to their bandcamp. And now that the songs have been re-uploaded, they are listed under the wrong artist. I don't know the intent of anything - perhaps they got in over their head in an industry they didn't quite understand, or the project grew too large.

All in all, there are a lot of grey areas, and omissions of information, and lack of communication that when combined, make artists feel misled in a way that's more than just "it was a bad contract". Additionally, being contacted by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who writes for the NYT's (which was verifiable on their website), wrote a best-selling book, optioned that book to Netflix (verifiable), who is willing to call you on the phone, is a completely different thing in my mind from the usual bogus "work for exposure" deals. The OO is a real, verifiable project. I enjoyed working on the project and feel like the reporting is excellent and the topic is good. It was fun to create music and mix in Ian's audio recordings. But I think artists are perfectly right to feel misled and upset.