I believe that point is actually addressed in the FAQ that the article refers to -- the HTML Writer's Guild, as hosts of the mailing list in question, would also become liable to prosecution, and they are in the US. Effectively, therefore, there can be fallout for any party privy to, or enabling, such a conversation, even if the main participants are not under direct US jurisdiction.

So abstaining from discussion of rates here also helps to avoid any actions being brought against VSL or their American business partners.

A further problem is that this is the type of offence where you can be found guilty in your absence (it's a per se federal offence, which means that the facts alone are enough to convict, without any need to get into motives or context, and the burden of proof switches to the defendant to show that their actions were not actually a crime). If you, as defendant, are absent, the conviction stands against you anyway, and any subsequent attempts to enter the US, or even conduct business there from outside, could be seriously hampered for a long time.

I believe there are only four legitimate ways to get the information the original poster wanted: negotiate individually with your customers; adjust your prices, and see what effect it has on your business; use standard rates, based on surveys published by reputable trade or professional bodies; and read an independent survey of what typical rates are, conducted by a journalist not in the line of business, and published somewhere where customers are as likely to see it as suppliers.

Note that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. [:)]

@fcw said:

I believe there are only four legitimate ways to get the information the original poster wanted: negotiate individually with your customers; adjust your prices, and see what effect it has on your business; use standard rates, based on surveys published by reputable trade or professional bodies; and read an independent survey of what typical rates are, conducted by a journalist not in the line of business, and published somewhere where customers are as likely to see it as suppliers.

 Actually, I think it would be okay to leave it the way it is, since no actual discussion of rates took place, and this thread could serve as a warning to others. [:)]

I was thinking the same thing, somewhat more belligerently and obscenely... though I guess Big Brother is watching. 

Now is the time to join the Underground! 

@DG said:

I would have thought that the right to freedom of speech negates all that cp*p

Slander and perjury are just two examples of types of speech that can get you into serious trouble because of the damage you can do to others with mere words. And good luck to anyone relying on the First Amendment as a defence against shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

The right to freedom of speech is a right that must be used wisely; it isn't a 'get out of jail free' card for whatever harm can be done with words alone.

@DG said:

I would have thought that the right to freedom of speech negates all that cp*p

Slander and perjury are just two examples of types of speech that can get you into serious trouble because of the damage you can do to others with mere words. And good luck to anyone relying on the First Amendment as a defence against shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

The right to freedom of speech is a right that must be used wisely; it isn't a 'get out of jail free' card for whatever harm can be done with words alone.

DG

@DG said:

Of course not, but nobody is going to tell me whether or not I can tell someone how much I charge.

When that someone is a potential or actual competitor of yours, I think you'll find that the US Federal Trade Commission disagrees with you, and they are supported by over a century of legislation and court judgements.

In all seriousness, when people have gone to jail because they had an after-dinner conversation about commission rates, it shows that some kinds of speech are considered threats to the public trust in the US (hence, 'anti-trust'), and prosecuted accordingly.

Note that I'm neither defending nor advocating the situation, just pointing out the potential danger, and showing you where you can find links to real legal information and advice.

That is all. [:)] 

@DG said:

Of course not, but nobody is going to tell me whether or not I can tell someone how much I charge.

When that someone is a potential or actual competitor of yours, I think you'll find that the US Federal Trade Commission disagrees with you, and they are supported by over a century of legislation and court judgements.

I also don't care what they think either. [;)]

DG

I keep on agreeing with DG on this.  In fact, I basically don't believe it.  I can talk to anyone about anything that is non-violent or non-slanderous and can sue your ass off if you try to stop me.

@William said:

I keep on agreeing with DG on this.  In fact, I basically don't believe it.  I can talk to anyone about anything that is non-violent or non-slanderous and can sue your ass off if you try to stop me.

 fcw says that we can legitimately obtain rates by obtaining "surveys published by reputable trade or professional bodies."

So, I would like to pronounce that THIS THREAD IS AN OFFICIAL SURVEY.

Also I would like to announce that I am a professional body. (160 lbs., 8% bodyfat)

The line starts here, ladies.

Clark

This page contains links to the New York standard union rates for most musical categories incuding orchestration.

http://www.local802afm.org/frames/fs_wage.htm 

Arranging fees are not set. The requirement is that the rates are higher than those for orchestration. You should also be aware that these are the union minimums and do not neccesarily reflect the actual rates charged by experienced pros.

Be Well,

Poppa