 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's been out on CD for a while now.
Yes, but we are talking "legitimate" here. Look at the title of the thread.
Harkit is a legitimate label, despite what a few dour celibates around here want us to believe.
Prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's been out on CD for a while now.
Yes, but we are talking "legitimate" here. Look at the title of the thread.
Harkit is a legitimate label, despite what a few dour celibates around here want us to believe.
Prove it.
However the Burden of Proof is on you since you are making this claim in the first place
Do you have single on the record source from UMG (The company that appears to own the title) or even PARAMOUNT that you can point to that supports your claim?
That the entire problem wit this dicussion, NO FACTS that are CONFIRMABLE by a ON THE RECORD SOURCE at the companies in question.
I'm not taking sides, but so far no one has offered anything to PROVE that these releases are legit or not. all we have are rumors, guesses based on said rumors and comments by 3rd parties that can't be confirmed at this time by and informed and independent source.
in the case of "Sebastian" it's possible that it's out of copyright in the EU and still in copyright in the USA.
Copyright is a very complicated, it really depends where you are standing at a given moment as to if something is still in copyright or not.
In this case, I just don't know one way or the other, so until somone offers some facts I'm reserving judgement.
The two facts I can offer:
1.) UMG distributes HARKIT in the UK.
2.) Almost every major online retailer (amazon,Itunes,etc) Carry their product.
If UMG or any other copyright holder has an issue with these relesaes, they don't APPEAR to have made a issue of it with these retailers as of this date.
Take from this what you will..
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prove it.
Don't know what country you live in, but where I live, the standard is "innocent until proven guilty." The burden of proof is on those trying to claim otherwise. Harkit has been operating legally for years. Their releases are available on Amazon, Dusty Groove, and other reputable sellers. If Harkit is breaking the law, its detractors have had plenty of time to shut them down. Until they're shut down, they are a legitimate label as far as I'm concerned.
Can you say whether or not Harkit PAYS the owners of the music before they just press an lp burn of a score? Until you can, BAD ANSWER.
By the by, I reside in the United States. Where do you hang up your shingle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you say whether or not Harkit PAYS the owners of the music before they just press an lp burn of a score? Until you can, BAD ANSWER.
If they're using the same type of legal workaround that Tsunami have been using for years, then do they have to? Not morally, not ethically, but legally? Not a question of whether they should, but whether they are LEGALLY obliged to?
If they're not actually breaking the law as it stands then there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. Their CDs are on Amazon and in HMV and other stores entirely legitimately; whether they should be is another matter entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Can you say whether or not Harkit PAYS the owners of the music before they just press an lp burn of a score? Until you can, BAD ANSWER.
FYI, when you press a CD up in UK (and most of western Europe) you have to pay the MECHICANICAL payments that are due to the publisher before your CD can be pressed and released to the label by the pressing plant.
So, any label (even those who release public domain sound recordings) are paying the publisher (Who in turn pays the writer 50% of that income) for each CD they press.
So the writers and publishers do receive income from these releases.
did you know that ?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they're using the same type of legal workaround that Tsunami have been using for years, then do they have to? Not morally, not ethically, but legally? Not a question of whether they should, but whether they are LEGALLY obliged to?.
FYI, the "legal workaround" as you call it is the fact that the EU stated that recordings that were over 25 years old fell into the public domain, this was changed in mid-1995 to 50 years.
So anything they did within that timeframe before mid-1995 was quite legit until the copyright laws that where in place in time and any titles that they releases were "Grandfathered in" because they were available before the law changed.
Did you know that?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they're using the same type of legal workaround that Tsunami have been using for years, then do they have to? Not morally, not ethically, but legally? Not a question of whether they should, but whether they are LEGALLY obliged to?.
FYI, the "legal workaround" as you call it is the fact that the EU stated that recordings that were over 25 years old fell into the public domain, this was changed in mid-1995 to 50 years.
So anything they did within that timeframe before mid-1995 was quite legit until the copyright laws that where in place in time and any titles that they releases were "Grandfathered in" because they were available before the law changed.
Did you know that?
Frod A. Thaxton
Would you not agree that a properly licensed release would sound infinitely superior than a burn of an lp made 40 plus years ago?
Thanks for your input, Frod.  Sorry- I couldn't resist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you not agree that a properly licensed release would sound infinitely superior than a burn of an lp made 40 plus years ago?
Thanks for your input, Frod. Sorry- I couldn't resist!
If you can't spell someone's name right, don't try.
I know of number of "properly licensed release(s)" that have used LP's made 40 years ago and longer as their master because that's all that is left...
People forget that LP's pressed in the 50 and 60's sounded pretty damned good and if you do it right it can sound as good today as it did when it was first released.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you not agree that a properly licensed release would sound infinitely superior than a burn of an lp made 40 plus years ago?
Not necessarily, depending on a number of factors.
And thank you for getting to the root of your issue, rather than hiding behind the legality point.
Listen, my issue has always been the legality. Nothing more or less.
Of course it's going to sound better with a remastered issue, done properly within a paid, contractual relicensing of the score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you not agree that a properly licensed release would sound infinitely superior than a burn of an lp made 40 plus years ago?
Thanks for your input, Frod. Sorry- I couldn't resist!
If you can't spell someone's name right, don't try.
I know of number of "properly licensed release(s)" that have used LP's made 40 years ago and longer as their master because that's all that is left...
People forget that LP's pressed in the 50 and 60's sounded pretty damned good and if you do it right it can sound as good today as it did when it was first released.
Ford A. Thaxton
Ford, I was just having a little fun with you mispelling your name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't spell someone's name right, don't try.
Hmm...
If they're using the same type of legal workaround that Tsunami have been using for years, then do they have to? Not morally, not ethically, but legally? Not a question of whether they should, but whether they are LEGALLY obliged to?.
FYI, the "legal workaround" as you call it is the fact that the EU stated that recordings that were over 25 years old fell into the public domain, this was changed in mid-1995 to 50 years.
So anything they did within that timeframe before mid-1995 was quite legit until the copyright laws that where in place in time and any titles that they releases were "Grandfathered in" because they were available before the law changed.
Did you know that?
Ford A. Thaxton
Are you actually saying you should never try to spell your own name here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose the question now is, when will we be blessed with a better sounding release of this old LP classic Jerry warhorse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, the "legal workaround" as you call it is the fact that the EU stated that recordings that were over 25 years old fell into the public domain, this was changed in mid-1995 to 50 years.
A very unfortunate decision.
The term of copyright as I recall was as short as 3 years for about the first 100 years of the USA.
But you comment begs the question, how long should a sound recording be in copyright?
25 years, 50 years, 75 years , 200 years?
Who should make that choice?
The USA, the EU,etc?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it's going to sound better with a remastered issue, done properly within a paid, contractual relicensing of the score.
Uh, why? An unlicensed CD (legal or not) can have just as good a remastering as a licensed one. How many FSM released were done by using an old LP? Of course the producers of a licensed CD MIGHT have access to the masters, but this isn't always the case.
You might want to ask FSM about that, not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
