 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, it looks like that box set will be ripping off previous CDs issued by Fresh Sound ("The Wild One"), Rykodisc ("I Want To Live!"), Varese Sarabande ("Crime In the Streets"), Sony/FSM ("The Subterraneans") and Universal France ("The Connection").
Not sure why you say "ripping off," Bob. Some of that content is OOP or difficult to get, and it's being made available again, probably with re-mastered sound. "Ripping off" has a highly pejorative connotation, implying that theft is occurring. You have some information about that?
Well, the new box set will most likely be compiled by "ripping" the tracks off of the previously issued CDs. No legal theft of course, just an unlicensed product made from sources other than the original tapes.
The information on the label's website suggests that the music came from original tapes. Not sure it's unlicensed or from sources other than the original tapes. You may be right, but I just wasn't sure how you would know. I don't mean to be contentious, but you sound as though you have some information that wasn't posted here already. Just trying to figure it out.
I think of "ripping" and "ripping off" as having different meanings, but maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information on the label's website suggests that the music came from original tapes.
Yes the website "suggests" that original tapes are used, but it never actually states that specifically --"original soundtracks" not "original tapes" is the term that is used. I suppose that if the prior "original soundtrack" CDs that are being used as source materials came from the original tapes, in a sense this release also comes from the original soundtracks, and, why not, also from the original tapes as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure it's unlicensed . . .
Oh, I'm not sure either. Call me a cynic, but I just think it’s unlikely that this label managed to license scores from Warner Bros., MGM/UA, Sony/Columbia, and Universal and combine them into one release. Particularly since they aren't legally required to license any of them to release them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 9, 2011 - 5:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MMM
(Member)
|
I have run into some foreign labels that are using 50+ year master recordings, and not paying writer and publisher royalties, which they are required to do. I know nothing about this particular release, so my statement has nothing to do with this label. But I do know that there are labels out there who appear to be hiding behind one specific claim of PD and acting like it affects others.
I'm not surprised that people are not paying their royalties, because some of these labels are only releasing music because they think they can get it out there for as low a price as possible. I have my doubts they care much about the product they are selling, and that is often reflected by mislabeling of specific tracks regarding their source. I just don't think they care other than making a quick buck before some other label does a similar release. I have run into this quite a lot where a label claims something is an original soundtrack when it is clearly a re-recording, and vice verss. Would have taken the label ten minutes to check and find out exactly what they were releasing, but apparently ten minutes spent on something other than earning more money is not in their business plan.
Just the fact that the only part of their business plan seems to be to put out the cheapest possible package possible would seem to attract the kind of people who can justify not paying anything to those they should be paying under the law. Hell, there are enough labels in the U. S. who are not paying their royalties when there is no PD status, so why would it be surprising that companies across the continent hide from their legal responsibilities, too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if nothing else, some of these overseas labels (this one included) do seem to put considerable effort into the physical presentation of the CDs (i.e., boxes, disc sleeves, liner notes). And as long as the source CDs or LPs that are being copied sound good, their product will sound decent as well--maybe even better, if they can apply modern ProTools technology to older releases. The buyer gets an acceptable product. But the artists/owners may get nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 10, 2011 - 2:53 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
I'm not sure precisely where Mr. Pujol's comments in the article cited put us with regard to Bob's and David's questions (mostly assumptions) regarding the label's business practices . . .
I think Mr. Pujol makes it quite clear that:
- They don't license recordings from the labels that own them unless European copyright law requires it, i.e., only if it's not in the public domain.
- They generally use LPs, 45s, 78s, CDs, and commercially sold reel-to-reel tapes as source materials.
- They will acquire (and pay for) source materials directly from composers or their families if need be.
- They usually make some attempt to clean up the sound from the sources used.
- They pay mechanical royalties for composers to the Spanish version of ASCAP, as required by law.
In short, Fresh Sound does exactly what I theorized that Moochin About does -- they don't license or use original tapes from the record companies that own them, and they generally copy previously issued commercial recordings for their source materials. However, they do seem to pay the royalties that were MMM's main concern.
It's all perfectly legal. Let's just not kid ourselves as to what their sources are and how much work they put into their product as opposed to the labels that actually produced the releases that they are copying for their source materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
