Fresh Sound & Lone Hill Reissues Discussion

[AllenLowe]

I wonder if this can be done with books - I'm thinking of reissuing this one, since I think it's out of copyright:

[Tjazz]

Just noticed this re-issue of Buddy Defranco. 2 albums : Cooking the Blues & Sweet and Lovely

Amazon

If you don't have the Mosaic box, this CD is less than $10.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Tjazz

[JohnS]

Just noticed this re-issue of Buddy Defranco. 2 albums : Cooking the Blues & Sweet and Lovely

Amazon

If you don't have the Mosaic box, this CD is less than $10.

Fine set, recommended.

[David Ayers]

The (p) on a legally produced album refers to the year of first commercial production of the music, and it is from this date that the 50 or 70 years count down. The © refers to the date of copyright of the images and notes. Print copyright law applies to these and they are independent of the music. This is why so many reissues have avoided using artwork and notes in the past.

Incidentally, while we view bootlegs as benign for all sorts of reasons we need to remember that they are absolutely illegal full stop. Copyright in unissued material would only begin to count down from the moment of commercial issue. They are - quite obviously - important to us, whether as LP/CD issues or as downloads/torrents, but they are basically stolen from the artists.

[neveronfriday]

Just noticed this re-issue of Buddy Defranco. 2 albums : Cooking the Blues & Sweet and Lovely

Amazon

If you don't have the Mosaic box, this CD is less than $10.

Fine set, recommended.

Yep, thanks.

Got myself a copy because of your post here.

[mikeweil]

Their latest batch of releases includes some rare stuff - like the Shirley Horn, The Laurindo Almeida, or the Freddie Gambrell. And they did the Russ Freeman Trios - now that the Mosaic Select is gone.

I wish they would do Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz sessions, but Clare would sue them, for sure.

[paul secor]

Their latest batch of releases includes some rare stuff - like the Shirley Horn, The Laurindo Almeida, or the Freddie Gambrell. And they did the Russ Freeman Trios - now that the Mosaic Select is gone.

I wish they would do Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz sessions, but Clare would sue them, for sure.

Good for him!

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Their latest batch of releases includes some rare stuff - like the Shirley Horn, The Laurindo Almeida, or the Freddie Gambrell. And they did the Russ Freeman Trios - now that the Mosaic Select is gone.

I wish they would do Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz sessions, but Clare would sue them, for sure.

Good for him!

I don't see how he'd win. His Pacific Jazz recordings are in the public domain in the EU. Illegal here, yeah, but not there.

[Chas]

Their latest batch of releases includes some rare stuff - like the Shirley Horn, The Laurindo Almeida, or the Freddie Gambrell. And they did the Russ Freeman Trios - now that the Mosaic Select is gone.

I wish they would do Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz sessions, but Clare would sue them, for sure.

Good for him!

I don't see how he'd win. His Pacific Jazz recordings are in the public domain in the EU.

No they aren't, but the good news is that every day, fewer and fewer people truckle before the rent-seeking monopolists...

[Larry Kart]

Pardon me if this has been mentioned before, but have you heard of Laurie Pepper's solution to the bootleg problem, "pirate" the pirates?

http://www.jazzwax.com./

No, it's not a "solution" solution, but there is a nice symmetry to it.

[J.A.W.]

Their latest batch of releases includes some rare stuff - like the Shirley Horn, The Laurindo Almeida, or the Freddie Gambrell. And they did the Russ Freeman Trios - now that the Mosaic Select is gone.

I wish they would do Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz sessions, but Clare would sue them, for sure.

Good for him!

I don't see how he'd win. His Pacific Jazz recordings are in the public domain in the EU.

No they aren't, but the good news is that every day, fewer and fewer people truckle before the rent-seeking monopolists...

(edited post)

Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz recordings were made in 1962 and 1963, so they're not yet in the public domain in the EU. However, I believe that in Andorra, which is not part of the EU and where quite a few labels such as Definitive, Gambit and Lone Hill Jazz are based, they are in the public domain.

[Chas]

Their latest batch of releases includes some rare stuff - like the Shirley Horn, The Laurindo Almeida, or the Freddie Gambrell. And they did the Russ Freeman Trios - now that the Mosaic Select is gone.

I wish they would do Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz sessions, but Clare would sue them, for sure.

Good for him!

I don't see how he'd win. His Pacific Jazz recordings are in the public domain in the EU.

No they aren't, but the good news is that every day, fewer and fewer people truckle before the rent-seeking monopolists...

They're over the European 50-year limit, so Kevin is right, they are in the public domain in the EU.

No he isn't.

The earliest one was recorded in 1962.

[paul secor]

Their latest batch of releases includes some rare stuff - like the Shirley Horn, The Laurindo Almeida, or the Freddie Gambrell. And they did the Russ Freeman Trios - now that the Mosaic Select is gone.

I wish they would do Clare Fischer's Pacific Jazz sessions, but Clare would sue them, for sure.

Good for him!

I don't see how he'd win. His Pacific Jazz recordings are in the public domain in the EU.

No they aren't, but the good news is that every day, fewer and fewer people truckle before the rent-seeking monopolists...

They're over the European 50-year limit, so Kevin is right, they are in the public domain in the EU.

No he isn't.

The earliest one was recorded in 1962.

Chas is correct.

Edited September 19, 2010 by paul secor

[J.A.W.]

No he isn't.

The earliest one was recorded in 1962.

Chas is correct.

He is, and when I realized that Fischer's PJ recordings are still within the EU 50-year limit, I edited my post accordingly.

[AllenLowe]

trust me, the musicians are getting no money for most "legitimate" reissues either (because not everybody's as ethical as people like Chuck Nessa).

maybe we should start a fund and put a dollar into it every time we buy a Fresh Sound or other reissue and then send the money to a rightful heir - this way they'd actually see some cash.

Edited September 19, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Claude]

I was at the FNAC - biggest book/CD/video store in Brussels - last week, and the jazz section is completely dominated by those public domain reissues, especially those who copy the original artwork (still protected by copyright BTW). Most sickening is the fact that these are often more expensive than the original CDs (13 Euro vs 10 Euro), while their only advantage is the random addition of unrelated bonus tracks.

I think it's a serious case of unfair competition.

When a patent on a successful drug runs out (after 20-25 years), generics makers can copy the formula of the drug, but they are not allowed to copy the trademark of the well known drug. Consumers can still clearly make the distinction between the original and the (legitimate) copy. Generics are also cheaper than the original drugs, because they have the subjective disadvantage of being a copy.

Here we have public domain CDs reproducing the artwork of "Time out" and other classics where one needs to look twice at the back of the CD to find out that's it's not an official reissue by the original label. Given the prominent display in stores here (and the availability in US stores where they are in fact illegal) and the rather high price, many non-experts will think these are some sort of new "deluxe* reissues.

[tranemonk]

Count me in... The only time I buy their stuff is when I'm sure (as sure as possible) that what I want is OOP in the original format/label... :unsure:

trust me, the musicians are getting no money for most "legitimate" reissues either (because not everybody's as ethical as people like Chuck Nessa).

maybe we should start a fund and put a dollar into it every time we buy a Fresh Sound or other reissue and then send the money to a rightful heir - this way they'd actually see some cash.

[Chas]

When a patent on a successful drug runs out (after 20-25 years), generics makers can copy the formula of the drug, but they are not allowed to copy the trademark of the well known drug. Consumers can still clearly make the distinction between the original and the (legitimate) copy. Generics are also cheaper than the original drugs, because they have the subjective disadvantage of being a copy.

No.

When generic drugs are cheaper it's because, not having any R&D costs, and hence no compensatory patents which eliminate competition, the companies that make them can't collect monopoly rents. "Subjective disadvantage" carries no explanatory weight whatsoever in the pricing of generic drugs.

[Kyo]

I was at the FNAC - biggest book/CD/video store in Brussels - last week, and the jazz section is completely dominated by those public domain reissues, especially those who copy the original artwork (still protected by copyright BTW). Most sickening is the fact that these are often more expensive than the original CDs (13 Euro vs 10 Euro), while their only advantage is the random addition of unrelated bonus tracks.

I think it's a serious case of unfair competition.

When a patent on a successful drug runs out (after 20-25 years), generics makers can copy the formula of the drug, but they are not allowed to copy the trademark of the well known drug. Consumers can still clearly make the distinction between the original and the (legitimate) copy. Generics are also cheaper than the original drugs, because they have the subjective disadvantage of being a copy.

Here we have public domain CDs reproducing the artwork of "Time out" and other classics where one needs to look twice at the back of the CD to find out that's it's not an official reissue by the original label. Given the prominent display in stores here (and the availability in US stores where they are in fact illegal) and the rather high price, many non-experts will think these are some sort of new "deluxe* reissues.

Yeah, I find this incredibly annoying as well. It's one thing to reissue some obscure stuff that

the majors didn't bother to put out on CD (maybe except in Japan), but right now these pirated

versions of really popular stuff like Kind of Blue and Time Out are really clogging up the stores

and it's getting increasingly difficult to tell a quality official release from the pirated copy.

[Claude]

No.

When generic drugs are cheaper it's because, not having any R&D costs, and hence no compensatory patents which eliminate competition, the companies that make them can't collect monopoly rents. "Subjective disadvantage" carries no explanatory weight whatsoever in the pricing of generic drugs.

Let's phrase it differently then.

A drug seller will ask the highest price he can get on the market, whatever his costs are.

Generics are cheaper because the maker can't ask the same price as the original, because at identical price, the buyer will prefer the original (although it may not be better than the generic).

If the public domain CDs had to use a generic title and cover, they would not look as interesting, and the buyer would prefer the original CDs, if the music content and price is the same. Many would also prefer to buy the original "Kind of blue" instead of a "Miles Davis 1959" CD even if the later contained bonus material.

[Dan Gould]

I wouldn't argue semantics with someone who thinks legitimate rights holders are

rent-seeking monopolists

[Chas]

No.

When generic drugs are cheaper it's because, not having any R&D costs, and hence no compensatory patents which eliminate competition, the companies that make them can't collect monopoly rents. "Subjective disadvantage" carries no explanatory weight whatsoever in the pricing of generic drugs.

Let's phrase it differently then.

A drug seller will ask the highest price he can get on the market, whatever his costs are.

Generics are cheaper because the maker can't ask the same price as the original, because at identical price, the buyer will prefer the original (although it may not be better than the generic).

Look, a generic drug is fungible in a way a generic CD is not, and so any putative preference for "original" as opposed to "copy" with respect to the latter, cannot be analogized to the former.

[AllenLowe]

well, another reason they copy the original art is probably because collectors prefer it that way.

[John L]

No.

When generic drugs are cheaper it's because, not having any R&D costs, and hence no compensatory patents which eliminate competition, the companies that make them can't collect monopoly rents. "Subjective disadvantage" carries no explanatory weight whatsoever in the pricing of generic drugs.

Let's phrase it differently then.

A drug seller will ask the highest price he can get on the market, whatever his costs are.

Generics are cheaper because the maker can't ask the same price as the original, because at identical price, the buyer will prefer the original (although it may not be better than the generic).

Look, a generic drug is fungible in a way a generic CD is not, and so any putative preference for "original" as opposed to "copy" with respect to the latter, cannot be analogized to the former.

The high price of a brand name may indeed be related to monopoly rents from a patent. But once the patent runs out, the difference in price should be explained primarily by the willingness to pay of consumers.

Edited September 20, 2010 by John L

[David Ayers]

In fact, in cases I have noticed, they aren't reproducing the artwork, they are producing artwork based on the original artwork. For example:

Edited September 20, 2010 by David Ayers