More on Pujol from Jazzwax

[David Ayers]

I thought I made it clear in my other post but I'll state it more plainly - It costs 10's or thousands of dollars to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against these labels and/or distributors. Most labels (or copyright holders of defunct labels) cannot justify spending $50,000 in legal fees to stop the sale of a CD that *might* generate a few thousand dollars in sales.

This stuff is legal almost everywhere in the world except the U.S. And in the U.S. it's legal if you compete the right paperwork. The stuff about the ability of small labels to sue is not relevant to labels which are either owned by majors or unowned (most of them). And it also applies to their inability to sue illegal music sharers.

Sour grapes? Look Styve- I think the shit should be given away. Who "controls" that? It's PUBLIC DOMAIN. and the technology now exists to do just that - give it away. Distribute those basic music files in lossless format, anybody. Add value by bringing new original mastering, relevant essays, something that amounts to getting something for your money besides a cheap xeroxing of the music. Or is all this talk about "fairness" only apply to the musical tire dealers who want to make money sell retreads?

It can't legally be given away because the composers have rights. In the U.S.A., where it is not PD and is still subject to copyright, the owners still have rights, and may owe a tiny percentage to the artist (there again, they can charge back for all sorts of things). But see above. The reason that 'small labels' can't take you to court for illegal file sharing is that the costs to them are too high. So you are safe. What you do has nothing to do with PD laws in the rest of the world.

you know, we could probably resolve all this if Larry didn't spend so much time watching football games - I sure hope he has a legal cable hookup.

He's hiding. Or maybe he's listening to this gem:

Edited November 14, 2011 by David Ayers

[cih]

Talking of public domain stuff, I noticed yesterday on the Document Records website a warning that a seller in the USA is peddling counterfeit versions of their releases... considering their switch to the CDR format it's entirely possible the fakes may be a more sturdy product than the originals. Not trying to be facetious - I have a load of Document items but this was bound to occur sooner or later

[sonnymax]

Ok, I'll call MEGA bullshit on this.

If there's no legal compulsion to sell PD material and it is indeed ok to freely giving it away/sharing it, then the real heroes are the people who do just that, the real gangstas are the ones who sell needle drops and CD burns, and the real junkies are the people who are dumb enough to think they're being done favors.

Doh! I finally appreciate what you've been saying all along, Jim. If this music is now in the public domain, it should be just that - public, i.e., free. In most cases, Jordi and his ilk contribute nothing substantial, i.e., improved remasterings, restored original artwork, etc. All they are doing is making money off of that which already belongs to us. It really is quite ludicrous to pay for what they are selling.

[Larry Kart]

Tedious to compile and no doubt tedious to read, here is my response to Big Beat Steve’s request about what lies Pujol told in that interview. It begins with an edited version of the interview with key passages bolded by me, followed by responses from recent Organissimo threads.

I’ll add that Big Beat’s Steve’s repeated question/complaint -- “Now if there are such copyright laws then it ought to be commonly known (to the authorities in charge) that the import of certain goods (in this case CDs in violation of U.S. copyright/P.D. laws) is against the law in the USA. Just like importing certain goods from the USA (certain medical goods in my example above) is against the law in certain European countries. Now why aren't U.S. importing laws being enforced by the AUTHORITIES that are supposed to do the enforcement? Just like corresponding laws are enforced over here (not 100% but enough to deter many). THAT is where you have to start asking questions.” -- seems quite disingenuous to me.

In the eyes of the U.S. authorities, who no doubt feel that they have other and bigger fish to fry, this matter is not a priority, rightly or wrongly. Also, I would think that monitoring commerce over the internet and also monitoring what is shipped here from overseas and from outfits like Amazon would be an immense task. The authorities, to the degree that they know and care about this issue, apparently have decided that it’s not in their hands but in the hands of injured parties who chose to file lawsuits. And we know how that goes -- too much trouble/bigger fish to fry. So if the door of importing into another country what you know to be illegal there is open, it’s perfectly OK ethically for you to do so?

P.S. I would have included Laurie Pepper’s post about Pujols, but Myers seems to have removed from his comment thread, along with a comment I posted there.

LK

Fresh Sound label. Since the 1980s, Fresh Sound has specialized in releasing American jazz albums from the 1950s that U.S. labels have all but ignored, overlooked or forgotten. In this regard, Fresh Sound has performed a heroic task, rescuing jazz's greatest decade from the dumb clutches of record conglomerates that have all but written off the music.

Fresh Sound, which is based in Spain, has been able to accomplish this noble task thanks largely to smart deal-making with artists and favorable European copyright laws. These laws state that recorded music dating back 50 years or more is in the public domain. This means European companies are allowed to issue the music that American labels have written off without the burden of paying hefty copyright fees. In the process, many American consumers have developed a flawed impression about Fresh Sound—that it's somehow in the bootlegging business or that it's skirting laws.

So I simply reached out to Jordi Pujol, who agreed to answer the big questions that jazz fans have on their minds. Jordi not only happily answered all of my questions without hesitation, he also provided me with lots of great photos of him and American jazz legends whom he has befriended over the years. Hopefully his answers will clear up the misconceptions and shed light on a business few fans know about:

JazzWax: Does Fresh Sound owe jazz artists or their families royalties on the albums it issues?


Jordi Pujol: First of all, if you are talking about public domain recordings, music that was recorded more than 50 years ago—such recordings do not require such payments under European union copyright laws. These laws are different than yours in the U.S. But if we’re talking about recordings that were provided to Fresh Sound by artists or their families, that’s a different matter. Over the years, I’ve purchased many tapes from jazz musicians, and I’ve also been in touch with musicians’ widows for recordings. In every case, I’ve reached an agreement with them and paid them whatever was required for their permission to release the material on Fresh Sound.

JW: What is the source of Fresh Sound’s releases?


JP: At Fresh Sound, we have a large warehouse of reel-to-reel tapes that we bought from many different record labels in the 1980s, when the LP was still the dominant format. Back then, some well-known labels and quite a few American companies traveled to Midem, the big annual recording-industry trade show in Cannes, France, to sell or license all kind of tapes in their vaults. Ironically, the first entities that came to Europe to sell what you in the U.S. call “bootlegs” actually were American companies. This occurred long before any label in Europe started to issue recordings that are in the public domain. 
 
JW: How could they do this?


JP: I assume these recordings were not protected under the U.S. copyright law, so these American companies could deal them at Midem. You should know that we never bought them. But it was common practice back then. With the rise of the CD in the 1990s, new European labels began to capitalize on the public domain laws here, which is perfectly legal.



JW: What triggered the shift?


JP: Before 1995, the copyright laws in Europe varied and weren’t standardized. So, for example, until that year, Spanish law protected sound recordings for 40 years after their release date, based on a law from 1987. Prior to 1987, sound recordings were protected only for 25 years. Before 1995, only France and England had a 50-year protection term. Other countries like Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and much of Europe had protection terms that went from 15 to 25 years.


JW: And in Italy?


JP: In Italy, live recordings were not protected at all. That’s why many live concerts were released on LP or CD back then. They were called bootlegs in the U.S., but they were not illegal in Italy. There simply were no laws there regulating live recordings in that country then.
 
JW: What changed in Europe?


JP: In October 1995, all European Union countries agreed to adopt the same period of protection for sound recordings, 50 years, starting that same year. So, for example, in Spain, before 1995, recordings had had 40 years of protection. But with the addition of 10 years based on the new law, 1955 was not public domain until 2006.

JW: So issuing these recordings isn't bootlegging?


JP: People in the U.S. who think that most European labels are issuing bootlegs are misinformed. Here’s a translation of the duration of the rights given to the producers of a sound recording will be 50 years, counting from January 1st of the year after it was recorded.” So if and when copyright protection is extended to 70 years, that means that from the year the law enters into effect—let’s say in 2012—all recordings from 1962 with a legitimate copyright claim will be protected until the year 2033.


JW: If adopted, will the new 70-year European copyright law affect Fresh Sound?


JP: It’s too soon to say how much the extension of an additional 20 years of protection will affect European labels like mine. Obviously it will be a handicap for most labels here. Jazz fans should also be concerned about this coming change.


JW: Why?


JP: Because it will limit what can be issued under the public domain laws. For example, I regularly receive hundreds of emails from jazz collectors asking me to reissue specific albums that are out of print in the U.S. and locked away in record company vaults. Often, the recordings they request are not yet in the public domain. Under past laws, many of those albums were just a few years away from qualifying. But that’s going to change. Any hope of our releasing choice recordings from the '60s and beyond, for example, will vanish with the new law if that recording is copyrighted.


JW: Why?


JP: In virtually every case, the American labels that own the masters will not be interested in reissuing them, and we cannot either until they are in the public domain in Europe.



JW: Does Fresh Sound use LPs as a source?


JP: Yes, of course, when we need to. We always use cleanor mint LPs, as well 45-rpms and 78-rpms if need be. We also use the most advanced technology to restore and improve the sound of these old recordings, in most cases improving on the original sound.


JW: Does Fresh Sound pay to license source material?


JP: Yes, we pay when it’s required. For example we have worked with RCA for many years and have always paid for the material we use. But if it’s a recording that has already gone into the public domain here, we are not required to do so. Some labels, however, don’t invest anything in restoration technology, using CDs that are already in the market to produce their own. That way they can sell their products much cheaper. I can say that every master in the Fresh Sound catalog for the last 15 years has been sent to a studio to be newly mastered before heading to the pressing plant. 


JW: Is Fresh Sound affiliated with Lone Hill?


JP: Not at all. Fresh Sound is my label, and it’s based in Barcelona, Spain. It’s not affiliated with any other jazz label. Many people believe that all labels coming from Andorra or Spain are related to Fresh Sound. This is simply not true.


 


SonnyMax:

Imo, this reads more like a press release than a journalistic endeavor to inform and clarify. First off, let's establish the fact that the legal owners of copyrighted material are bad, greedy, or just ignorant people. Then let's spoon feed Pujol a series of softball questions ("So issuing these recordings isn't bootlegging?"), and never challenge or ask for clarification of his answers. How about something like, "So, if it's legal to sell these recordings in Spain and other parts to Europe, why do you sell them in the U.S. where they are protected by copyright?" Pujol cites the source of FS's releases are "a large warehouse of reel-to-reel tapes that we bought from many different record labels in the 1980s". When asked how he could have purchased these copyrighted titles, Pujol says, "I assume these recordings were not protected under the U.S. copyright law". Curiously , he seemingly contradicts himself by adding, "You should know that we never bought them." So, you assume they were legal to sell, and so you purchased them, but you never bought them. 

Pujol also asserts that "Many people believe that all labels coming from Andorra or Spain are related to FS. This is simply not true." So tell me then, what website advertises the Andorran labels' titles, as well as those from Fresh Sound? Answer: Blue Sounds, owned by Cristina Pujol Masdeu. And who distributes the physical product? Why, it's Absolute Distribution, whose parent company is Blue Moon Producciones Discograficas SL, a division of...drum roll, please...Fresh Sound Records.

Dan Gould:

I'm also wondering about these "old days" when they put out LPs - even if the law was 40 years at that time, was he really strictly adhering to that law? That would make him restricted to recordings from maybe the early 50s

Quote

So, for example, until that year, Spanish law protected sound recordings for 40 years after their release date, based on a law from 1987. Prior to 1987, sound recordings were protected only for 25 years.

You have an interesting definition of "much less than 50 years". If FreshSound started after 1987, it was subject to the 40 year rule, making their legal LP issues going up to the late 40s or early 50s depending on the year the label was started. That leaves my question untouched.

Did FreshSound reissue on LP recordings from, say the late 1950s? Simple math tells you it violated the law even as it stood in Spain. Same thing, frankly, with the 1995 standardization of copyright. That means that at the moment of adoption, he wasn't supposed to reissue anything recorded later than 1945. Was he following that?

Big Beat Steve, on 08 November 2011 - 04:01 PM, said:

...The thieves (if any) in the U.S. are at the intra-U.S. distributors' and retailers' end, nowhere else...

You conveniently ignore the fact that it is Fresh Sound's own distribution company, Absolute, that makes these titles available to U.S. retailers. That doesn't excuse retailers from their role in the process, but it doesn't make Jordi an innocent bystander either.

Kevin Bresnahan:

Back in the late 80's & early 90's Pujol's Fresh Sound label issued quite a bit of stuff that was not 50 years old. How could the interviewer not being up *any* of them?? Just look at their discography. There are tons of small label stuff in there that was clearly under 50 years. Jubilee, Jamo, Roulette, etc. not to mention a whole bunch of live material. None of this stuff was legal.

I don't know why Pujol doesn't just fess up and admit that when the labels/artists failed to go after him, he kept going. Notice how he never really went after the big label stuff until after the 50 years went by? He knew what he was doing was illegal, even under Spanish/EU law.

David Weiss:

I worked pretty closely with Jordi for a number of years. I recorded 4 CDs for him and produced another 10 or so for him.

I've spent plenty of time in his office in Barcelona and seen the "walls" of reel to reel tapes.

Knowing all of that still can't help me give you that much of a clearer picture about all this.

I know Jordi has legitimately acquired some labels (Nocturne) so some of his reissues are legit. Others he might have thought he acquired legally but did not (Vee Jay). Other things he did license legitimately.

Other things he certainly did not.

The live tapes is another issue. If I am to believe him, at the start he thought his buying the tapes from an estate or a club owner meant he legitimately owned them. Later on, he did ask me for the contact information for Cannonball's widow and Lee's widow because he said he wanted to pay them something. I'm pretty sure he never did.

I didn't know him during the vinyl era but most of those couldn't be legitimate. Pacific Jazz vinyl? No way.....

He was always a good host when I was in Spain so he could give the appearance of being a good guy, knowledgeable about the music and a great fan.

Business wise......well.....

Kevin Bresnahan:

I love the quote, "All I know is that Fresh Sound's CDs are available for sale legally in the U.S. at major online retailers". Legally? Really? Wake up - these CDs are *not* legal to sell in the US. It's just that the legal costs to get these illegal CDs off the shelves are prohibitive. Pujol knows this. He's lying if he says he doesn't.

[JSngry]

It can't legally be given away because the composers have rights.

Oh really? If I sell it, yeah, composers have rights. But if I gift it to my friends, if no money changes hands, then what?

I make a "mixtape" of Public Domain material for my friends as a gift, who is owed what, exactly?

Nobody? Nothing? Sounds right.

If I circulate said mixtape to my friends over the internet, who is owed what, and on what basis?

Nobody? Nothing? Still sounds right.

Now, if one of my "friends" takes my mixtape and starts selling it "as is", then yes, we have a problem.

But only then.

[JSngry]

Big BS - your fetishism of objects has revealed itself to be damn near absolute, quality be damned just give you something you can hold in your hands, OBJECTS, no matter how piss-poorly and/or half-ass done they are.

Wrong. You're jumping to conclusions. Erroneous ones. Actually I am willing to pay if there is something that I feel is worth the money on the premise that it will last. Just like most other reasonable persons. It's a tradeoff between price and quality. Some goods may not offer enough quality for the price they're sold at, some may be a real good deal, but AGAIN - these are subjective criteria on which the sale (or non-sale) of ANYTHING in this world is based. So no matter how much you rant, you just cannot impose any set standards on what is supposed to be worth how much to EACH AND EVERY potential "customer". Because there are none. It is and remains highly subjective.

As for folks heading back into the mud, well, those who apparently are content throughout with free downloadable expendable throwaway burns, rips etc. on limited-life drives or CD-Rs are already that far ahead on their route into their existence of throwaway, ephemeral built-in-obsolescence muddiness that nobody who is still prepared to pay for anything that will last will ever be able to catch up with them - ever.

Here's your trophy. Enjoy!

As long as you defend and subsidize needledrops and CD rips as acceptable, you are lowering the bar as to what is acceptable retail product.

You've heard it here more than once from more than one person - what incentive do people have to do this stuff right when the marketplace gobbles up Pujol's second-hand (and what a rancid hand it is!)

Free sharity downloads are temporary fixes, placeholders until a real, quality retail product comes along. This Fresh Sound shit is not that quality product, but thanks to all the slopeheads who will settle in the retail realm, it might well be the final product.

File under "Welcome To Andorra! May I take your order?"

Two deserving parties find true love at last!

[JSngry]

Doh! I finally appreciate what you've been saying all along, Jim. If this music is now in the public domain, it should be just that - public, i.e., free. In most cases, Jordi and his ilk contribute nothing substantial, i.e., improved remasterings, restored original artwork, etc. All they are doing is making money off of that which already belongs to us. It really is quite ludicrous to pay for what they are selling.

Yep. They contribute nothing of their own.

"Free" has its limits, of course, but to offer for sale a product which is identical to what could be had for free - or in improved form straight from the entity that is doing the improvement - is cynical, cheap, insulting, and...quite viable, apparently.

Not too terribly long ago, somebody here did a bunch of genealogical work on what they were releasing and in every case, it could be traced back to a previous product done right by somebody else (or free sources available to anybody with the internet and a little curiosity). Every time.

There are some people here who are so wrapped up in resentment towards "things American" that they are willing to see "the giant" "brought down to size" by any means, without regard to the long-term consequences. It excites them, in fact!

Such people are a true drag on civilization and should be taken to the nearest Wal-Mart and be left as cultural orphans. They'll feel right at home.

Edited November 14, 2011 by JSngry

[Big Beat Steve]

Oh, stop whining about your pet enemy Pujol. Even if you try to disguise your whining with smart-aleck streetwise talk, it's still whining.

If you want to whine, how about whining about those who openheartedly endorse certain U.K. box sets just because they are oh so convenient to allow them to fill 78-pm era P.D. music gaps in their collections at a good price? And the same kind of gap filling with (50+ year old) P.D. hard bop reissues that fall into the same P.D. domain is a non-no? Aw c'mon ...

Little point in ranting on about what MIGHT be done in the reissue field and where Pujol allegedly had the ground covered instead.

But outside the well-publicised ripoffs that Uptown (Bird&Diz '45 etc.) seems to have suffered from (which I do NOT endorse, of course, but I doubt you are willing to take note of that, whatwith being in the argumentative rut that you seem to be stuck in), have I ever heard you being just as outspoken about blatant re-reissues such as in the case of the U.K. Ace label that rightfully acquired the King masters lock stock and barrel, did exceedingly well-done reissues, and then whoosh, the market gets swamped with box sets on certain (non-Spanish, BTW) P.D. labels featuring King artists such as Wynonie Harris. Don't you think this would hurt Ace's sales too? All legal as per the prevailing 50-year P.D. laws - right. But "ethical" by the yardsticks of those from your corner of the field? One for you to anwer ... And YET so many jazz fans seem to be drooling about exactly these re-reissue labels on this forum. A skewed perception if there ever was one. So if you are that keen on complaining about one, complain about them all. Because labels keeping a (comparatively) low profile is no excuse for "not wanting to know" for convenience's sake if you are playing the ethics card to the extent you seem to be intent on.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

Man, are you a mess!

Ace did it right. No problem with doing it right. No problem whatsoever.

Answered,as requested.

Next?

[JSngry]

Oh, I get it. Why am I not bitching about the labels that ripped off Ace?

Because this thread is about Jordi Pujol.

Or was.

Bottom line, if you do it right and add value of your own, cool. More power (and market share) to you.

If not, fuck you.

And if you can't tell the difference, fuck you too.

It's not brain surgery.

Edited November 14, 2011 by JSngry

[David Ayers]

It can't legally be given away because the composers have rights.

Oh really? If I sell it, yeah, composers have rights. But if I gift it to my friends, if no money changes hands, then what?

I make a "mixtape" of Public Domain material for my friends as a gift, who is owed what, exactly?

Nobody? Nothing? Sounds right.

If I circulate said mixtape to my friends over the internet, who is owed what, and on what basis?

Nobody? Nothing? Still sounds right.

Now, if one of my "friends" takes my mixtape and starts selling it "as is", then yes, we have a problem.

But only then.

Jim, the stuff you share is not in the public domain in your country. Why do you think you and others are entitled to it without paying the owners?

Read more here http://www.ascap.com/music-career/resource-guide/dtd/

[JSngry]

Our laws allow for "fair use", which allows for copying for personal use. "Sharing" is not specifically prohibited by the law, although the line between "sharing" and "mass distribution" has yet to be drawn. But if sharing copies of a needle-drop of some obscure 70s funk album, or some early 50s pop album is cause for legal concern, it has yet to manifest itself. The type of downloading that I advocate is pretty much in that realm - non-improved copies of unavailable material, shared, not sold, for personal use only. And if it is of an improved copy of something legitimately available, listen do it, then buy it if you feel you need it, delete it if you don't. That type of download is for audition purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute purchase.

Sharing for wither the purpose of true sharing, or to encourage legitimate commerce, not derail it. The law seems to allow it.

That's why.

Now - why do you think that the laws of your country should allow for mass-quantity xeroxing of others' improvements to be sold for profit without paying the improvers?

Now that Public Domain laws are covering a medium where there is a lot of material in some pretty "concrete" forms, where is the legal and/or marketplace incentive to to it right and do it fairly? It's up to the consumers to set the bar, apparently, and it looks like consumers have their heads up their asses.

We used to have these discussions about used CDs and such. Now it's about downloads, because the capacity of the internet to become the world's largest used record store is very real.

Read more here <a href="http://www.ascap.com/music-career/resource-guide/dtd/" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="nofollow external">http://www.ascap.com...urce-guide/dtd/</a><br>

Seriously? You're using ASCAP as a "legal reference"? ASCAP don't make no laws!

Edited November 14, 2011 by JSngry

[David Ayers]

Hm. Now I was sure you said before you could get whole albums from torrents and sharesites. Not just the odd mix tape.

However.

By the way I don't think you really have a question on PD (re. my justification of the law in my country). There is PD in the States just as there is PD in rest of the world. The U.S. laws are different to most everyone elses. But this is the law, and I am not talking about how that term is set. Of course laws are not immutable, and European copyright laws have recently changed. I've no strong opinion about the term. 50 years was ok, 70 is fairer to those who earn good incomes (mainly the companies and a few superstar artists), but may affect access to most work 50-70 years old for the purposes of scholars and enthusiasts interested in a broader history. In that sense it may inflict a cultural damage.

ASCAP does not make the law, it defends the rights of composers. To that end, it explains the law, which includes that fact that dissemination over the internet (i.e. via share sites) is public performance and therefore requires licensing.

The notion of added value which you attempt to introduce is not really relevant. Copyright owners cannot extend their rights in a copyright by remastering or any other form of rehashing. PD is paramount, in the US as in Europe. This is an intended consequence of these laws. I sometimes think people use this argument alongside others to justify illegal sharing ('it hasn't been reissued/remastered'; 'it isn't in print' [and never will be if everyone keeps stealing it]; 'it is in print but costs too much'; 'it has been remastered but I want the superior Japanese version which isn't in print or costs too much'; 'it was recently in print but I missed it'; 'it costs too much on ebay and I don't want to pay'; 'Sony/EMI/anyone-but-Nessa/Cuscuna are thieves' etc. etc.). All this reasoning is found on this board.

FWIW, I think your feelings about the need to share obscure things with no real market value is basically the same as Pujol's, as is your notion of the gray area. And as is your changing story on your file-sharing habits...

Edited November 14, 2011 by David Ayers

[JSngry]

Hm. Now I was sure you said before you could get whole albums from torrents and sharesites. Not just the odd mix tape.

You can indeed. And if your choice is between there and paying for Pujols xeroxes, you're a chump if you pay. If not a chump, then at least a "good lad". (EDIT to add "in my opinion". Must remain civil at all times!)

If you have some innate...inbred compulsion to "follow the rules" at all times, then...your choice. Follow your bliss, wherever you've been told it should lead.

(Whatever happened to that Empire, anyway? Oh yeah, people got tired of following rules that didn't make sense for them, especially when it came to their resources. Good to see a few diehard loyalists, though!)

ASCAP does not make the law, it defends the rights of composers. To that end, it explains the law, which includes that fact that dissemination over the internet (i.e. via share sites) is public performance and therefore requires licensing.

ASCAP "explains the law" in such a way that the kid who gets his Lady Gaga for free will now pay 99 cents for it. Period. Again, are you serious? God, I hope not...

The notion of added value which you attempt to introduce is not really relevant. Copyright owners cannot extend their rights in a copyright by remastering or any other form of rehashing. PD is paramount, in the US as in Europe. This is an intended consequence of these laws. I sometimes think people use this argument alongside others to justify illegal sharing ('it hasn't been reissued/remastered'; 'it isn't in print' [and never will be if everyone keeps stealing it]; 'it is in print but costs too much'; 'it has been remastered but I want the superior Japanese version which isn't in print or costs too much'; 'it was recently in print but I missed it'; 'it costs too much on ebay and I don't want to pay'; 'Sony/EMI/anyone-but-Nessa/Cuscuna are thieves' etc. etc.). All this reasoning is found on this board.

File under "Knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing".

FWIW, I think your feelings about the need to share obscure things with no real market value is basically the same as Pujol's, as is your notion of the gray area.

Uh, yeah. Only, one guy is more than happy to take your money for bullshit and one guy is telling you to save it for something better. Exactly Identical, yeah.

And as is your changing story on your file-sharing habits...

You'll never get "the real story" . And you'd never get it even if you did.

But I will tell you this - I do not do "file-sharing". Your use of the term - which is descriptive of a very precise technology - suggests that you think you know more than you do.

But that much has already been made obvious.

Edited November 14, 2011 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Ok, really, this is what it comes down to. There is a school of thought that says "obey the law at all costs, even if it leads to less-than-ideal" outcomes. My dad was much like this.

And then there's the school of thought that says "for the most part, the law is good, but when people use it do do things that are legal but not particularly ethical (much less "forthright"), then one might want to look around for alternatives". I am much like this myself.

These two schools of thought really have no common ground, and although both have historically resulted in good and bad being done, neither can claim exclusivity of absolute moral correctness.

The "laws" in question are not grounded in some moral absolute, and the manner of product resulting from these laws certainly reflects that.

Point being - there is no resolvable end to this debate. I find the absolutist arguments and the justifications just as dryly soulless and logistically idiotic as I'm sure they find mine to be exactly the same.

So, I know I'm right and that you're wrong. And you know that you're right and I'm wrong.

If there's any place to go beyond that, write me a letter and I'll wish you good weather while you're there.

[david weiss]

This is becoming pretty interesting.......

I must say a lot of people are making some pretty bold proclamations about copyright laws based on some perfunctory research.

Without getting too much into right and wrong, let me try to make some points.

The biggest overall point to me is this. Is it right for other countries to create different copyright laws for music recorded and produced in the United States. Especially laws that take the rights of said music away from the artist earlier then the law in the land in which it is created.

There are plenty of laws out there that if skated around properly (or perhaps you don't even have do that much skating) can almost bring around the demise of a country (our banks anyone?). Just because this is about much smaller fish and a lot less money doesn't mean the principle of the law and those who take advantage of it suck.

It's wrong, plain and simple but I guess this is besides the point.

OK, that wasn't much of a point...but here are some points I would like to make.

Yes, Jordi is the poster child for this sort of stuff because unlike the other producers of this sort of material, he is out there doing interviews saying he is saving jazz for us all. The rest probably know what they are doing is shady at best and know to just crank the shit out and not have a public profile.

Jordi has clearly issued stuff before the 50 year "expiration date" before

All the live sessions he has released are unauthorized. He might have purchased the tapes from someone but for them to be legitimate, he would have to contact the leader of said date (or their estates) and have them agree (for a fee ideally) to have the stuff released. He would also have to pay the sidemen or their estates.

He has not done that.

Another thing I've been told numerous times about this 50 year copyright law is this. It is a copyright on the recording. In other words, if there are alternate takes from a session that were just released for the first time on CD in 1990 whatever, that is the original copyright for that material and it has 50 years from that date, the year it was released and copyrighted. I've been told that this was the loophole Blue Note et al could definitively go after Jordi for but in the end they decided it wasn't worth it.

So, the stuff issued with alternates takes that first just saw the light of day in the CD era? Nope, no good.

This would probably go for the unreleased Atlantic Frussella date as well. It is owned by Atlantic Records. Something in their vaults that has been unreleased does not fall under this 50 year copyright law so again, probably illegal.

I also have a lot of trouble with Myers taking down comments critical of Jordi. I also have a problem with his saying (without citing anyone) that most musicians from that era have no problem with Jordi reissuing their stuff without a dime going to them (without even the legality issue being part of the equation).

I will say this though, it is extremely flattering for someone to call you and say how much they love your music (backed with some real knowledge of said music) and that they want to release it or give you your proper due or whatever and again, I believe Jordi truly loves the music he is releasing but when the dust settles and the flattery wears off and Jordi has reissued your album and has sold a few and hasn't given you a dime and you could actually use a couple of bucks etc etc, do you think all these guys are thrilled about this?

OK, so maybe I got into right and wrong a little bit.....

Edited November 14, 2011 by david weiss

[paul secor]

Good to read what a musician (rather than record collectors) thinks about the situation.

[david weiss]

I can also now happily tell you what the law is. Have a look here: http://www.copyright...7/92chap10.html

To save you reading it, when you import recorded media which are subject to copyright you pay 3% on the transfer price, the money basically goes to the Treasury, and then interested parties can claim it back. That's the law and if you pay the 3% you are covered. Pujol says he imports legally (this means he pays the 3%). Does anyone have evidence that he doesn't? Or that others do?

Um, this page adds another dimension to that: http://www.harryfox....blic/Import.jsp

But who says Pujol doesn't do this? On what evidence is Larry calling him a liar?

I think this might be sort of besides the point....

The question is whether the CDs that are being released in Europe because they are after the 50 year period can legally be sold here, a country that does not have the 50 year expiration date so this stuff is still copyrighted here.

I don't know the answer to that actually though I assume it is an issue.

That you pay 3% on the transfer price to sell your CDs here might not address the question of it's legality here.

Subject to copyright could mean legal copyright and then the question again is whether you can sell something in the US that according to US law is not legally copyrighted here.

I don't know the answer. This is why we have copyright lawyers and also why most don't waste their time on this sort of thing because it is cost prohibitive for most to pursue and that only helps the likes of Jordi et al stay in business.

[david weiss]

Japanese PD is 50 years, same as European. There is an insane fantasy on this board about payments to musicians, a fetish. You can be certain that major labels wherever located pay nothing to musicans where the work has entered PD. So on your euromosaics, your European RVGs, your Sony Europe Original Masters, your JRVGs, your UCCIs, or whatever, even though those companies (EMI/Sony/Universal) own the TAPES (or mostly copies of the tapes, in Europe and Japan) they do not own the WORK, so while they do pay money to composers through the relevant organisation, they do not pay royalties to musicians or their estates because there is no contractual reason for them to do so. Just like Mr Pujol. Get it? Europe and Japan. Japan.

You can be certain too that for reissues in the U.S., the only place where the 50s stuff we all like is not yet PD, the companies who own the works have ways of reducing their (already minimal) royalty exposure by e.g. charging back additional costs for remastering etc.

I think this is wrong as well....

Do you really think EMI Japan stops paying Blue Note artists royalties the day the 50 years is up? I'm absolutely certain this is not the case but am happy to make some phone calls to double check.

Do you think Sony Japan has stopped paying the Miles Davis estate royalties on Kind of Blue? Please find a way to prove that.....

I'm not a fan of record companies but this is a little too much for me to swallow.

It might be the companies feel their agreements with the artists trump the copyright laws and might even have enough of a conscience to say if we're still selling it, we're still going to pay royalties on it.

True, they will put remastering costs against future royalties but they will also pay said royalties....

[David Ayers]

I can also now happily tell you what the law is. Have a look here: http://www.copyright...7/92chap10.html

To save you reading it, when you import recorded media which are subject to copyright you pay 3% on the transfer price, the money basically goes to the Treasury, and then interested parties can claim it back. That's the law and if you pay the 3% you are covered. Pujol says he imports legally (this means he pays the 3%). Does anyone have evidence that he doesn't? Or that others do?

Um, this page adds another dimension to that: http://www.harryfox....blic/Import.jsp

But who says Pujol doesn't do this? On what evidence is Larry calling him a liar?

I think this might be sort of besides the point....

The question is whether the CDs that are being released in Europe because they are after the 50 year period can legally be sold here, a country that does not have the 50 year expiration date so this stuff is still copyrighted here.

I don't know the answer to that actually though I assume it is an issue.

That you pay 3% on the transfer price to sell your CDs here might not address the question of it's legality here.

Subject to copyright could mean legal copyright and then the question again is whether you can sell something in the US that according to US law is not legally copyrighted here.

I don't know the answer. This is why we have copyright lawyers and also why most don't waste their time on this sort of thing because it is cost prohibitive for most to pursue and that only helps the likes of Jordi et al stay in business.

Well, one thing you need to know is that copyright on material issued in the US issued before 1964 and after 1923 was copyright protected for 28 years from date of issue. That copyright was renewable for 28 years if an application was made in the year of its expiration and lodged at the Library of Congress. See where this is heading? Some stuff will never have been renewed, so copyright will have lapsed. And the rest, help me out, 2 x 28, I'm struggling... Do we care - well , not much, but more interesting than this thread is the catalogue where you can look up every single registration. Mad joy for the likes of us: http://www.copyright.gov/records/

What you say on previously unissued material such as extra tracks is kind of true but depends on recording date in relation to changes of law, so not as cut-and-dried as you think if you read the small print.

What you say on international copyright is unworkable - copyright is national, period. National courts could not in practice enforce copyright laws of all other nations, any more than they would enforce property laws or any laws of other nations. Nice try.

[David Ayers]

Here's an example. Registered in 1956, re-registered in 1984 (28 years) and according to my calculation, set to expire in 2012, after which it becomes PD.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search%5FArg=fruscella&Search%5FCode=NALL&CNT=25&PID=fmvCHnW09Ux5YsmcwN4HMVY9S&SEQ=20111114181959&SID=3

[david weiss]

One last point.....

I own a lot of these CDs as well and am happy to have them in my collection. If this makes me a bit of a hypocrite so be it but I know what these things are and I'm not pretending they are something else or that the person selling them to me is something else.

Like Jim said, a drug dealer knows what he is and they usually don't do interviews saying they are providing an important service (though some do think they are saving the world I guess).

Clearly none of this is going to change and if it does, it will probably be for the worse for the musician but that's the way it is and we learn to deal with it.

It's just problematic when one of the less ethical characters in this business (though one who does love and know the music) does an interview and is lauded as a savior. There is going to be a bit of a backlash to that.....

Fortunately, in this instance at least, I don't live in the times when the likes of Morris Levy walked the Earth as surely then I would have gotten my ass kicked for speaking up like this.

[David Ayers]

Do you really think EMI Japan stops paying Blue Note artists royalties the day the 50 years is up? I'm absolutely certain this is not the case but am happy to make some phone calls to double check.

I'd like to know too, but I assume they wouldn't, no more than would EMI Europe. Do you pay money you don't owe?

[JSngry]

Fortunately, in this instance at least, I don't live in the times when the likes of Morris Levy walked the Earth as surely then I would have gotten my ass kicked for speaking up like this.

But you'd not want to, because you'd have a contract with Roulette and a steady gig at Birdland with access to fairly chep dope. Might not be a big boat, but why rock it?

Actually, Mingus did speak up albeit not as precisely in public...remember his "gangsters run jazz" comment?

Hell, gangsters (of some form or fashion) run damn near everything.

All praise be to gangsters, for they give us our lives!

[JSngry]

Do you pay money you don't owe?

Are you asking him if he spends money he doesn't have to spend even if there's a "moral obligation" of some sort involved?

I'm with you - that's just plain CRAZY! :tup :tup

Edited November 15, 2011 by JSngry