Thoughts on cheap, multi CD re-issues

[David Ayers]

Heh heh. I reckon the introduction of unlimited copyright could get Greece out of some of its current problems...

[king ubu]

how 'bout cheap, multiple jazz listeners?

Heh heh. I reckon the introduction of unlimited copyright could get Greece out of some of its current problems...

[AllenLowe]

well it should be like domain names - first come first served. Snatch 'em up and they are yours.

first thing I'm gonna do is grab the rights to Harold Robbins; then Kenny G.

[Hot Ptah]

Am I correct, that Paul McCartney and/or Morris Levy's estate own most of the copyrights for all songs written in the past 70 years? I thought I read that Paul bought a huge number of them from Michael Jackson at some point, and that Morris Levy basically stole them in huge quantities over the years.

Jim Sangrey makes some good points. I have always had a burning desire to hear more music than I could afford. So I have bought a great many new LPs and CDs as soon as they were released. I also bought a great many used LPs and CDs, taped many albums owned by my friends, and bought whatever I could find, in any format, regardless of the legitimacy of the release. I never had much information about the legitimacy of any release, and did not care enough to want to investigate it. If I came across bootlegs at stores, I bought them. I have never considered the moral issues involved. I just wanted to hear the music. This makes me bad, I am sure. But I don't care.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Hot Ptah

[medjuck]

Am I correct, that Paul McCartney and/or Morris Levy's estate own most of the copyrights for all songs written in the past 70 years? I thought I read that Paul bought a huge number of them from Michael Jackson at some point, and that Morris Levy basically stole them in huge quantities over the years.

No, you are not correct. Michael Jackson owns most of Lennon-McCartney's publishing. Paul owns Buddy Holly's publishing. Morris Levy owned some Chuck Berry. I doubt if any one company owns the publishing on even 20% of songs written in the last 70 years but given the rate of mergers taking place who knows.

A recently deceased friend of mine once tried to arrange fro Ruth Ellington to sell the Ellington/Strayhorn publishing company (Tempo Music?) to Quincy Jones and Lionel Richie. The deal fell through when too many lawyers got involved and Paramount (Famous Music) ended up buying the company.

There are thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of publishing companies and most new composers know to start their own.

[JSngry]

Jim Sangrey makes some good points. I have always had a burning desire to hear more music than I could afford. So I have bought a great many new LPs and CDs as soon as they were released. I also bought a great many used LPs and CDs, taped many albums owned by my friends, and bought whatever I could find, in any format, regardless of the legitimacy of the release. I never had much information about the legitimacy of any release, and did not care enough to want to investigate it. If I came across bootlegs at stores, I bought them. I have never considered the moral issues involved. I just wanted to hear the music. This makes me bad, I am sure. But I don't care.

Well....see, I always thought about it, knew "right" from "wrong", and did it anyway. Try not to nearly as much these days, I don't have to. And the cool thing about digital sharing (between consenting adults, of course) if the ability to better target spending on the unknown quantities, let me hear this before I buy it. For some things that might be of marginal interest to me, that's useful, and it frees up money to be spend on things I either know I will have an interest in, will want to have an interest in, or am willing to buy blind just because that's the way I role.

Piracy may or may not be "killing" the Music Industry, but Too Much Indifferent/Inessential/Impotentcy-Based Music is providing the guns.

Believe me, if you have something to say and can get me into wanting to hear you say it, I will be your friend, ok. Maybe not all at once, because I get lost sometimes, either on tangents or forgetfulness or having to take care of family, I'm monogamous to nothing except matrimony, but when time comes around, I will be your friend. And if not, then...not.

Does that make me bad? I don't think so. But it does mean that I do behave in less than industry standard pure,, which to me means A) Fuck Industry Standard Copyshaming; B) At the end of the day, I will do right by those who I feel right should be done by (and if the day ends before that happens, blame the day for its own impatient capriciousness, and C) I will never lie to anybody, including myself. I might go off on an extended bullshitting binge, but I will never lie (and people who don't know the difference between lying and bullshtting...sorry 'bout that. Still time to figure it out, get busy. IMO.).

And yeah, I know that this "only follow the rules you believe in" thing is gangsterism, or is always made out to be some variant thereof. To that I say, the only real problem I have with gangsterism is that most gangsters have it as their forgone conclusion that all people are suckers, all people will try to kill you or otherwise get in your way, therefore all people are fair game for whatever it takes. The problem is with that is the "all" instead of "some". Other than that, given the G-Man Or Gangster Game (it's like Marry Or Fuck only a lot more reality-based), I'm not so sure that I don't lean Gangster, As/When Needed.

The big thing for me, though is don't lie, and don't be stupid, although, really those are the same thing way more often than not.

[crisp]

The comparison with Bach and Shakespeare isn't fair because these works are compositions not recordings. Hamlet and the Goldberg Variations can be performed/recorded/filmed multiple times but even if you could get the Beatles together to re-record Sgt Pepper it wouldn't be the same as the original. Recorded musical works are all one-offs.

[Teasing the Korean]

The comparison with Bach and Shakespeare isn't fair because these works are compositions not recordings.

Oh, that's right. Copyright protection covers only recorded works, not written works. Thanks for reminding me.

[ejp626]

The comparison with Bach and Shakespeare isn't fair because these works are compositions not recordings.

Oh, that's right. Copyright protection covers only recorded works, not written works. Thanks for reminding me.

I can't tell if either of you are just being snarky, but of course copyright covers written works as well. So whenever they finally got around to publishing the First Folio, Shakespeare would have been covered (if copyright had any meaning back in his day, which it did not).

[crisp]

The comparison with Bach and Shakespeare isn't fair because these works are compositions not recordings.

Oh, that's right. Copyright protection covers only recorded works, not written works. Thanks for reminding me.

Steady. I was just pointing out the comparison isn't like-for-like.

[danasgoodstuff]

We are in a minefield. I was beginning to feel like this was going nowhere.

Minefields, legs blown off, going nowhere, all of a piece.

Or all in pieces...

[Teasing the Korean]

The comparison with Bach and Shakespeare isn't fair because these works are compositions not recordings.

Oh, that's right. Copyright protection covers only recorded works, not written works. Thanks for reminding me.

Steady. I was just pointing out the comparison isn't like-for-like.

OK. But I believe it is a very valid comparison. You couldn't have cheap Dover editions if the works of Shakespeare and Lao Tzu were still under copyright protection.

And it is much cheaper for an orchestra to program Bach than, say, John Corigliano.

So there's something incongruent about expecting to get classic pillars of culture for cheap, but then getting bent out of shape over cheap editions of 60-year-old jazz albums by dead artists who've been ignored by their own labels.

Mickey Mouse and the Beatles keep getting copyrights extended, and I think that is a bad thing.

[JSngry]

So there's something incongruent about expecting to get classic pillars of culture for cheap, but then getting bent out of shape over cheap editions of 60-year-old jazz albums by dead artists who've been ignored by their own labels.

Flipside of that is what is the statute of limitations for fucking people over? And what's there to disincentivize just waiting shit out once the fucking over has been done? Lawyers?

Lawyers!

[GA Russell]

Speaking of Mickey Mouse, I saw the other day that Robert Kastenmeier had died. Sonny Bono is given most of the blame for the copyright extension, but the obit I saw said that it was Kastenmeier's doing.

The obits I'm finding on the internet stress his opposition to various wars, but I see that the Washington Post mentions the copyright issue in passing.

"In 1976, Mr. Kastenmeier was a key sponsor of the country’s first major overhaul of copyright law in more than 60 years, extending an author’s copyright protection to life plus 50 years. It remains the foundation of the nation’s copyright law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/robert-w-kastenmeier-former-wisconsin-congressman-dies-at-91/2015/03/21/e0da2208-cff0-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

[David Ayers]

So if I follow the argument correctly, the best way to stop other people ripping off musicians and composers is to do it yourself. So I can get free music and end evil in the world all without leaving my PC. I'm a saint.

[crisp]

OK. But I believe it is a very valid comparison. You couldn't have cheap Dover editions if the works of Shakespeare and Lao Tzu were still under copyright protection.

Fine, but my point is that a Dover edition of Shakespeare won't be far inferior to a Collins edition and other similar editions are available. But a recording is like a painting: it's a one-off, you can't recreate it. If a PD company releases an old recording, it will be inferior to a licensed version and will discourage legit label (indies and majors) from issuing legit versions of the only copy of that work. So copyright extension actually reduces choice.

My suggestion would be to make it law that if an indie wants to license a recording they should be able to providing they meet reasonable costs. That would end the cheapo editions and ensure any reissues were of decent quality.

Lots of Mosaic-style companies or lots of Real Gone Jazz-style ones? I know what I'd prefer and I'd pay extra for it.

Edited May 14, 2015 by crisp

[Teasing the Korean]

OK. But I believe it is a very valid comparison. You couldn't have cheap Dover editions if the works of Shakespeare and Lao Tzu were still under copyright protection.

My suggestion would be to make it law that if an indie wants to license a recording they should be able to providing they meet reasonable costs. That would end the cheapo editions and ensure any reissues were of decent quality.

Lots of Mosaic-style companies or lots of Real Gone Jazz-style ones? I know what I'd prefer and I'd pay extra for it.

It comes down to idealism versus realism. In my ideal world, every record ever made - even the lousy ones - would be available as a high-quality reissue from the master tapes. If they threw in a free ice cream cone, all the better.

But the fact is, the market for these rapidly aging recordings is shrinking, not expanding. If they haven't released these albums by now, they never will.

So I will always come down on the side of availability and preservation. If better versions are not available, I support these cheap sets, even though I own exactly one of them.

[JSngry]

So if I follow the argument correctly, the best way to stop other people ripping off musicians and composers is to do it yourself. So I can get free music and end evil in the world all without leaving my PC. I'm a saint.

Yep, it's just that simple.

[David Ayers]

I guess really that streaming has made this discussion mostly obsolete.

[JSngry]

Not if you're a bottom feeder like me. The used bins are filing up again. Not as cheaply as they used to, but still affordable enough most of the time.