Blue Harlem

[JSngry]

If property is theft, what is the total taking away of ownership for no other reason than that the clock's run out?

[couw]

And of course, the heirs COULD combat public domain releases by building a better mousetrap and all that. But if we're going to take that tact, somebody tell the Coors family that they've had the brand name and the business long enough, and that Anheiseur-Busch is now legally allowed to make "Coors" beer using the Coors family recipie, and if they don't like it, they can just try harder. And tell the Busch family that Coors is free to do the same with Budweiser (itself a "stolen" name, I know, and I know that in a sane world nobody would be drinking that shit in the first place, but hey...). Yeah, it's a family name, and a family business, but you motherfuckers have had it long enough, says We The Law, and now anybody can use it anyway they like. If that means buying "Coors" beer that is made out of rancid Florida swamp water (like it's not already ), tough shit. It's not yours to control anymore.

Sometimes the little guys benefit from the "greed" of the big guys. Not often enough, but it happens. And this is one case it does. It's an imperfect world. Deal with it!

that's a nice story, but I doubt anyone on this thread stated anything that went in THAT direction. It was more like "if coors stops making beer, the recipe should be open for others to grab up and fill the taps." Keeping stuff out of a public domain is fine & dandy, but you cannot at the same time want it to be part of the cultural heritage AND keep it locked away. My guess is that any artist is in it not just for the money, but also and probably moreso for making a contribution to art and culture. From the latter perspective, the cheaper & the more widely available, the better. Having the family sit on the rights and not make works of art available is about the worst that could happen to an artist who places value on being known. Just another point to make as I am on the fence here.

[couw]

If property is theft, what is the total taking away of ownership for no other reason than that the clock's run out?

well, "taking away" is the opposite of "property," and the opposite of "theft" is -- I dunno -- something that's legal?

[JSngry]

Ok, I've written some pieces, a few recorded, many more not. The odds that I'll see any significant money off of them in my lifetime is realistically less than 50/50. But in 150 years, what if somebody comes across a Quartet Out CD, or a manuscript of an unrecorded piece, in the collection of my great-great-howmanyevers whatever and says "Hey, that "Toot Toot" (or whatever) is a pretty catchy number. I think I'll use it." So they do, and it makes a nice piece of change.

Are you telling me that my great-great-howmanyevers whatever should not be entitled to a piece of that action whatsoever? That does not sit well with me. It's MY music, and I want my heirs to consider it as a part of my ONGOING "material" legacy to them, as well a part of my legacy to the world in general (yeah, I know, "legacy" is a bit pompous, but c'est la vie). The laws do not allow me to do that. Whereas, if I had a collection of solid gold pocketwatches, or a lusty portfolio of stocks and bonds, or damn near any OTHER asset, I would be able to (and I SHOULD be able to), no problem. As the law now stands, that "discovery" better be made pretty damn quick, relatively (no pun intended) speaking.

Again I ask - is that right? Never mind imperfect - is it RIGHT? And if it's not, then why all the noise about making it even LESS right? Make it the same for everybody.

[A Lark Ascending]

As for the Windsors, stage a revolt, either in the street or at the ballot box, or else, again, deal with it. Those are the options, right?

Well, yes. If you want to get whisked off to jail. The cards are very much stacked against you, however.

The idea of the absolute right to pass on all one's property (short of taxes) for ever more is so entrenched it's very hard to see beyond. To shift artistic/intellectual property law in line with physical property law will not benefit the artist, engineer or whatever. It benefits their successors who've done bugger all to earn it.

Here's another thought.

In the next four years the Miles Coltrane Prestige's all come out of copyright in Europe. This is music that is going to attract a much wider audience than the forthcoming Benny Carter or Roy Eldridge Proper discs.

You can bet your life that Proper and the rest are already planning how to handle this. Get in early with single or double discs as they become PD? Or wait until the last and put out a box (and risk being outflanked)?

Now what are those who hold that copyright doing about it. I have OJC single discs. They sound fine to my muddied ears but I suspect they havn't had the full treatment that modern engineering could bring to them. The owners have sat on their asset for the last x number of years.

Now would it not make sense for them to hire the best engineers and studios possible, produce a definitive (sorry!) box with exemplary packaging, essays etc and get it out there on the market before the copyright lapses?

They could charge full whack and reel in the jazz fans in the next couple of years. And then - like Columbia are doing with their boxes - drop the price a few months ahead of the competition.

It strikes me that those with the assets have all the cards until the date things go PD. Which makes me loath to shed tears for them when they find themselves faced with the likes of Proper boxes.

Incidentally, just how much of the monies from those former Prestiges go to the estates of Davis, Coltrane, Garland, Chambers and Jones?

Of course the prospect of Davis/Coltrane going PD is chicken feed alongside Elvis, Sinatra....

Edited April 25, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[couw]

Ok, I've written some pieces, a few recorded, many more not. The odds that I'll see any significant money off of them in my lifetime is realistically less than 50/50. But in 150 years, what if somebody comes across a Quartet Out CD, or a manuscript of an unrecorded piece, in the collection of my great-great-howmanyevers whatever and says "Hey, that "Toot Toot" (or whatever) is a pretty catchy number. I think I'll use it." So they do, and it makes a nice piece of change.

Are you telling me that my great-great-howmanyevers whatever should not be entitled to a piece of that action whatsoever? That does not sit well with me. It's MY music, and I want my heirs to consider it as a part of my ONGOING "material" legacy to them, as well a part of my legacy to the world in general (yeah, I know, "legacy" is a bit pompous, but c'est la vie). The laws do not allow me to do that. Whereas, if I had a collection of solid gold pocketwatches, or a lusty portfolio of stocks and bonds, or damn near any OTHER asset, I would be able to (and I SHOULD be able to), no problem. As the law now stands, that "discovery" better be made pretty damn quick, relatively (no pun intended) speaking.

Again I ask - is that right? Never mind imperfect - is it RIGHT? And if it's not, then why all the noise about making it even LESS right? Make it the same for everybody.

That's the problem of the dialectics of artistry, isn't it? You want to get famous so would give your stuff away and everybody knows you, but you also need bread and want to earn a little.

I don't have an answer, just questions.

(you write pieces named "toot-toot"? damn, Jim, that's... well, .... erm, nothing. carry on.)

[JSngry]

And of course, the heirs COULD combat public domain releases by building a better mousetrap and all that. But if we're going to take that tact, somebody tell the Coors family that they've had the brand name and the business long enough, and that Anheiseur-Busch is now legally allowed to make "Coors" beer using the Coors family recipie, and if they don't like it, they can just try harder. And tell the Busch family that Coors is free to do the same with Budweiser (itself a "stolen" name, I know, and I know that in a sane world nobody would be drinking that shit in the first place, but hey...). Yeah, it's a family name, and a family business, but you motherfuckers have had it long enough, says We The Law, and now anybody can use it anyway they like. If that means buying "Coors" beer that is made out of rancid Florida swamp water (like it's not already  ), tough shit. It's not yours to control anymore.

Sometimes the little guys benefit from the "greed" of the big guys. Not often enough, but it happens. And this is one case it does. It's an imperfect world. Deal with it!

that's a nice story, but I doubt anyone on this thread stated anything that went in THAT direction. It was more like "if coors stops making beer, the recipe should be open for others to grab up and fill the taps." Keeping stuff out of a public domain is fine & dandy, but you cannot at the same time want it to be part of the cultural heritage AND keep it locked away. My guess is that any artist is in it not just for the money, but also and probably moreso for making a contribution to art and culture. From the latter perspective, the cheaper & the more widely available, the better. Having the family sit on the rights and not make works of art available is about the worst that could happen to an artist who places value on being known. Just another point to make as I am on the fence here.

That's a nice story too, but unless you pass laws that force the recipie to always be made available, then them's the breaks.

Hey - I'm not toally opposed to public domain, and I've stated my "compromise" earlier. But the notion that I can publish a folio of Bach fugues and, if I get lucky and catch the market at the right time (as if...), make a tidy sum and not give one cent back to the Bach estate (if there even is one) violates some fundamental principle of fairness and respect somewhere inside me. If the estate don't want it, fine. But they should have the right to refuse it, or to direct it as they see fit.

[JSngry]

The idea of the absolute right to pass on all one's property (short of taxes) for ever more is so entrenched it's very hard to see beyond. To shift artistic/intellectual property law in line with physical property law will not benefit the artist, engineer or whatever. It benefits their successors who've done bugger all to earn it.

Do you have any children? Any grandchildren? Do you hope to?

If you did, and you had something to pass on, would you not do so because they've "done bugger all to earn it"?

I think not! I hope not.

But to each thier own, which is where the freedom to decide for yourself comes in. A freedom that expires for the heirs of intellectual property in a way that it does not with heirs of other property.

[JSngry]

And why the scorn towards those who have inherited something whilst having "done bugger all to earn it" while at the same time cheering on commercial operations who are seeking to earn profits doing exactly the same thing?

Of course, the issue of the collective morality of the record industy and the equitability of public domain laws are not quite the same thing, but those who feel "entitled" to swoop down like vultures and freely feed upon the labors of others (even con-artists, mobsters, and other industry types) at the stroke of midnight on any given day seem to be crying crocodile tears with the argument that "they've had it long enough".

Bullshit. Greed is greed, and transferring it to a new set of owners still leaves it as greed. Don't kid yourself.

[JSngry]

Incidentally, just how much of the monies from those former Prestiges go to the estates of Davis, Coltrane, Garland, Chambers and Jones?

I don't know, but some labels do pay estates. Blue Note, for one. Maybe not agressively, but they do pay. And they are not alone. Not all labels are crooked. Many, yes, but not all.

You think the Andorrans, the JSPs, the Propers pay anybody anything? Ah, that's right - THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

Done bugger all to earn it inDEED!

[A Lark Ascending]

No I don't have kids. But I am one. My parents have already given me all I need and very little of it was financial. They didn't have very much.

I was very impressed by an interview I read with Dave Gilmour, the Pink Floyd guitarist a year back. A man worth millions.

He was saying how he intended to donate most of it to charity. He would not endow his kids beyond giving them a decent education, helping start etc. Beyond that he viewed it as mistaken to featherbed their start in life. Where would they get the drive to make something themselves?

I'm not arguing against your right to provide for your kids as much as you want. I am arguing that that right should not pass down the generations indefinitely. Now, as I said before, the right of physical property passing down indefinitely is so entrenched there is no hope of any change. I'd hate to see other forms of property go that way, however.

If a performers makes a recording then I think its fine that for the next 50 years he/she and his/her kids should reap the benefits. After that...well it's time for his/her descendents to make their own way.

[Don't worry, no danger I'll ever be in a position to take away your property rights. Though that would be the least of your worries. I'd be after your right to buy a privileged education or health care first!!!]

[JSngry]

The joy in your heart is palpable!

[A Lark Ascending]

The Propers etc are doing something to earn it. Putting an out-of-copyright package together in a format that is appealing to customers who would like that music.

After years of having to buy the music on dozens of separate discs (organised that way to maximise company profits) the listener can get a concentrated package for a modest price.

Again if the companies originally owning the source material had put in some forethought they could have spiked Proper's guns well in advance.

It's hard to think of a more economical way to get a broad cross-section of Bebop than Proper's 'Bebop Spoken Here' set. If the companies owning the copyright had got their heads together in the early 90s they could have done this.

In 15 years time someone is going to release the Beatles catalogue or Stones Decca catalogue in the equivalent of a couple of Proper boxes. Whose at fault here? The company repackaging into 70 minute discs (or whatever the format is then)? Or EMI/Decca for constantly repackaging this stuff on half-full CDs at full price?

Edited April 25, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

Bev, the issue (for me anyway) has long since moved past Proper proper (which I freely admit to begrudgingly buying on occasison) into that of public domain laws in general. Some see it as entirely a matter of who gets to make money. I see it as that (and am "understanding") PLUS who gets to NOT make money through totaly arbitrary laws not applicable to the lineage of any other occupation. On the latter point, I have no wiggle room whatsoever.

Although, frankly, resentment towards privilige in general is not somethng I subscribe to. I've known jerks and saints from all economic strata. The "politics of resentment" is not for me. Maybe it's a different miilieu where you live.

[couw]

who when invented public domain and why?

[couw]

[...]

Swing Tanzen Verboten: Recordings from Germany during World War II

[...]

** THEY ** oughta sound pretty good too... considering the 99.99% chance they were swiped from Bear Family

did Bear Family put this stuff out? The only stuff on the box I was familiar with was some of the Dance Orchestra stuff on disk one, which may have been swiped but might as well not (didnot investigate) and the Ramblers stuff on disk 3, which may have been released by a dutch archival label. Otherwise, I wouldn't know where to look. Especially the Charlie & His Orchestra Propaganda material I found very interesting and I bought the set mostly for those tracks. Would not know of any other release of those. Will try and find out, did not at the time...

EDIT: okay, looked around and found this; so it seems Charlie and his orchestra may very well have been ripped; no concerns about paying royalties to the artists I hope... !

Edited April 25, 2004 by couw

[Brad]

Since Proper doesn't try as you say what about some of their older boxes, like Bebop Spoken Here. Where did they steal that one from. There it's not just one artist but several. I think with Classics it's easy for them, if they do that, take it from them but with a multi artist set I think it's a little more difficult for that charge to stick. There are some cuts on that box from Dodo, Sonny Berman, Leo Parker, Claude Thornhill, etc. I don't think Classics had done anything with them, at that time. If they're guilty, I'd boycott 'em. I'm not just sure that they are.

We also should try get away from it's legal, but it's bad discussion. You're mixing concepts that are like apples and oranges. Let's accept it's legal and focus on the bad-good argument. The question as Clementine raises it and as Chuck has raised it is will this copying, if that's what they're doing, lead to an inhibition by remasterers to reissue material. If the remasterers know their work is going to be copied because of the copyright laws, yeah we're probably not going to see as much as we should or could.

One solution would be for the US to crack down on imports of these sets; that would probably remove the incentive to make them. Better still would be to have a universal copyright law followed by all or at least Europe and the US.

[A Lark Ascending]

Clementine,

We're talking past one another (as is usual in these discussions!).

Bear, Mosaic are targeting a minority specialist audience. Thus their care and interest. Proper are targeting a general audience. An audience that does not require perfect sound.

By all means opt for the stance that Proper are immoral because they might source their material without acknowledgement. But don't expect them to do things they are not setting out to do. Their sets are not meant for audiophiles. That's like me complaining about all the alternative takes on a Mosaic. If that's not what I want I need to look elsewhere. Like Proper!

Brad,

It would be interesting to see a universal copyright law. How long would it take the US to come into line with Europe do you think?

[RDK]

A couple of interesting (and perhaps illuminating) articles. Again, I'm very much on the fence on this issue, so please nobody take any of this personally...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...5_sprigman.html

http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/Opp...blicdomain.html

[A Lark Ascending]

Fantasy "sat on"? Dude, you've been able to buy EVERY original Miles lp-- on vinyl!!-- w/original artwork for how many years? There was a a vinyl box AND then a cd box? They've licensed the Quintet sides to-- who was it, Analogue Productions? There are Japanese K2s etc. etc...

Yes, I know they've been constantly available. But as I understand it they've done nothing like Columbia has done with its Miles material. I'm working totally off hearsay here from boards like this where I've frequently read disappointment about the remastering. I could be completely wrong.

I wonder if, when the time comes, Proper etc will even bother putting out sets covering things like the Evans/Davis or Blackhawk discs. Columbia have done such a good job on those and could have the price way down by that point (the Blackhawk 4CD is currently selling close to the price of a Properbox). There doesn't seem any way the job could be done better.

Do a brilliant job while its all yours. Think about the general listener as well as the specialist. That's the way to see off the competition from the likes of Proper.

Edited April 25, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[RDK]

Several years ago, while training for a marathon of all things, I had a long-running (pun intended) debate with a buddy of mine who is a novelist. With both of us playing Devil's Advocate, we had a grand time arguing the issue. I'm not sure if we came to any consesus, but it was interesting and fun, as is the debate here.

So once again wearing the Devil's horns, let me ask you artist types (and by that I mean writers, musicians, actors, painters, whatever) what makes you think your artistic shit is so stanky that the public needs to pay for it over and over again? Why can't you simply get paid for your work one time, like the rest of us, instead of getting residuals, royalty cuts, etc. If one pays Jim Carey $20 million to act in a film, why the hell should he keep getting paid more every time the movie later airs on TV or some shmuck buys the DVD? If you work in an umbrella store and sell some dude an umbrella for 20 bucks, you don't get an extra few bits everytime it rains, do you? It's a ridiculous and not particularly apt analogy, I know, but the answers are often intriguing...

[Chuck Nessa]

Yes, I know they've been constantly available. But as I understand it they've done nothing like Columbia has done with its Miles material. I'm working totally off hearsay here from boards like this where I've frequently read disappointment about the remastering. I could be completely wrong.

Fantasy has done Miles proud. Reissued them on lp, cd , have started a K2 series and now SACDs. They also licensed stuff to "audiophile" concerns. You messed up on this one. They also have a continuing involvement with the estate paying royalties as per the agreement with the artist.

The EU copiers will use the last available Fantasy transfer for their "fee free" issues.

What is Fantasy's incentive for preserving primary source material?

[JSngry]

So once again wearing the Devil's horns, let me ask you artist types (and by that I mean writers, musicians, actors, painters, whatever) what makes you think your artistic shit is so stanky that the public needs to pay for it over and over again?

Because somebody IS going to keep selling it to you over and over again. They may or may not succeed, but what gives anybody the right to sell what is not theirs?

"The public" needn't pay any more times than they choose. Those who SELL to the public should pay for what they attempt to sell, period.

Nice car you got there, but you've had it long enough. I think I'll sell it to your neighbor. Your cut? HAHAHAHA -YOU DON'T GET A CUT ANYMORE!

Give me a FUCKING break.

[A Lark Ascending]

Fantasy has done Miles proud. Reissued them on lp, cd , have started a K2 series and now SACDs. They also licensed stuff to "audiophile" concerns. You messed up on this one. They also have a continuing involvement with the estate paying royalties as per the agreement with the artist.

Mess up totally accepted and held head low in shame. I should know better than rely on hearsay.

[A Lark Ascending]

There's this alto-sax player. Recorded in the 40s and 50s. Did lots of original things, blues things and acknowledged covers. He also had a habit of taking tunes by the likes of Gershwin and Kern, stripping off the melody line, sticking on a new head and then retitling, crediting himself as composer. The orginal is there for all to hear in the chord sequence. Yup, he did a million other things with that sequence but the starting point was the Kern/Gershwin song. And they got nothing!

The Gershwin, Kern and other estates have clearly been short-changed by all of this. He's sold countless records over the years..he's even been Proper'd.

Perhaps in the spirit of morality being argued for here we should boycott his music due to his deplorable practice of stealing other peoples music and then passing it off as his own.

In fact quite a few of his contemporaries, predecessors and successors have done the same.

Ah! But he's an artist. He's outside morality. This isn't theft. This is creativity!