Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Sun December 17th, 2017, 23:09 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 03:49 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon January 30th, 2006, 16:00 GMT
Posts: 1250
>>No...

Yes. I went to the UK site mentioned above and found-

"An author from any country that is a signatory of the convention is awarded the same rights in all other countries that are signatories to the Convention as they allow their own nationals, as well as any rights granted by the Convention."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 06:45 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
Bennyboy wrote:
On the proviso the world doesn't end in 2012 (either cos the predictions are arse or John Cusak saves us), and your forecast is correct, then we seem to have a win-win situation: those of us who want to buy the Sony Bootleg Series version of the Witmarks can do so in a couple of weeks, and those who want to save some cash can buy them in a couple of years.

Pick the bones out of that one Mr Peace!


Uh, no it isn't. This release is still taking the place of something more worthy whether that pans out or not. A "win win" scenario (for U.K. fans) would be more like: "we get a proper Rundown Rehearsals release now and the Witmark demos in a couple of years at bargain basement prices". That way, we get more material, with Witmark priced closer to what it's worth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 07:34 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed January 28th, 2009, 09:47 GMT
Posts: 10101
Location: A high place of darkness and light
Warren Peace wrote:
Bennyboy wrote:
On the proviso the world doesn't end in 2012 (either cos the predictions are arse or John Cusak saves us), and your forecast is correct, then we seem to have a win-win situation: those of us who want to buy the Sony Bootleg Series version of the Witmarks can do so in a couple of weeks, and those who want to save some cash can buy them in a couple of years.

Pick the bones out of that one Mr Peace!


Uh, no it isn't. This release is still taking the place of something more worthy whether that pans out or not. A "win win" scenario (for U.K. fans) would be more like: "we get a proper Rundown Rehearsals release now and the Witmark demos in a couple of years at bargain basement prices". That way, we get more material, with Witmark priced closer to what it's worth.


Rundown Rehearsals? Oh dear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 08:15 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
Yeah, 1978 is an era that hasn't been run into the ground. I know you want to ride the beaten dead horse of the 60's into eternity, but I'd rather let the public in on the rest of the man's career. I already made my case for that:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=52564


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 09:14 GMT 

Joined: Wed June 14th, 2006, 10:23 GMT
Posts: 938
Location: St James Hotel
Here is a piece describing the recent release of a live recording from 1962, which
the writer asserts is no longer bound by copyright. (The piece is carried by the
Australian national broadcaster's website).

Here is an extract:

The CD is called Folksinger's Choice. What we get is a radio concert interspersed with major interview segments broadcast on radio station WBAI in March 1962. Dylan hadn't even released his first album at that point.

So why would Dylan sanction a release of an interview that reveals so much? He hasn't .The CD is not an official release from Dylan's label Columbia.

Recorded at the time of its broadcast, the program can be published now because live recordings of the time don't attract the regular copyright limitations.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 027000.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 09:22 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
Oh yeah, there is that. Maybe the whole idea isn't so UFOlogist nutty after all...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 10:09 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 13th, 2009, 01:17 GMT
Posts: 6972
lowgen wrote:
>>No...

Yes. I went to the UK site mentioned above and found-

"An author from any country that is a signatory of the convention is awarded the same rights in all other countries that are signatories to the Convention as they allow their own nationals, as well as any rights granted by the Convention."


No.

Not wanting to continue an argument - we're merely discussing :D - I went to the same site and found:

"6.Duration of copyright
The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as;

i.For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.

If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.

ii.Sound Recordings and broadcasts
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or,

if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.


And, aside from this, my points about UK copyright in sound recordings are trampled into the mud by the facts of UK record companies whose very existence is largely built on the legality of releasing out-of-copyright (50 years old and more) material. Think of JSP records with box-sets of the complete Jimmie Rodgers, Carter Family etc. And Acrobat Records with their complete UK charts 1952-1959 - all public domain material in UK law.

Different rules apply to literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, as noted above.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 12:37 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon January 30th, 2006, 16:00 GMT
Posts: 1250
You have quoted UK law and totally missed the point of my comments concerning reciprocal respect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 12:48 GMT 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 29th, 2006, 20:42 GMT
Posts: 1302
Location: Merrimack, NH
If nothing else, this thread is a perfect example of both why lawyers are despised and why they earn so much. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 6th, 2010, 13:22 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 13th, 2009, 01:17 GMT
Posts: 6972
lowgen wrote:
You have quoted UK law and totally missed the point of my comments concerning reciprocal respect.

I didn't miss your point. But I did point out that the facts applying now in the UK regarding sound recordings mean that whatever international convention (gentlemen's agreement??) you think applies on reciprocal respect, the law in the UK allows anyone to use sound recordings - without infringing anyone's rights - after 50 years.

(Interestingly, there was quite a clamour from some of the UK's early rockers, like Sir Cliff of Richard, to exempt their recordings from the 50 year copyright expiry rule - "It's me pension, innit!" - as their early hits approached their 50th birthdays, but to no avail.)

I'm no legal whiz, so I'm open to correction on the law - but I know that all this 50+ year old material is being treated as in the public domain, and free from copyright restriction. And as far as I can see, no publisher of 'out of UK copyright' recordings has been or is being sued by Sony/BMG, Universal or any other erstwhile copyright holder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 11:52 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon July 31st, 2006, 09:13 GMT
Posts: 2141
Location: out on Decatur Hill
I always thought that the Beatles re-release campaign last year was started at that point, because it was the last opportunity for EMI/Capitol to cash in on the whole catalog. Starting in 2013 the Beatles' released recordings* will fall into the public domain and any cheapo label will be able to release their first two albums ("Please, Please Me", "With The Beatles"). Then in 2014 the next two ("A Hard Day's Night", "Beatles For Sale") etc. etc. Since the Beatles' recorded oeuvre is rather small and was recorded over a relatively short period of time, EMI/Capitol will see their exclusive hold on the catalog eroding quickly.

The same thing has happened to all the classic, early Rock 'n' Roll LPs. Since they were all released in about 1956–1959, they are 50 years + and labels like "Doxy" and others now flood the market with knock-offs. Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Gene Vincent, Link Wray, Warren Smith, Charlie Feathers ... all the early pioneering Rock 'n' Roll recordings* are in the public domain now. Same thing with the Jazz classics – Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Thelonious Monk etc.

*I think the actual compositions are protected for a longer period of time. So if you intend to release a cover version of, say, "Be Bop A Lula", you still need to pay the writers or their heirs for the right to copy the work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 14:13 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon January 30th, 2006, 16:00 GMT
Posts: 1250
>>all the early pioneering Rock 'n' Roll recordings* are in the public domain now


There is a difference between "public domain" and "not worth suing in a non-US court".

To assume that a bootleg is legitimate because it has not been stopped is obviously wrong and misleading.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 14:40 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
The rights of the people who created the melodies for a large amount of Dylan's early material long expired allowing young Bobby to use those melodies in ways nobody had used them. At some point in the future, other people will be free to use Dylan's words and melodies in ways he can't anticipate and will have no control over. How is that not wonderful?

And I still don't understand how anyone can believe that Dylan ever had any rights to the Folksinger's Choice material.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 15:30 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 13th, 2009, 01:17 GMT
Posts: 6972
Having looked again at the UK Copyright Law factsheet posted by Fred, I think lowgen may be mis-reading it - though I stand to be corrected and shot down in flames if I'm the one mis-reading :wink: . The following 2 points address the reciprocal agreements covered in the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention:

Berne convention:

An author from any country that is a signatory of the convention is awarded the same rights in all other countries that are signatories to the Convention as they allow their own nationals

Universal Copyright convention:

•Contracting states provide the same cover to foreign published works as they do to their own citizens.

A US recording is protected in the UK by UK copyright law - the US copyright owner retains copyright for 50 years, just as a UK copyright owner does. Then, both UK and US works do pass into the public domain as far as UK law** is concerned. No suggestion of piracy, bootlegging or other nefarious activities. And "not worth suing in a non-US court" doesn't arise - no legal offence has been committed; there's nothing to sue for.

My reading of it. Convince me otherwise. :D

** and, indeed, international law, as agreed in the Berne and Universal Copyright conventions, and accepted by the signatories to those conventions - I've not checked, but I assume the US is a signatory?.


Last edited by supermabel1 on Thu October 7th, 2010, 15:40 GMT, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 15:31 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon July 31st, 2006, 09:13 GMT
Posts: 2141
Location: out on Decatur Hill
lowgen wrote:
There is a difference between "public domain" and "not worth suing in a non-US court".


Yes, and the recordings mentioned above are considered to be in the "public domain" in many countries. Illegal releases of Miles Davis' '50s catalog would certainly be worth suing in a non-US court, I think, but there is nothing SONY can do. Don't get me wrong, I do not think that is a good thing. I do not like to see Miles' "Kind Of Blue" released by some cheapo label with non-original artwork and mastered from non-documented sources for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 15:57 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon January 30th, 2006, 16:00 GMT
Posts: 1250
For Supermabel, I quote once again-

"An author from any country that is a signatory of the convention is awarded the same rights in all other countries that are signatories to the Convention as they allow their own nationals, as well as any rights granted by the Convention."

This is in the law and not a "gentlemen's agreement".
--

We will learn when it pays to sue in a foreign court if and when a US owner sues in a foreign court.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 17:07 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 13th, 2009, 01:17 GMT
Posts: 6972
lowgen wrote:
For Supermabel, I quote once again-

"An author from any country that is a signatory of the convention is awarded the same rights in all other countries that are signatories to the Convention as they allow their own nationals, as well as any rights granted by the Convention."

This is in the law and not a "gentlemen's agreement".
--

We will learn when it pays to sue in a foreign court if and when a US owner sues in a foreign court.

Thanks, but read that again with particular attention to the underlined phrase.

The UK is not a rogue nation that turns a blind eye to pirates, bootleggers and general theft of intellectual property. Companies like JSP, Acrobat, ASV and others would have been closed down years ago if they were operating outside the law.

I do agree that the Berne and Universal Copyright conventions are NOT "gentlemen's agreements", and I withdraw the suggestion that they might be. The conventions are legally binding on their signatories. If the US is a signatory to these conventions then, as I said above, there is no way a US copyright holder can sue a UK publisher who has complied with UK copyright law. UK copyright law complies with those conventions.

Where do you see anything in the documentation that contradicts that view?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 17:47 GMT 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 29th, 2006, 20:42 GMT
Posts: 1302
Location: Merrimack, NH
Not that I'll probably convince anyone, :D but I think the difference of opinion is here
Quote:
"An author from any country that is a signatory of the convention is awarded the same rights in all other countries that are signatories to the Convention as they allow their own nationals"
Emphasis mine.

I think SuperMabel1 (and me too) are interpreting that line to mean that a U.S. author of a recorded work will be accorded the same rights, in this case for 50 years, in a U.K. court as a U.K. author of a recorded work. Conversely, a U.K. author would be accorded the same rights as a U.S. author in the U.S. courts for works released in the U.S. However, the opposite isn't true: a U.K. artist doesn't enjoy 95 years of copyright protection in the U.K. simply because the work is released in the U.S. So, a label in the U.K. could legitimately release a recorded work made by a U.S. artist that - as far as U.K. law was concerned - was out of copyright.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, which is probably why I lose all my suits. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 17:58 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 13th, 2009, 01:17 GMT
Posts: 6972
Fred - yes, that's how I read the documentation. :)

But if you need a lawyer - don't call me! (I'm a retired IT techie type person... :roll: 8) )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 18:17 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue August 9th, 2005, 20:52 GMT
Posts: 416
Cliff Richard led a high profile campaign a couple of years ago to extend this copyright law. I don't know where this is up to, but I imagine there will be increasing pressure from the industry to review the copyright laws in this instance, as they were really designed for another era. In particular, albums didn't really exist in the modern sense until about 50 years ago, and soon we will see not only Dylan's albums but many major albums from the 60s come out of copyright.

This article suggests that plans are already underway in Europe to extend it to 2008, though I don't know what the latest is:
http://www.gigwise.com/news/48181/Roger-Daltrey-Cliff-Richard-To-Benefit-From-Musicians%5C-Copyright-Law-Change


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 18:59 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon January 30th, 2006, 16:00 GMT
Posts: 1250
>>I think SuperMabel1 (and me too) are interpreting that line to mean that a U.S. author of a recorded work will be accorded the same rights [...] as a U.K. author


Sorry, but that's silly and implies that without the law, a US author would have NO rights in the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 19:24 GMT 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 29th, 2006, 20:42 GMT
Posts: 1302
Location: Merrimack, NH
lowgen wrote:
>>I think SuperMabel1 (and me too) are interpreting that line to mean that a U.S. author of a recorded work will be accorded the same rights [...] as a U.K. author


Sorry, but that's silly and implies that without the law, a US author would have NO rights in the UK.


I admire your obstinacy, lowgen. Let me try again. From The Artists Rights Society web page

http://www.arsny.com/basics.html

Quote:
The Berne Convention & International Laws

There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's works throughout the entire world. Generally speaking, protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions.

The most significant international copyright instrument is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1986. The Berne Convention has approximately 170 members, including the United States which joined in 1989. The Berne Convention is based on national treatment, meaning that a Berne member country must extend the same treatment to the works of nationals of other Berne member countries as are enjoyed by its own nationals.
Furthermore, the Convention obligates member countries to adopt minimum standards for copyright protection.

The Universal Copyright Convention of September 1952 ("UCC Agreement") was created to provide an alternative to the Berne Convention. The United States ratified the UCC in 1955. The UCC imposes fewer substantive requirements than the Berne Convention. For countries that are members of both the Berne Convention and the UCC, in cases of conflict between the two conventions the Berne Convention prevails.


The emphasis is again mine. For more information on the concept of "national treatment," see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_treatment

Quote:
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 20:32 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu July 10th, 2008, 15:11 GMT
Posts: 11575
Location: brighton uk
That is perfectly clear - a us artist whose work is published in the us will be protected under uk law to the same degree as a uk artist in the uk not more. in the case of italy there is very little protection. thus records that might be considered bootlegs in the us are not considered bootlegs in the uk or, say, italy so long as they are not in contravention of those countries laws. it makes no difference what the law is in the us, the protection offered is only ever the same as the country in which the release is, er, released.... so we can expect a deluge of dodgy recordings that are perfectly legal before too long. some might argue that we've already seen quite a few during the 80s anyway.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 21:27 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 13th, 2008, 03:43 GMT
Posts: 4912
slimtimslide wrote:
That is perfectly clear - a us artist whose work is published in the us will be protected under uk law to the same degree as a uk artist in the uk not more. in the case of italy there is very little protection. thus records that might be considered bootlegs in the us are not considered bootlegs in the uk or, say, italy so long as they are not in contravention of those countries' laws. it makes no difference what the law is in the us, the protection offered is only ever the same as the country in which the release is, er, released.... so we can expect a deluge of dodgy recordings that are perfectly legal before too long. some might argue that we've already seen quite a few during the 80s anyway.....
The fact that some countries have had lax anti-bootleg logs for decades suggests the world is not coming to an end--why do we draw such a direct line between copyright law and payola--or do we. It's the goombahs who flood the market with very cheap junk that kill the fun of sharing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 7th, 2010, 21:34 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon January 30th, 2006, 16:00 GMT
Posts: 1250
(Sigh)
Ok, no problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jordan


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group