 |
 |
On 01/10/2013, Tom Fine wrote: > I do agree with Steve that copyright law is not a good area for States > Rights. It's one of the few legal areas where I strongly favor > federalization and standardization of the laws/rules/enforcement. > > However, do understand that anything we (we being Americans and our > elected officials) throw into the public domain becomes worthless or > near-worthless to its copyright owner and therefore any efforts to > make a good reissue out of antique master media will not come from the > owners of that master media. Current copyright law is the only > (slight, thin, flawed) guarantee of a profit margin, the only > incentive to dig an old master out of the vault and hire an expert to > make a good transfer. If you like what Naxos and the gray-market jazz > "labels" out of Europe are pushing, then throw all the pre-1972 > masters into the PD. > I think the transfer engineers who do work for Naxos would resent your suggestion that they are not experts. > I favor a "use it or lose it" approach. Basically, if you own the > master tape or disk to a pre-1972 recording, you would get XX years to > reissue it and have a period of XX years of a renewed, hopefully > global, copyright. This would be a huge incentive for mass > digitization and release. I'd add years to the copyright if some sort > of expert protocol were followed, although I know that's a huge > potential trap and inept bureaucracy mess. If there's a better way to > incent high quality, then I'd favor it, I just haven't thought of it. > After this period of renewed copyright, the high-quality digital files > would pass into the PD. > > -- Tom Fine > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:52 PM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Compact Discs with lossy compression > > >> If this is the way the copyright laws work, then your complaint is >> not with the companies but with the governments who write and enforce >> them. >> >> Bottom line: Get the U.S. copyright laws for pre-1972 recordings >> under US >> government control rather than that of the 50 states plus >> territories, etc. >> That will substantially reduce the squishyness of the US legal >> process. >> Then there should be enough credibility for the U.S. to negotiate >> with other >> countries to deal with the large variety of sound copyright-related >> issued >> that remain. >> >> There isn't likely to be too much in the "instant gratification" >> department >> but not doing anything about it is hardly a solution. >> >> If you come to ARSC conferences, join the Copyright Committee. We >> usually >> have a lunch meeting (paid for by individual attendees). You might >> also >> consider a donation to ARSC dedicated to furthering this committee's >> work. >> We've done some amazing stuff, considering we're micro-Davids in a >> world of >> Goliaths. ARSC President Tim Brooks is chair. >> >> Steve Smolian >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donald Clarke >> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:32 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Compact Discs with lossy compression >> >> Chuck Nessa and Bob Sunenblick produced a wonderful compilation of >> all the >> 78s Charles Mingus made in California in the 1940s - early '50s. >> Sunenblick >> even bought one of the obscure labels to get the access, discovered >> unknown >> Mingus comps and turned the rights over to his widow. The booklet >> was a >> 96-page masterpiece about west coast jazz of the era. This took >> years and >> lots of money; the tracks were IMMEDIATELY ripped off by somebody, >> probably >> in the microstate of Andorra. >> >> Donald Clarke >> >> On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Tom Fine wrote: >> >> Yeah, but you guys just raised a key issue. My bet is that Rhett's >> Duane >> Eddy compilation may have come from overseas. It's a gray-market >> product >> from the get-go. Using liberal copyright rules in other countries, >> producers >> of cheap compilations get someone to make a quicky transfer of an LP >> or 45 >> because they can't license the master tapes. If they did this in the >> U.S., >> Australia and a few other places with strict copyrights, they'd be >> prosecuted as pirates. Naxos is the king of this, operating out of >> Hong Kong >> and selling cheapo discs made from garage sale LP dubs. Pure junk, >> but they >> exist because the labels sit on their vaults and won't invent a >> viable >> business plan to unleash all of the contents of their vaults. >> >> Even more insidious than cheapo junk reissues of LP and 45 dubs from >> gray-market operators overseas is taking a high-quality reissue like >> a >> Mosaic box, ripping the CDs and then repackaging them into original >> album >> sequences with usually blurry scans of the cover art. There are >> several jazz >> reissue "labels" based in Europe that specialize in this practice. >> It's >> worse than LP dubs because they are stealing Mosaic's investment in >> quality >> remastering and Mosaic buyers are thus subsidizing these gray-market >> goods. >> Again, if the record labels would do this themselves, after Mosaic >> sells out >> its licensed number of sets, then at least legitimate copyright >> owners would >> be profiting and it's more likely that artists would eventually get >> whatever >> royalties they are due. >> >> There's a whole hornet's nest of issues here but it boils down to >> two big >> trends. First, consumers want to pay prices that do not tend to >> allow for a >> profit margin that can build in quality work on the transfer and >> mastering >> end. Second, big record companies tend to make slow, dumb decisions >> about >> materials in their vaults because they are set up to chase quarterly >> hits. >> These two factors open the door to the gray-market leeches, which >> further >> erodes the margins and markets for legitimate reissues. >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Clarke" >> <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 11:53 AM >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Compact Discs with lossy compression >> >> >> Good point here. It may be impossible to get into vaults or to get >> to >> master tapes, but if you're going to put out a cheesy bootleg, it's >> like the >> food in a bad restaurant: every foodie I know agrees that it's just >> as easy >> to do it better. >> >> Donald Clarke >> >> On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Jamie Howarth wrote: >> >> Agreed w Tom on most points. If we could get a couple grand to do a >> Duane >> Eddy it would be done.It doesn't cost much more to do it right than >> do it >> wrong. >> >> The labels will license-out for vinyl physical product, but not >> digital >> physical product. If they did the rich hedgie would be backing a new >> custom >> label done by us. >> >> You guys should be making the adamant case that there's a quality >> floor, >> and to repackage an existing set of 44/16s as new is sketchy, and >> certainly >> that repackaging mp3s is caused for flaming brooms and pitchforks. >> It is >> imperative that you guys speak up, and realize that your reissue >> market may >> be mispriced - you're Red Seal/Shaded Dog, not Roulette records w >> ground up >> labels in the vinyl. And even back then there was honor among some >> of the >> thieves. Morris mandated re-used vinyl, Berry mandated against it. >> >> >> >> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word >> substitution I'm on an iPhone >> >> On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> I'm assuming Jamie was referring to a filthy-rich hedgefund guy >> who's >> also an audiophile. His point was, the guy was willing to pay extra >> for >> better audio quality. We already see in the LP market that a healthy >> niche >> can exist for people willing to pay more for perceived "better" >> quality. In >> the LP niche, I would argue it's as much for the cachet and the nice >> packaging (a real artifact, as opposed to a cheap-looking commodity >> product) >> as for the allegedly "better" sound quality. >>> >>> There does seem to be an emerging niche for higher-quality digital >>> audio, >> but most of the excitement is in the now-tiny download niche. For >> the >> mainstream market, despite wishes by some of us for things to be >> otherwise, >> there simply is not the production budget or profit margin to "do >> things >> great", at almost any stage of the process. This is especially true >> with >> reissue material, which has a limited end market. Comparing the >> market for a >> deluxe Grateful Dead reissue to the market for less-popular (with >> today's >> buyers) Duane Eddy is comparing apples and oranges. No reissue >> producer in >> his right mind is going to spend very much money putting together a >> Duane >> Eddy greatest hits single-CD. He will likely make a very slim margin >> on it, >> as is. >>> >>> That said, it's inexcusable to over-use digital "cleanup" software >>> or use >> a low-resolution source. My bet is, the source material for the CD >> that >> Rhett got is old singles and/or LPs. Some "engineer" decided to go >> overboard >> with DSP to "clean up" the surface noise and ticks and pops, used a >> heavy >> hand, and ended up with garbage that sounds like bad Napster-era >> MP3. Most >> people would probably be surprised how many master tapes are lost or >> are now >> unplayable without costly restoration measures (for which there is >> no >> budget), so many old-time pop and rock retrospectives are coming off >> singles >> and LPs. >>> >>> I can tell you from personal experience that it is very hard to >>> make the >> numbers work on a per-disc basis spending more than a handful of >> thousands >> of dollars, soup to nuts (transfer to finished authored Red Book >> disc, >> hopefully with processed high-rez and Mastered for iTunes download >> files >> also). That's a very, very constrained budget. Given that the >> transfer takes >> place in real-time, and careful listening must be done before and >> after, and >> especially if any DSP is performed, you get to very low wages >> quickly. So >> very few projects have the time or budget to go to anything >> approaching >> extraordinary strides toward high quality. I don't like it either, >> but >> that's the simple reality of today. Ask yourselves, how many of you >> are >> willing to pay $25 for a single CD. Adjusted for inflation since >> 1984, >> that's the low end of what one should cost today. Given that they >> tend to >> sell for under $10, you get what you are willing to pay for. Not >> enough >> "hedgies" out there to bend the curve. >>> >>> -- Tom Fine >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Clarke" >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:41 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Compact Discs with lossy compression >>> >>> >> I'm using this list to improve my vocabulary. Please, sir, what's >> a >> hedgie? >>>> >>>> Donald Clarke >>>> >>>> On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:23 AM, Jamie Howarth wrote: >>>> >>>> Here's a brain teaser: I asked a wealthy hedgie what is favorite >>>> album >> is. Ok U2 War... Alright what would you pay for an HD download ... >> 29.95$.. >> Ok how much would you pay for a mirror copy of the master tape... >> 500bucks!!! In a heartbeat. >>>>> >>> >> >> Regards -- Don Cox [log in to unmask]