Print

Print


On the subject of the Paramount set and "bootlegging," I'd prefer that until the set is proven in a court of law to be a bootleg or otherwise illegal re-issue, it not be referred to as such. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Over the years I have heard a lot of talk about the alleged ownership of Paramount, Black Swan, Emerson and other small 78 labels. But despite numerous re-issues over the last 20 years I have seen no legal action that has established the definitive ownership of these recordings. While the Paramount set is not of great interest to me as a collector, I hope that its existence can settle once and for all the question of whether anyone truly owns the rights to the recordings it contains.

James


Standard disclaimer: All opinions are personal and do not reflect policy or position of the Library of Congress.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Gillman
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Paramount Box Set - where the artwork was sourced from

Some pictures of the set.

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=vinyl&m=1064579


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Steve Ramm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Tom: you'll have to ask John. I emailed him when I first heard about 
> the set last month - especially when I heard about the ART BOOK and he
>  replied:
>
> "No, I had NOTHING to do with that Paramount set.. I consider that set 
> a bootleg product and am not promoting it in any way."
>
> I didn't follow up. Since John owns the large stash of Artwork - he 
> was planning a DV of it about 6 years ago (at less than the set from 
> TMR)- that he  found, the material in the Revenant/Third Man set must 
> have come from somewhere  else.
>
> But John may have been referring to the "artwork" and not the 
> recordings as  bootlegs.
>
> That's all I know.
>
> Steve
>
>
> In a message dated 11/3/2013 2:08:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Hi  Steve:
>
> So can you explain Tefteller's "bootleg" comment? You've  repeated it 
> several times in your posts.
> "Bootleg" suggest something  illegal or illegitimate about this 
> product, which does not seem to be the  case.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>