 |
 |
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 >