Print

Print


Courtney describes the Orchard role as I understand it, a middleman enforcing copyrights for various 
large and small labels. I've downloaded reviewer copies of things from their website, all from indie 
labels. I agree with John that some of their robotic copyright "enforcements" are not legit and 
should be challenged. For instance, if one of their client reissues something PD, they go after 
everyone else out there who has posted that same PD audio. Just because their client has published a 
PD recording doesn't mean that client suddenly owns it, all they own is whatever original packaging 
and liner notes they created to associate with the PD recording. Google/YouTube seems to robotically 
respond to robo-takedown notices by harassing the content poster. I doubt there's much human 
involvement in any of it, except to write the code to automate the harassment. It's all very 
Orwellian.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Courtney B" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Welcome to the Orchard


> The Orchard is not just a predatory distributor, but one of the biggest
> digital distributors out there. It is very likely a small label was able to
> upload said recordings and The Orchard is the middleman on distributing and
> enforcing copyright on the files.
>
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Dave and Jonathan.   The real kicker there, Dave, is what you just
>> said, "partially owned by Sony."  That explains a lot.  And what you are
>> saying, Jonathan, shows that Orchard is just a scammer.
>>
>> As long as the source is the 10" record and not some new restoration of it,
>> a new restoration from that old source is wide open.  And that would
>> undoubtedly be the best source as well (if I were going to restore this
>> recording, I would want to start with the LP as the source, assuming the
>> original master tape is unavailable).  And remember that for Orchard or
>> anyone else to assert a real claim under some state law somewhere (there is
>> no US federal claim), they have to demonstrate actual ownership with real
>> proof, not a bunch of generalization and speculation.  That doesn't stop
>> scammers like Orchard from making big, unsupportable statements in things
>> like takedown notices.  That's all about attempted intimidation, not fact
>> and law.
>>
>> Best,
>> John Haley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:21 AM, David Lewis <[log in to unmask]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>
>> > I brought this up, as this may be an area where our community might be of
>> > assistance in a "white hat" sense. John Haley I misspoke earlier; what I
>> > should've said is that the Cecil Young LP appears to be an orphan work. I
>> > have studied King pretty deeply the past few weeks, and one constant is
>> the
>> > reuse of previously released material. Syd Nathan would buy a label, and
>> > put everything that was on that label out again on King or one of its
>> > subsidiaries. In this case, "A Concert of Cool Jazz" appeared only once
>> in
>> > a doomed format, the 10" LP. Syd received the master tape from the artist
>> > and probably returned it to him; it was likely no longer in the vault
>> when
>> > TRP moved it to Nashville. It is well worth preserving, not only owing to
>> > the appearance of Brashear, as Doug kindly mentioned, but also as it
>> argues
>> > for the existence of "Cool" farther up the left coast at a very early
>> date.
>> > Orchard's cover image, incidentally, was never used on the original
>> album.
>> >
>> > Although orphan works legislation is still pending, if things were in the
>> > right place, Orchard could only claim copyright on their (inferior)
>> > transfer and not the album itself. I doubt that if Doug made a transfer
>> of
>> > his copy that he would be posting it to YouTube, but rightfully he should
>> > be able to and to reap the same advertising revenue -- mere pennies --
>> that
>> > Orchard gets via their version. On the other hand, there's nothing to
>> > protect Doug from Orchard using his hypothetical version to upgrade their
>> > own, and no provision for any of us to reach out to Orchard and say,
>> > "Modify your copyright notice." And I get the feeling that they only want
>> > to deal with the public in one direction, and don't want to be contacted.
>> > They are partly owned by Sony, incidentally, but have some measure of
>> > autonomy.
>> >
>> > best,
>> >
>> > David N. Lewis
>> > Hamilton, OH
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Jonathan Ward <
>> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > "The Orchard" is treacherous. They've exploited a Youtube loophole and
>> > > take the contents of legitimate reissue CDs of historic recordings,
>> > upload
>> > > them (when they are most certainly NOT the company that released them),
>> > > then claim copyright on the historic recordings.
>> > >
>> > > Further, other "companies" in the EU (namely, Greece) with dubious
>> names
>> > > have repackaged in-print CDs of historic recordings, uploaded them to
>> > > YouTube (and iTunes, Spotify, etc) under different compilation titles,
>> > and
>> > > claimed copyright on those, too. Those are ALSO often "distributed" by
>> > The
>> > > Orchard.
>> > >
>> > > If you need further information, feel free to contact me privately.
>> This
>> > > has happened to myself, and many others who have in-print CDs of
>> historic
>> > > recordings on the market.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
> -- 
> www.agentramona.com
> www.facebook.com/agentramona
> www.flickr.com/photos/courtoly
> www.twitter.com/agentramona
>
>