 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 6, 2012 - 3:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Wedge
(Member)
|
And I would also hope that the OLD MAN & THE SEA rights holder would also reconsider...
One thing to bear in mind (and I'm NOT saying it's the case here) is that it's not always a question of a legitimate rights holder refusing to sign off. Sometimes, the problem is that it's difficult to establish where the rights lie in the first place. Companies fold and get sold off piecemeal, paperwork gets shuffled around, legal questions get left in limbo, either unaddressed or addressed but in a vague or contradictory fashion. Business can be messy, in other words. And when that business occurred decades ago, it can become even messier and more obscure. A company or individual may believe that all the legal framework is in place to move ahead with a project, and proceed in good faith -- even enthusiasm -- only to uncover some paperwork or legal situation that muddies the water. When a project is cancelled, it may be because a company or individual would LIKE to move forward, but is unwilling or unable to risk exposing themselves to the potential (or even likelihood) of a damaging lawsuit. I'm not suggesting that's the case with either of the projects under discussion here ... just observing that it's not always a simple question of people being greedy or thoughtless or hoarding materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose that Intrada doesn't want to burn any bridges here (although how much more does this producer control) or get a reputation for sour grapes (more likely), but I'd certainly like to know the name of the obstinate party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The LP was in fact a re-recording.
MV
Just to be clear-- do you mean Mockingbird or Old Man by this?
Old Man.
Some answers even go beyond my pay grade. 
MV
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say, release the damn restored score and let God sort out the lawyers.
Which seems to be the attitude of grey market labels.
A number of grey market label scores seem to be scores whose ownership is unclear. The label might not have explicit permission, but maybe they figure no one has a clear enough case to sue either — and wouldn't bother fighting an unclear case for a puny score CD of an old movie.
I'll let others decide whether they think that's a good thing or not.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's too bad, but there's not much we can do. Online petitions and whatnot rarely have any impact on situations like this. If the person holding it up is unwilling to license the rights even when Intrada would be the one putting the money into creating the release, leaving them to just sit back and take their cut, I'm not sure what else might convince them to change their minds.
I'm sure it'll get a release eventually, although if we have to wait until it hits the public domain (assuming the laws don't change yet again, extending the time people can hold on to the rights even longer... personally, I suspect those companies that are always lobbying for extended copyrights won't be happy until it simply extends into perpetuity) we'll probably have to be content with a download-only release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, the Mainstream CD suffers not only from inferior sound but from the mysterious, unexplained and disastrous deletion of the beautiful, penultimate track, called, if memory serves, "Scout and Boo."
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's too bad, but there's not much we can do. Online petitions and whatnot rarely have any impact on situations like this. If the person holding it up is unwilling to license the rights even when Intrada would be the one putting the money into creating the release, leaving them to just sit back and take their cut, I'm not sure what else might convince them to change their minds.
I wonder if whoever has an interest in the rights did not even realise that fact until asked for permission to licence it and may well have thought:
a) the money I can expect to receive from a limited edition CD is peanuts so I can’t be bothered with paperwork/lawyers, and/or;
b) maybe this property is worth something substantial – I’ll wait for a better offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASNAFU
(Abnormal Situation Normal All F***ed Up)
What makes this one Abnormal is it's the first time in my experience where a double-post was interrupted by another guy's post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 7, 2012 - 8:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tester
(Member)
|
That's why rights are wrong the way they are. Anybody having rights over a work of cultural interest should be forced by law to allow it's distribution.
As others have said, why? I happen to think copyright law has got things pretty darn right. And I say that as both a content creator and a content consumer. If you kill content rights and protections, then you kill the incentives for creators to create. And thereby kill the incentive for future interested parties to become creators. And eventually, we're left without creations. And we all lose. No more scores or soundtrack albums. No future composers.
Also, I'd submit that "should be forced by law to allow it's [sic] distribution" is already how creative rights and protections work. Eventually everything becomes part of the public domain. So as-is, the public does get to take anything "by force" once enough time has lapsed.
FYI- copyright law currently protects for lifetime of creator/author plus an additional 70 years. Enough for the creator plus another couple generations, which IMHO is as it should be. If the rights are sold by the original creator, or transferred to another party, so be it. Either way, it should be the creator's/owner's right to handle as they wish.
All that said, I wish the TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD rights-holder would allow it to happen.
I'm not saying content rights and protections have to be killed, just reconsidered. The lifetime + 70 years law is ridiculous. Giving the right to somebody to benefit or even worse, forbid the use of a cultural good for more than one hundred years -long after the autor is dead- makes me think in the medieval ages. Giving somebody the right to let a piece of human culture rot in a basement just because he has the rights and is a greedy person should be a crime. And that's why I said that this kind of people should be forced to allow the distribution, not having to wait for a lousy copyright law that has a tendency to be changed by the convenience of huge companies that can pressure the government in order to maintain it's rights.
I'm not saying, however, that autors -or copyright owners by extension- should'nt have any rights, but that they also should have some responsabilities attached to that rights, I think it's fair, considering that they have a privilege that other workers -who do a work, get paid for it and that's all- don't have.
Finally, allow me to consider your fears of a world without music, creations or composers just because there were no copyright rights ... amusing. It just would be different, call me an idealist, but I firmly believe and hope that creativity and art in human race it's not just driven by copyright rights or even money
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
