almightyseancore Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 also, i expect all of you to keep this thread bumped to page 1 so i don't forget about this. 213041284s 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamrocks Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 this record was almost 20 years old, had been out of print forever and the band and label clearly had no interest in repressing it or doing anything else to generate sales of their releases. especially considering there was a strong market and a demand for the product. im assuming what SRC did was legal, right? why the hate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213041284s Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I demand a poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emo Revival Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 this record was almost 20 years old, had been out of print forever and the band and label clearly had no interest in repressing it or doing anything else to generate sales of their releases. especially considering there was a strong market and a demand for the product. im assuming what SRC did was legal, right? why the hate? The new re-issue vinyl copies currently available for pre-order from Shop Radio are the result of a manufacturing and distribution deal between SRC and Sony that is in violation of Hum’s contract with RCA this is why the hate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchashorttime Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 haha love the reaction. yes Glassjaw rips off fans, but at least you can buy from the band instead of getting gouged by eBay sellers or SRC. ??? have you seen the prices glassjaw shit goes for on ebay because of the gimmicks? i fully consider the set of 1st press singles i have an investment. ebay sellers gouge the shit out of glassjaw fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhulud Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Who owns the rights to the record itself? The band or the label? If the label (I don't know if it's RCA or Sony) owns the rights to the record, can't they pretty much do as they please with it without getting the band's input or feedback? I am seriously asking as I don't know fully how it all works. youspinmeround and firefoxUSSR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomfiend Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Where did these records come from? ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Who owns the rights to the record itself? The band or the label? If the label (I don't know if it's RCA or Sony) owns the rights to the record, can't they pretty much do as they please with it without getting the band's input or feedback? I am seriously asking as I don't know fully how it all works. Thank you for being honest instead of angry. The new re-issue vinyl copies currently available for pre-order from Shop Radio are the result of a manufacturing and distribution deal between SRC and Sony that is in violation of Hum’s contract with RCA this is why the hate Also what SRC did wasn't illegal in any way: http://en.wikipedia....iki/RCA_Records look who owns RCA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emo Revival Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Who owns the rights to the record itself? The band or the label? If the label (I don't know if it's RCA or Sony) owns the rights to the record, can't they pretty much do as they please with it without getting the band's input or feedback? I am seriously asking as I don't know fully how it all works. Really depends on the contract, from what HUM said, i'd imagine they have part ownership meaning that they would have to sign off on any usage. If the label was the sole rights holder then yeah they can do whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emo Revival Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Thank you for being honest instead of angry. Also what SRC did wasn't illegal in any way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_Records look who owns RCA... According to the copyright website, both hum and RCA own the copyright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 According to the copyright website, both hum and RCA own the copyright. Haha true... Hum needs better lawyers than Sony/RCA. That is if they give a shit, which clearly they do not. Restored: Well yes, 20 years ago this was true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youspinmeround Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I find it funny that Hum finds OG copies 20 years after SRC decides to do a reissue and it sells like hot cakes. They than are upset that they were not made aware of this money making scheme, as they would have liked a piece of the pie, but for the last 20 years never considered doing it themselves. SRC certainly has done some weird stuff, but as Juan said, if the band doesnt own the record than who is to blame? firefoxUSSR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emo Revival Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Well yes, 20 years ago this was true. Everytime copyright changes it has to be updated, so if it changed at all there would be a record. According to copyright.gov there has been no change since 1995 and hum still owns part of the copyright. Plus copyright is good for as long as the creator is good plus 70 years. deletedunknown 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottheisel Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The new re-issue vinyl copies currently available for pre-order from Shop Radio are the result of a manufacturing and distribution deal between SRC and Sony that is in violation of Hum’s contract with RCA this is why the hate If this is true, it's STILL not SRC's fault. Guess who would have access to Hum's contract? Sony. NOT SRC. If something is in breach of contract, it's the label who let that happen. SRC would've had literally zero idea. You guys and your pitchforks, man. SRC is not the guilty party here. mmhmm and ifworkpermits 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If this is true, it's STILL not SRC's fault. Guess who would have access to Hum's contract? Sony. NOT SRC. If something is in breach of contract, it's the label who let that happen. SRC would've had literally zero idea. You guys and your pitchforks, man. SRC is not the guilty party here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamrocks Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Everytime copyright changes it has to be updated, so if it changed at all there would be a record. According to copyright.gov there has been no change since 1995 and hum still owns part of the copyright. Plus copyright is good for as long as the creator is good plus 70 years. if they own the copyright then they made money on the SRC release or they have an ironclad lawsuit. it seems to me that what happened here is the parent company (Sony) of the company who co-owns the copyright (RCA) licensed it for distribution to SRC, effectively cutting the band out. however, if the band co-owns the copyright they will make money of this or be able to sue for it if they really care. still fail to see how SRC is the bad guy here. the band could have made quite a bit of money doing this themselves at any time in the past 5 years, i would have thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Yeah, if anything SRC allows people to buy the album at a non-collectors price. I hope they press the other stuff too. I reaffirm my statement: Hum doesn't care / is lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emo Revival Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 To be clear I wasn't hating on SRC at all, like Scott said they would have had no way of knowing. My hate was toward the guy that said Yeah this happened to Glassjaw twice already, cry me a river. Glassjaw however was smart and sold six-dollar-a-piece singles and lots of merch. They even did some touring and still are touring. Hum is lazy, so you know... fuck 'em. I support SRC, especially in light of recent / upcoming / rumored pressings. All SRC did was license it but to say fuck the band because they haven't done it yet is a terrible sentiment. deletedunknown and firefoxUSSR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhulud Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 To be clear I wasn't hating on SRC at all, like Scott said they would have had no way of knowing. My hate was toward the guy that said Hum is lazy, so you know... fuck 'em. All SRC did was license it but to say fuck the band because they haven't done it yet is a terrible sentiment. When did SRC say "fuck the band"? My main gripe at times when it comes to stuff like this, is that everyone is so quick to bust out their pitchforks (perfect way to put it, Scott) and start the shit-talking and SRC-bashing (in this case and I am NOT defending them) before getting all the fact straight and having a clear understanding how it all works. I am not 100% savvy with how all of this works, hence my asking. The way I see it, if the label owns the rights to the album, they can do whatever they want then. They get approached by SRC, who persumably already knew that the label had sole ownership of the rights, to repress the record, what's the label going to say? No? And miss a chance to make some extra money on a 20-year old release? They'd be fools to turn it down. Yes, it sucks that the band is being shut out of this "deal" or whatever. It happens more often than not, right? What makes it worse though is when the band go on the offensive at everyone involved without maybe realizing that it was their own label who has a grip on the alum rights, who's at fault here. Similar thing we saw happen with Blink-182 and the while RJ mess and the band went into the offensive also saying that SRC fucked them and their fans over when we all know it was nowhere near the case. And an exact example that happened was when Interscope reissued/repressed Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral. Trent Reznor himself came out saying that he had no doing in that decision and he was never consulted whatsoever in a reissue on vinyl. He had been involved in the remastering of it a few years earlier on the 2xCD set that came out. But other than that, he had nothing to do with the vinyl reissue. His response to fans was indifferent. Buy it if you want, but know he had no say in that decision and action by Interscope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emo Revival Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Like I said it wasn't SRC it was one of the users here. Again no problems with SRC, all they do is license stuff the only issue I have here is with someone saying fuck the band because they haven't put something out. Edit: Honestly I own a ton of SRC stuff and buy from them fairly often. They are not at fault here, RCA, if what hum says is true and it looks like it is, is at fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I said fuck the band. They're being lazy... no need to defend them. And to be honest, with NIN I'm glad that Reznor wasn't involved with some of the remasters... the PHM remaster he did was terrible.* *opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattisr1984 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 OMG sony and rca are totally getting shut out on the sale of these found copies. ifworkpermits, firefoxUSSR and amnstypls 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindovermatter Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 It truly seems like it should be common courtesy at this point to confer with ALL parties involved (label AND band) before moving forward with a licensing project. To me, not doing so means that the persons licensing out the release are either inconsiderate or they know that they band won't be interested and this act will prevent their cash grab from taking place. kurtz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 It truly seems like it should be common courtesy at this point to confer with ALL parties involved (label AND band) before moving forward with a licensing project. To me, not doing so means that the persons licensing out the release are either inconsiderate or they know that they band won't be interested and this act will prevent their cash grab from taking place. Who's to say they didn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindovermatter Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Who's to say they didn't? Because if they did and the band said "nope!" then they really REALLY are being douches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.