Guest realtalk 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. Agree. Didn't some average joe just take 10 seconds to do an Internet copyright search and he found that the band does, in fact, have some ownership? Due diligence, not art rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFP Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Who's to say they didn't? because the band said they didn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 because the band said they didn't Pics or didn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgdesign Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 damn. wish i had known about this. i would have never ordered from SRC. Yea, me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apirk Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Not sure how this makes the band lazy If a band doesn't want something reissued I don't have a problem with it unfortunately legally it might not always be up to them. firefoxUSSR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 You're quite correct, Hum isn't lazy... they're apathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 There are two copyrights involved in recorded music. One is for the work itself, one is for the recording. The band, having created the work, holds the copyright. Very often, record labels hold the rights to the recording (though sometimes the bands do own their own masters). Reproducing a sound recording, or publishing sheet music or lyrics, or covering (this last one is actually more complicated still) - those require a "mechanical license." Things become further complicated when labels are acquired by other companies. What happens to these copyrights could be negotiated differently for each band, and subject to provisions regarding time and company acquisitions, among other things. Bottom line is, it would take lawyers with knowledge of recording contract case law to untangle this web of shit. Asking the band is nice, and I don't like that they feel like they were shafted, but there wasn't necessarily any wrongdoing here. Or there was. I don't know, I'm just some asshole on the Internet, just like the rest of you. chiefwahoo and firefoxUSSR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'm happy with this thread :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If you can't get a hold of the band don't put out the record. Seems like a simple concept that everyone likes to ignore. Sure you legally can do it, but that doesn't make it morally correct. mindovermatter and kurtz 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 There seems to be a funny morality around these parts when it comes to that sort of thing. Like, a lot of people will be okay with downloading a band's entire catalogue (violating both copyrights), but get up In arms about something like this. Anybody here who is decrying this (possibly shady?) licensing deal, but who have only downloaded the albums in question, go stand in a corner and think about what you've done. youspinmeround and somethingvinyl 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 There seems to be a funny morality around these parts when it comes to that sort of thing. Like, a lot of people will be okay with downloading a band's entire catalogue (violating both copyrights), but get up In arms about something like this. Anybody here who is decrying this (possibly shady?) licensing deal, but who have only downloaded the albums in question, go stand in a corner and think about what you've done. LMAO - truf' I surmise that many here dislike that the sanctity of the original pressing will be diluted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 It seems ruthlessly capitalistic to say "the creators of this art didn't have anything to do with this repressing and in fact appear to be upset about it, but I need my colored vinylss and I need them now, so... they're lazy! Fuck 'em!" Hum hasn't been a band consistently in over 10 years, why should they be expected to be on top of trying to keep their catalog in print when they apparently don't even have complete control over it? Yeah, the repress may very well be legal. However, it doesn't seem like a hard task to let a band know when you are interested in reissuing their work, and yet so many represses seem to happen without the artist's knowledge or consent because it's not "legally required". kurtz, deletedunknown and collectivemike 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 There seems to be a funny morality around these parts when it comes to that sort of thing. Like, a lot of people will be okay with downloading a band's entire catalogue (violating both copyrights), but get up In arms about something like this. Anybody here who is decrying this (possibly shady?) licensing deal, but who have only downloaded the albums in question, go stand in a corner and think about what you've done. But I am not selling the MP3 I illegally downloaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk-downing Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 This is most definitely shady even though it is legal. Not every record in the world need pressed or re-pressed, there are more important things to worry about in life. Plus, the first I heard about these was late last year and I was under the impression that the reason the band had them all this time is that they were warped. Ultimately, the only way you can truly criticize the band is if they are like $50 or something when they go up. Then flog them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derby625 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I find it interesting how SRC is being vilified in this situation and yet everyone ignores all the other reissues that are happening without knowing if it's the exact same situation (ie HT reissues that we all love). For those who don't know the music industry, this type of stuff happens all the time. The © & ℗ on music have very different meanings.Yes, the band may own the copyright to the music, but the label owns the phonogram (sound recording) rights and can do with them what they want. Would it have been nice if the band was looped in and asked for their input? I think we all agree as yes. Is it required? By law, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedlee Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 so.. how much are they gonna sell them them for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomfiend Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottheisel Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I find it interesting how SRC is being vilified in this situation and yet everyone ignores all the other reissues that are happening without knowing if it's the exact same situation (ie HT reissues that we all love). For those who don't know the music industry, this type of stuff happens all the time. The © & ℗ on music have very different meanings.Yes, the band may own the copyright to the music, but the label owns the phonogram (sound recording) rights and can do with them what they want. Would it have been nice if the band was looped in and asked for their input? I think we all agree as yes. Is it required? By law, no. Yup, this. Maybe Travis can set me straight, but I highly doubt Gabe Saporta personally signed off on those Midtown reissues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213041284s Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 so.. how much are they gonna sell them them for? waiting for this to turn into another Thrice/MO split and people losing their shit over the price haha but a small part of me hopes they'll sell it reasonably (around 20-25) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somethingvinyl Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I too read that these are still around because they were warped. I wonder how they fixed those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 But I am not selling the MP3 I illegally downloaded. That's not the point. They aren't making money off of the illegal download, and it still violates both copyrights. What if someone DLd it from mega upload or a similar site? They surely made money on the ads... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I find it interesting how SRC is being vilified in this situation and yet everyone ignores all the other reissues that are happening without knowing if it's the exact same situation (ie HT reissues that we all love). For those who don't know the music industry, this type of stuff happens all the time. The © & ℗ on music have very different meanings.Yes, the band may own the copyright to the music, but the label owns the phonogram (sound recording) rights and can do with them what they want. Would it have been nice if the band was looped in and asked for their input? I think we all agree as yes. Is it required? By law, no. I am against any label that does this not just SRC. If you give me other labels I'll talk shit about and refuse to buy those as well. I mean besides enjoy the ride. kk-downing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 That's not the point. They aren't making money off of the illegal download, and it still violates both copyrights. What if someone DLd it from mega upload or a similar site? They surely made money on the ads... Sure and those sites should and are being taken down and fined and face other legal action. But the person downloading is more comparable to person buying the reissue rather than the person pressing it for profit and scene points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derby625 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I am against any label that does this not just SRC. If you give me other labels I'll talk shit about and refuse to buy those as well. I mean besides enjoy the ride. Do this: Before you buy ANYTHING, make sure that the person who designed/wrote it approved/signed off of that version. I'm guessing that you'd own a lot less stuff. Or try to change copyright law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Sure and those sites should and are being taken down and fined and face other legal action. But the person downloading is more comparable to person buying the reissue rather than the person pressing it for profit and scene points. No. If the complaint is about how the band feels like their contractual rights are being violated, then that is a false equivalency. And none of us really have any way of knowing whether such a tort occurred. So if we're talking about it strictly as a moral issue, then still no. Why should having downloaded it absolve you of the moral issue of obtaining something without the band's permission? Because it was available? 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.