csjuilen Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 6131 has ignored me all day and have really only retweeted the AP story that they wrote, errrr, are being defended in. Best song is ride down hands down. Anything else would be uncivilized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csjuilen Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 What's questionable about what SRC did? They bought rights and used them. They don't need to talk it over with the band. That's how it works. If people don't want that to happen, they'd sign better contracts and avoid major labels entirely. firefoxUSSR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerseydave77 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I'll start worrying more about the ethics of the players involved once 6131 finishes delivering the records people paid for back in 2011. I'm not a defender of SRC in most instances but let's not pretend that 6131 isn't slimy in his own right. Hell, let's just make the leap that the subscriptions he never delivered are paying for the Handsome pressing. Makes about as much sense as the "Authorized Bootleg" bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottheisel Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 This reads like the biggest self-serving/hype my new release "op ed" i've ever read. Sweet traffic generator bro! I don't see a single mention of Hot Topic in any of these back and forth posts. They are the #1 perpetrators in all of this and nobody bats an eyelash. But homeboy sells a lot of records through Hot Topic, so let's not talk about them! Hot Topic doesn't license records—all of the exclusives they've carried are a result of Travis essentially telling the label, "Hey, if you print 1000 copies of this Midtown record, I'll buy all of them." There is no licensing taking place; the label is just re-monetizing what is basically dead stock, which is 100% within their rights to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isavedlatin54 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Hot Topic doesn't license records—all of the exclusives they've carried are a result of Travis essentially telling the label, "Hey, if you print 1000 copies of this Midtown record, I'll buy all of them." There is no licensing taking place; the label is just re-monetizing what is basically dead stock, which is 100% within their rights to do. i had no clue thats how they did it....thats pretty interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottheisel Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 i had no clue thats how they did it....thats pretty interesting. I mean, I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but all the answers are on the back of all of these LP jackets. There's no Hot Topic logo; there's a Universal Music Special Markets logo (or whatever that division is called). Whereas all of the reissues SRC have been doing have an "srcvinyl" logo because they licensed the title for their label. (Although half the time, these licensing deals require the major label to actually produce the product for the licensing label, as to assure quality/conformity—all that info is in the fine print on the back of those LPs, too.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thievesdont Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The SRC releases also have the logos of the original labels though, does that mean anything? Is it because they're actually doing the pressings and distributing the records that they're able to put the SRC logos on the products? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottheisel Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The SRC releases also have the logos of the original labels though, does that mean anything? That is typically required by the licensing label. I had to put a Tooth & Nail logo on the Sainthood Reps record I did because I had to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindovermatter Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 That is typically required by the licensing label. I had to put a Tooth & Nail logo on the Sainthood Reps record I did because I had to. This. It is standard that the label which owns the rights still wants to be represented on the licensed product as well. Gotta have the continuity in marketing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravemistake Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I'm still trying to figure out why that guy wanted me to look up the definition of "proceeding".... Proceeding A lawsuit; all or some part of a cause heard and determined by a court, an Administrative Agency, or other judicial authority. Any legal step or action taken at the direction of, or by the authority of, a court or agency; any measures necessary to prosecute or defend an action. But it's all good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravemistake Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 He is trying to say that 6131 are a bunch of d-bags and hes sorry for being one too in his last couple of posts. I believe he is also up for a preorder for a life from SRC next week for all his copying and pasting! "quote" button Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thievesdont Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Proceeding A lawsuit; all or some part of a cause heard and determined by a court, an Administrative Agency, or other judicial authority. Any legal step or action taken at the direction of, or by the authority of, a court or agency; any measures necessary to prosecute or defend an action. But it's all good It wasn't even used like that but okay, internet tough guy. He said they would not be proceeding, NOT "they would take take/begin/initiate any proceedings against them". I'll talk to him again to clarify though, JUST FOR YOU. You're giving me shit for trying to get information about something instead of jumping in and just insulting every side of it? Whatever you say man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 i had no clue thats how they did it....thats pretty interesting. /facepalm Yes... Hot Topic just bought crap and resold it. HT doesn't want to sour their relationship with Universal so they don't complain when records come out with poor audio, manufacturing or artwork problems. It has been mentioned on this board that albums licensed from a major label have a minimum volume and upfront licensing cost... by having Universal do this in-house Hot Topic clears up logistic problems and doesn't have to pay the licensing fee. Hot Ca$h indeed. a. As far as having the bands approval, consider a few scenarios: -band takes forever approving -band gets petty and says not to release it -band doesn't even have the masters anyway -band sold the masters by contract -band could re-record and sell again (RBF, Catch 22, etc) b. As far as having band-unauthroized, but properly prepared audio for vinyl: -typically good audio quality and packaging -slight premium due to low volume sales -can diminish value of original vinyl pressing if any c. As far as band-unauthorized, poorly prepared vinyl: -misrepresents the album -premium pricing -pisses off the band and should piss off the fans -makes buying used more risky if similar in appearence to original pressing -MAXIMUM PROFIT d. As far as having band-authroized and properly prepared audio for vinyl: -Case A hurdles overcome -band can reunion tour, even if that's a bad idea - they have the option -typically good audio quality and packaging, perhaps better artwork -slight premium due to low volume sales -usually doesn't affect original pressing value -band still doesn't pay back the label typically That said... case A is common, which is one of the reasons many albums don't make it to vinyl. Case B is rare and I prefer it over Case C which is just wretched. Case D is probably the rarest (or just bigger name). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isavedlatin54 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 /facepalm Yes... Hot Topic just bought crap and resold it. HT doesn't want to sour their relationship with Universal so they don't complain when records come out with poor audio, manufacturing or artwork problems. It has been mentioned on this board that albums licensed from a major label have a minimum volume and upfront licensing cost... by having Universal do this in-house Hot Topic clears up logistic problems and doesn't have to pay the licensing fee. Hot Ca$h indeed. a. As far as having the bands approval, consider a few scenarios: -band takes forever approving -band gets petty and says not to release it -band doesn't even have the masters anyway -band sold the masters by contract -band could re-record and sell again (RBF, Catch 22, etc) b. As far as having band-unauthroized, but properly prepared audio for vinyl: -typically good audio quality and packaging -slight premium due to low volume sales -can diminish value of original vinyl pressing if any c. As far as band-unauthorized, poorly prepared vinyl: -misrepresents the album -premium pricing -pisses off the band and should piss off the fans -makes buying used more risky if similar in appearence to original pressing -MAXIMUM PROFIT d. As far as having band-authroized and properly prepared audio for vinyl: -Case A hurdles overcome -band can reunion tour, even if that's a bad idea - they have the option -typically good audio quality and packaging, perhaps better artwork -slight premium due to low volume sales -usually doesn't affect original pressing value -band still doesn't pay back the label typically That said... case A is common, which is one of the reasons many albums don't make it to vinyl. Case B is rare and I prefer it over Case C which is just wretched. Case D is probably the rarest (or just bigger name). i dont understand the facepalm comment was needed. I dont release records, i didnt know. simple as that. castaway 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Authorized bootlegs.. lol. A bootleg by its very definition is an illegal product created without the copyright holders permission. Look at the back of the records... the band does not own those copyrights. They signed a contract, as essentially work for hire, and under those contracts created an album for the label to exploit for profit. Its how most jobs work. You receive compensation in return for creating a service or product. Most of these major label "reissues" are simply marketing deals, and the release was produced in a limited quantity especially for a specific retailer to sell. SRC and other such labels are simply taking an album, that isn't profitable enough for the parent to keep in print or market, and making it available in the format the band originally approved to the public. Sony could have just as easily done it without the SRC logo, and then sold the entire pressing to them to sell on their site. TFP, jhulud and sabukweli 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravemistake Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 It wasn't even used like that but okay, internet tough guy. He said they would not be proceeding, NOT "they would take take/begin/initiate any proceedings against them". I'll talk to him again to clarify though, JUST FOR YOU. You're giving me shit for trying to get information about something instead of jumping in and just insulting every side of it? Whatever you say man. haha. yes please ask him to clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabukweli Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 haha. yes please ask him to clarify. Apparently you don't realize that Peter used the phrase "were proceeding", which means he used it as a verb. The definition you posted was for the noun form. Thanks for once again making it evident that you're just in here to be a needledick and troll (<-- verb form) people. Grow up. chiefwahoo and amnstypls 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csjuilen Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 game set match, thanks for playing troll (noun)! Apparently you don't realize that Peter used the phrase "were proceeding", which means he used it as a verb. The definition you posted was for the noun form. Thanks for once again making it evident that you're just in here to be a needledick and troll (<-- verb form) people. Grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabukweli Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I also forgot to thank Flood for his excellent take and Scott for his clarification on how Hot Topic does their deals. However, that doesn't change the fact that units are being sold without the band's blessing in most instances when it comes to HT, and that's the crux of Chris "Selective Morality" Hansen's argument. I think "Two Face" would be another appropriate nickname at this point. At least we've known Joey's true colors for a couple years if not more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhulud Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The problem I am finding with this "discussion" and the overall drama over this release is that: A) Most people (record collectors) don't have 100% knowledge of the music business and how it applies to reissues such as here. Myself included. We don't know the full story as to what has been going on with this release. One label is talking shit and calling out the other label for "authorized bootleg", which has Flood pointed out is in itself a ludicrous term anyways and sure as shit doesn't apply at all if it were valid. C) If anyone should be pissed at someone and lay the blame to, it should whomever at Sony who allowed the double licensing. Simple as that. 6131/No Sleep want to talk shit...go talk shit to Sony. SRC is upset that this happened? Go blame Sony then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhulud Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 And let's face it. Reissues and records themselves will be sold by a label(s) without a band's consent. Has happened in the past and will always continue to happen. If you want to buy it, buy it. If not, then shut the fuck up and move on. SImple as that. I will always look back at when Nine Inch Nails' The Downward Spiral 2xLP was reissued a few years ago by Interscope. This was without Reznor's consent whatsoever. His comment about it was more surprised but at the end he said if people want to buy it, so be it. It is what it is. xadamhudsonx 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csjuilen Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I'll gladly shut up after $20.28 of cash or store credit is rightfully given to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dantheriver Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Between the two pressings of this the band will probably sell more albums than they did 15 years ago, they should be stoked that anybody still cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runforcover Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The problem I am finding with this "discussion" and the overall drama over this release is that: A) Most people (record collectors) don't have 100% knowledge of the music business and how it applies to reissues such as here. Myself included. Nailed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravemistake Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 game set match, thanks for playing troll (noun)! oh no u called me a TROLL!!! 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.