{{{[More tangential, but of interest to some folks... -Ben] Daniel Lanois was interviewed in the Toronto Sun, and he spoke of how Warner Brothers owns his first two solo records. From the article:

Oddly enough, at this particular point in his career, Lanois finds himself without a label. But he is negotiating with several, including Epitaph, Dreamworks and ATO, who put out David Gray's breakthough White Ladder, and he hopes to have a deal within the next month.

Given the current us-vs.-them climate in the record business, with artists wanting the major labels to give them back control of their music, you'd think Lanois might prefer to have indie status.

"It's time for artists to take responsibility for having a fair record deal," he says. "I believe what (some artists are) complaining about is antiquated record deals of the past and they're fundamentally unfair.}}}

"I mean, it's not that mysterious. The record companies, they want to own the masters and they want the artists to pay for them."

Given his experience, Lanois is in a unique position to cut himself a good deal, although he admits he hasn't owned his masters in the past.

"I did it with Warner Brothers in the late '80s. They own the masters for two of my records. I paid for the records to be made. I don't have any control over them.

"Who's benefiting from this? The folks that I was doing business with, they've moved on. So really I'm just a name in a catalogue owned by the conglomerate that owns Warner Brothers, and it's just not that nice a feeling.

"I mean, wouldn't it be nice after 10 years if one had control over one's works all over again?"

Full article at http://www.canoe.ca/JamMu...aniel.html
Lanois' website: http://www.daniellanois.com/

Yes that would be nice for artists, but unfortunately something almost unacceptable for a (major) label. Only when they want to sign you really badly will they let you own your masters.

Nevertheless the man is right by saying: "I'm just a name in a catalogue owned by the conglomerate that owns Warner Brothers, and it's just not that nice a feeling."

That must be (is) a horrible feeling. Knowing they can do whatever they like for as long as they like with your work, and you just have to accept it, IS unacceptable for any self-respecting artist.

So both parties in the 'agreement' have to deal with something 'unacceptable'. That is enough reason to assume that no single 'standard deal' constitutes the true meaning of the parties involved.
It have always been the artists who had to bend in and let the 'unacceptable' happen...

The only way to stop letting the majors take all your work and exploit it to the bone while you have to be happy with some of the crumbs they leave you, is by staying consistent in your wish to own ALL your work and DON'T sign their standard deals.

last but not least... any artist should 'study' these issues and get themselves a good lawyer to advice them when they are offered a deal, whilst getting a 'second opinion' wouldn't hurt either.

Know what you want and know what you are signing.