sacredwarrior said:

I wish you'd see just how amusing you are to the observers of this thread.

Prince doesn't care about you so why should you care about him?

I love Prince's music and buy it whenever I can so long as it's legal. Like it or not, Prince's WB releases are legal. Ultimate Prince is not only legal, but morally okay to buy for the hardcore fan because Prince was happy to work with WB for it's release. I'll just say that again for you; 'Prince was happy to work with WB for it's release'. You've clearly got an issue with major record labels so it'd inevitably be best for you to steer clear of them yourself. Once you've done that, then your conscience is clear. Prince however, is quite happy to court them these days, on his own terms, which is great but he's still happy to sign with record labels.

If Prince hadn't signed contracts then we'd never have had all those albums from For You to and beyond. Would you rather we never had those releases?

yeah, watch what happens next... nothing. until 2013, when we'll get a Prince-released "For You" remaster... and then 2014, when we'll get a Prince-released "Prince" remaster... and then 2015, when we'll get a Prince-released "Dirty Mind" remaster... and so on. one year at a time as the 35 years expires on each album.

Four words was all it took -- buried in section 1011 of the legislation as a technical amendment: "Section 101 of Title 17, United States Code, is amended in the definition relating to work for hire in paragraph (2) by inserting 'as a sound recording' after 'audiovisual work.'" Those four words -- "as a sound recording" -- look harmless enough, but in reality, they did as much to drastically alter the music world as any four words since, "We signed Britney Spears."

[...]

"Works for hire" are a special category of U.S. copyright law exempt from the common wisdom rule that the author of a work is the owner of its copyright. If you write something, say a short story or maybe a poem, you own the copyright on it unless -- and this is the important part -- that work is done as a "work for hire," in which case someone else owns the copyright and is therefore entitled to all profits generated from it.

[...]

There are two classifications of "works for hire" as delineated by the 1976 Copyright Act. The first are those made by employees in the normal course of work. If you show up to a job where somebody tells you what to do and when to do it, and for that you're rewarded with a paycheck, then your work product is classified as a work for hire and you don't own the copyright on it. Instead, it automatically becomes copyrighted in the name of the company. In other words, if you're a full-time employee of Microsoft and write some code for their software, Microsoft, not you, owns the copyright on that code. Simple.

The second type of work for hire is a bit more complex, and involves independent contractors -- such as musicians. For independent contractors to create works for hire, two criteria must both be met.

[...]

The first criterion is that the work has to fit within one of the nine specific categories outlined in section 101 of Title 17. Prior to the passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, the categories were: a work specially commissioned for use (1) as a contribution to a collective work; (2) as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; (3) as a translation; (4) as a supplementary work; (5) as a compilation; (6) as an instructional text; (7) as a test; (8) as answer material for a test; or (9) as an atlas.

Now if you're a cartographer and you made an atlas, that would qualify as a work for hire, because "as an atlas" is one of the nine categories. But that's only half of the equation; the atlas in question is still not a work for hire until a second criterion is also met. The other proviso states that there must be a written agreement signed by employer and employee stating that the work in question is a "work for hire." If you have that contract and you have the atlas, then you've got yourself a work for hire.

[...]

What the aforementioned amendment to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act did, then, was add "sound recording" to the list of nine specific types of works (bringing the total to 10). Big deal, right? Yes. It's a very big deal. Huge even.

[...]

You see, the addition of those four words potentially prevents recording artists from recapturing the rights to their master recordings after the initial copyright period ends. What does that mean? Well, when you sign with a major label, or an indie, or anybody for that matter, you record some songs then turn over the master recording to the label. And the master is just the thing itself -- the completed, engineered, produced, final recording you give to the record company so they can put it onto CD and distribute it for the world to buy.

Almost without exception, artists assign ownership of the copyright on those masters to their record company. The label then controls said recordings and decides how to exploit them for profit. When the initial copyright period ends, which by law is after 35 years, the artist can then recapture those rights. Or at least they could prior to "as a sound recording" being amended to the copyright law.

[...]

The offending clause was inserted into the legislation at the request of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which unfortunately wasn't alerting people to what they were doing. In fact, even members of the congressional subcommittee from which the bill came were completely unaware that such language was even in the legislation.

[...]

Upon its discovery, an uproar rose from the recording community. A number of marquee artists like Sheryl Crow, Steve Earle, R.E.M., Beastie Boys, Shawn Colvin, Paul Simon, and the Black Crowes, among some 40-odd others, formed the ingeniously named Artists' Coalition and took to Capitol Hill.

Jay Cooper, who serves as the attorney for the Artists' Coalition and has negotiated hundreds of recording contracts for the likes of Joni Mitchell, Sheryl Crow, and Etta James, disagrees. By his reckoning, it's not a simple matter of a difference of opinion.

"Prior to this," explains Cooper, "if the record company wanted to claim that a sound recording was a work for hire, they would have to prove that it came under one of those nine categories. And by the way, there have been three different cases decided by three different courts over the past number of years that all said sound recordings were not works for hire. So it couldn't be a clarification. There was no possibility of it being a clarification. It was a definite change in the law."

In fact, almost all recording contracts contain language saying something to the effect of: "This is a work for hire, however, if it's determined that this is not a work for hire, then you the artist do hereby assign your copyright to the record company." Of course such language only fulfills one of the two criteria for determining a work for hire -- that of the contract -- but now that "sound recording" has been added to the list of nine categories of criteria No.2, then it's a no-brainer: Joe Rock Star ain't getting his masters back. Ever. Worse, simply assigning rights to the record company is very different from giving them the masters as a "work for hire."

"Even when you assign your copyright for ever and ever," says Cooper, "you still retain the recapture rights by law."

If rights are assigned to the record company, then at the conclusion of 35 years, when an artist notifies the record label that they intend to recapture those rights, the scenario is a little different. The record company can still claim the recordings in question are a work for hire since they most likely have a contract stating this, and what's being negotiated is a "sound recording" and therefore fulfills the two criteria of works for hire.

[...]

Maybe the better question is why do this now? Well, one answer might be that 2003 isn't too far off and that's the magical year in which artists can begin notifying labels they intend to recapture the rights to their masters. See, prior to 1972, sound recordings were not copyright protected. Then Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976, which changed that. Unfortunately, the effective date of that legislation wasn't until 1978; add 35 years to '78 and you get 2013. Missed it by a decade, right? Wrong. Subtract 10 years because an artist can notify his or her intent to recapture rights up to 10 years before the end of the assignment period, and that gets you to the year 2003.

[...]

Artists with enough clout who have been able to swing ownership of their masters include Metallica, Dave Matthews, and R.E.M. The list isn't much longer than that. As local singer-songwriter and Sony signee Bruce Robison quips, "You can count them on half of one hand." Almost.

This collection can NOT be remastered.

Graycap23 said:

...and yet it is.

JediMaster said:

From the ORGINAL master tapes? I think NOT.

So, for those of us who haven't been keeping score - what's the deal with the two different track listings? I've seen these two different versions:

This one.....

Disc 1:
* Purple Medley
* I Wanna Be Your Lover
* Uptown
* Controversy
* 1999
* Little Red Corvette (Dance Mix)
* Let's Go Crazy (Special Dance Mix)
* Erotic City (12
* Purple Rain
* When Doves Cry
* I Would Die 4 U
* Pop Life
* She's Always in My Hair (12
* Raspberry Beret (12

Disc 2:
* Kiss (Extended Version)
* Sign 'O' The Times
* U Got the Look (Long Look)
* I Could Never Take the Place of Your Man
* Hot Thing (Extended Remix)
* Gett Off
* Money Don't Matter 2 Night
* Cream (N.P.G. MIx)
* 7 (Acoustic Version)
* Sexy Mutha
* Nothing Compares 2 U
* My Name Is Prince

...and this one...

Disc 1
1. I Wanna Be Your Lover
2. Uptown
3. Controversy
4. 1999
5. Delirious
6. When Doves Cry
7. I Would Die 4 U
8. Purple Rain
9. Sign O' The Times
10. I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man
11. Alphabet St.
12. Diamonds And Pearls
13. Gett Off
14. Money Don't Matter 2 Night
15. 7
16. Nothing Compares 2 U
17. My Name Is Prince

Disc 2
1. Let's Go Crazy
2. Little Red Corvette
3. Let's Work
4. Pop Life
5. She's Always In My Hair
6. Raspberry Beret
7. U Got The Look
8. Kiss
9. Hot Thing
10. Thieves In The Temple
11. Cream

Is the first version, with all the remixes, etc, basically cancelled now?

Graycap23 said:

Oh, that's right. Prince personally tells you these things. I forgot that you know more than anyone else on this site.

I don't see "Mountains (Extended Version)", have everything else as well as the song I don't see

yeah it was left off...they need at least another cd (if not 2) of them...

Graycap23 said:

Oh, that's right. Prince personally tells you these things. I forgot that you know more than anyone else on this site.

JediMaster said:

Get over IT.

Graycap23 said:

Get over what? That you always act like you know insider information, but then can't back it up? Nothing to get over.

Folks.

The Ultimate set has only been digitally remastered from previously combined 2-channel stereo mixes. The sound will be an improvement from previous CDs, but not as good as the much needed multi-track analog to digital CDs that we may never see.

Vinyl still wins this round.

squirrelgrease said:

Thank u. This set was NOT remastered from the ORIGINAL multitracked tapes.

squirrelgrease said:

Thank u. This set was NOT remastered from the ORIGINAL multitracked tapes.

Abrazo said:

same goes for any artist who can record their own music. it aint that hard these days with homestudios on the up'n'up.

mm. the 'bribe' is a 'psychological swindle', which blindsides the artist to the truth of their position as Boss.

Prince only bitched and moaned about his situation becuz he'd been blindsided, so he was technically still playing 'inside the box of the illusion' feeling inferior and powerless, sucked into the Bribe without knowing it. If he'd been able to see he'd been bribed, it woulda been case closed years ago.

Sadly this 'dayspring dude' doesnt understand the logic behind this. Investors and Advisors dont own what you create simply cuz they finance a project and get paid back for it, plus profits. Record Companies dont 'contract' anyone. They only think they do cuz they believe their own illusion,- that Bribery is somehow legal and therefore makes them Boss. lol. er... nope.

Even buying Publishing Rights is a Hoax, cuz no one can buy their way into the writing of a song, which they didnt write. Record Companies and Publishers have no legitimate claim to make publishing royalties from something they didnt write. its called THEFT.

and easily done once u got ur artist believing ur entitled to a chunk of those profits. Not So. Just cuz they put their terms on paper in the form of a contract to make it look legal - doesnt make it Legal. Its still Theft via psychological blindsiding

Maybe its time for them to get educated on what music actually IS and where it really comes from. Lets see if their wallets can buy the Truth.

Graycap23 said:

Oh, that's right. Prince personally tells you these things. I forgot that you know more than anyone else on this site.

Legacy's producers, engineers and tape researchers have done an exemplary job of tracking down the masters, restoring and in some cases expanding album artwork, and most of all capturing the recordings in all their chromatic glory.

Good idea, perhabs. But I think it would be a better idea for artists to get educated on what copyrights and contracts really are and how they can learn to say NO to the "bribe".