TheFreakerFantastic said:

Bart...if this recording act is law then he will get the rights back no question...I can't see how they can wriggle out of it if its actually written into the contract....

How about you READ THE ARTICLE.

electricberet said:

I don't know where Bernie Grundman got the master tapes that were used to make the recent vinyl reissues. I would guess that they didn't come from Paisley Park, but I didn't ask.

Mixdowns vs multi-tracks.

BartVanHemelen said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Bart...if this recording act is law then he will get the rights back no question...I can't see how they can wriggle out of it if its actually written into the contract....

How about you READ THE ARTICLE.

Hi Bart, so nice to be greated with your wrath on this lovely Sunday morning!

I did. How bout you READ MY COMMENT! To me its not clear how they could not give them back if its written...

[Edited 8/28/11 2:24am]

SquirrelMeat said:

Bart, you are scaremoungering.

As long as Prince registered it between 2011 and 2013, then he already has the RIGHT. Its up to WB to argue otherwise.

Don Henley, Prince or otherwise willl have to have the law turned over against them before they LOSE the right.

Yeah, because major companies have always done what's right and never sued anyone to prevent him/her from getting what they're due, right?

Hey, I can even point to PRINCE HIMSELF doing that:

http://groups.google.com/...b47323b648

The lawsuit brought by Levi Seacer Jr. and Tony Mosley against Prince has been settled. They ended up with approximately $40,000 each (apparently, not even enough to pay their legal expenses), having sued Prince for $800,000. The lawsuit was filed in October 1998, claiming that Prince hadn’t shared royalties that Levi and Tony were owed for songs they had co-written for Prince’s NPG Publishing, including "Sexy MF" and "My Name Is Prince."

TheFreakerFantastic said:

BartVanHemelen said:

How about you READ THE ARTICLE.

Hi Bart, so nice to be greated with your wrath on this lovely Sunday morning!

I did. How bout you READ MY COMMENT! To me its not clear how they could not give them back if its written...

[Edited 8/28/11 2:24am]

How it is written and how it is interpreted are two different things.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/record-biz-braces-for-legal-battles-over-copyright-law-20110902

It's going to be industry vets vs industry vets in this fight. It's not just artists going up against the record companies. Expect a lot of out of court deals to be made just to try to squash this, and artists prob. will wind up with the master tapes anyway. They're prob. going to assess some of it based on download sales. I can see them telling Prince if he wants all the master tapes, pony up x amount of dollars and they're yours, and they'll just hold on to the two hits packages. Most artists are just going to file just because they can and prob. use it to negotiate with the record company.

Don Henley said he's doing it partly because record companies are constantly merging and being bought out, and wants to be able to pull his recordings out so they can be excluded.

Warners made far more money in the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises. If Prince is going to deny licensing his songs out to TV shows, movies, and all they can do is make money off of download sales of the hit songs, they're better off working out a deal with him and making him pay for the entire back catalog, and be done with him, and just keep "Ultimate" or "Best Of" for sale.

BartVanHemelen said:

Anybody who believes Warner Bros. will just hand over the rights to Prince's recordings after 35 years, is naive. They will put up a fight.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...wanted=all

Please read the whole article, here are merely some highlights:

Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights
By Larry Rohter
Published: August 15, 2011

When copyright law was revised in the mid-1970s, musicians, like creators of other works of art, were granted “termination rights,” which allow them to regain control of their work after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. Recordings from 1978 are the first to fall under the purview of the law, but in a matter of months, hits from 1979, like “The Long Run” by the Eagles and “Bad Girls” by Donna Summer, will be in the same situation — and then, as the calendar advances, every other master recording once it reaches the 35-year mark.

[...]

With the recording industry already reeling from plummeting sales, termination rights claims could be another serious financial blow. Sales plunged to about $6.3 billion from $14.6 billion over the decade ending in 2009, in large part because of unauthorized downloading of music on the Internet, especially of new releases, which has left record labels disproportionately dependent on sales of older recordings in their catalogs.

“This is a life-threatening change for them, the legal equivalent of Internet technology,” said Kenneth J. Abdo, a lawyer who leads a termination rights working group for the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and has filed claims for some of his clients, who include Kool and the Gang. As a result the four major record companies — Universal, Sony BMG, EMI and Warner — have made it clear that they will not relinquish recordings they consider their property without a fight.

“We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings,” said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of record labels. As the record companies see it, the master recordings belong to them in perpetuity, rather than to the artists who wrote and recorded the songs, because, the labels argue, the records are “works for hire,” compilations created not by independent performers but by musicians who are, in essence, their employees.

[...]

Congress passed the copyright law in 1976, specifying that it would go into effect on Jan. 1, 1978, meaning that the earliest any recording can be reclaimed is Jan. 1, 2013. But artists must file termination notices at least two years before the date they want to recoup their work, and once a song or recording qualifies for termination, its authors have five years in which to file a claim; if they fail to act in that time, their right to reclaim the work lapses.

[...]

But a recording industry executive involved in the issue, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak for the labels, said that significant differences of opinion exist not only between the majors and smaller independent companies, but also among the big four, which has prevented them from taking a unified position. Some of the major labels, he said, favor a court battle, no matter how long or costly it might be, while others worry that taking an unyielding position could backfire if the case is lost, since musicians and songwriters would be so deeply alienated that they would refuse to negotiate new deals and insist on total control of all their recordings.

Note that Prince is already "refusing to negotiate new deals and insisting on total control of all his recordings" (but not really), so Warners have got nothing to lose by fighting him on this.

Now I''m confused. Why would an artist have to pay for what the law says is theirs? I understand they may have to pay legal fees to fight in court. I understand hired musicians being paid to stay out of the fight. I do not understand why the artist would pay off the label for what is already theirs.

dalsh327 said:

It's going to be industry vets vs industry vets in this fight. It's not just artists going up against the record companies. Expect a lot of out of court deals to be made just to try to squash this, and artists prob. will wind up with the master tapes anyway. They're prob. going to assess some of it based on download sales. I can see them telling Prince if he wants all the master tapes, pony up x amount of dollars and they're yours, and they'll just hold on to the two hits packages. Most artists are just going to file just because they can and prob. use it to negotiate with the record company.

Don Henley said he's doing it partly because record companies are constantly merging and being bought out, and wants to be able to pull his recordings out so they can be excluded.

Warners made far more money in the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises. If Prince is going to deny licensing his songs out to TV shows, movies, and all they can do is make money off of download sales of the hit songs, they're better off working out a deal with him and making him pay for the entire back catalog, and be done with him, and just keep "Ultimate" or "Best Of" for sale.

djThunderfunk said:

Now I''m confused. Why would an artist have to pay for what the law says is theirs? I understand they may have to pay legal fees to fight in court. I understand hired musicians being paid to stay out of the fight. I do not understand why the artist would pay off the label for what is already theirs.

dalsh327 said:

It's going to be industry vets vs industry vets in this fight. It's not just artists going up against the record companies. Expect a lot of out of court deals to be made just to try to squash this, and artists prob. will wind up with the master tapes anyway. They're prob. going to assess some of it based on download sales. I can see them telling Prince if he wants all the master tapes, pony up x amount of dollars and they're yours, and they'll just hold on to the two hits packages. Most artists are just going to file just because they can and prob. use it to negotiate with the record company.

Don Henley said he's doing it partly because record companies are constantly merging and being bought out, and wants to be able to pull his recordings out so they can be excluded.

Warners made far more money in the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises. If Prince is going to deny licensing his songs out to TV shows, movies, and all they can do is make money off of download sales of the hit songs, they're better off working out a deal with him and making him pay for the entire back catalog, and be done with him, and just keep "Ultimate" or "Best Of" for sale.

Because the law isn't clear. There is an exception for "works for hire," and that is defined by a vague test. The courts will have to decide the issue eventually, but in the meantime some artists will take a deal rather than wait to see how it all shakes out.

electricberet said:

djThunderfunk said:

Now I''m confused. Why would an artist have to pay for what the law says is theirs? I understand they may have to pay legal fees to fight in court. I understand hired musicians being paid to stay out of the fight. I do not understand why the artist would pay off the label for what is already theirs.

Because the law isn't clear. There is an exception for "works for hire," and that is defined by a vague test. The courts will have to decide the issue eventually, but in the meantime some artists will take a deal rather than wait to see how it all shakes out.

I can't wait till the labels cease to exist. They are no longer relevent and they scream and cry about piracy while robbing artists blind since the beginning of recorded music. It's sick. I hope all the execs end up on food stamps...

It never really mattered to me. Seriously, what is Prince going to do with his masters if/ when he gets 'em back?

If WB paid prince to record them or paid for the studio time (as I understand he charged WB for as much of it as he could) Prince may have a problem.

Also if WB paid Prince a fee to record them I see NO way he can win. It may well be in the contracts that he would get $X per hour or session reimbursement for time spent recording songs for release or that were released.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

If WB paid prince to record them or paid for the studio time (as I understand he charged WB for as much of it as he could) Prince may have a problem.

Also if WB paid Prince a fee to record them I see NO way he can win. It may well be in the contracts that he would get $X per hour or session reimbursement for time spent recording songs for release or that were released.

sigh...

What exactly do you know about copyright law and sound recordings? Are you an a lawyer? Did you study it? Do you work in the music industry?

^never mind... I know the answers already

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

If WB paid prince to record them or paid for the studio time (as I understand he charged WB for as much of it as he could) Prince may have a problem.

Also if WB paid Prince a fee to record them I see NO way he can win. It may well be in the contracts that he would get $X per hour or session reimbursement for time spent recording songs for release or that were released.

sigh...

What exactly do you know about copyright law and sound recordings? Are you an a lawyer? Did you study it? Do you work in the music industry?

why so angry? that was clearly posted as my opinion based on the artical posted. it is no more an assumption of what will happen to the masters as those that think they will be turned over without a fight.

[Edited 9/5/11 10:57am]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Tremolina said:

sigh...

What exactly do you know about copyright law and sound recordings? Are you an a lawyer? Did you study it? Do you work in the music industry?

why so angry? that was clearly posted as my opinion based on the artical posted. it is no more an assumption of what will happen to the masters as those that think they will be turned over without a fight.

[Edited 9/5/11 10:57am]

angry? lol more like TIRED

Read your own words:

I see NO way he can win

why talk so much shit when you don't know shit?

[Edited 9/5/11 11:29am]

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

why so angry? that was clearly posted as my opinion based on the artical posted. it is no more an assumption of what will happen to the masters as those that think they will be turned over without a fight.

[Edited 9/5/11 10:57am]

angry? lol more like TIRED

Read your own words:

I see NO way he can win

why talk so much shit when you don't know shit?

[Edited 9/5/11 11:29am]

yes "I see" denotes opinion

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Tremolina said:

angry? lol more like TIRED

Read your own words:

I see NO way he can win

why talk so much shit when you don't know shit?

[Edited 9/5/11 11:29am]

yes "I see" denotes opinion

in the context of spouting so-called "knowledge" you don't have

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yes "I see" denotes opinion

in the context of spouting so-called "knowledge" you don't have

i did no such thing you are making stuff up.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Tremolina said:

in the context of spouting so-called "knowledge" you don't have

i did no such thing you are making stuff up.

Again: When you don't know shit, don't talk shit.

And how about also reading the article before you even consider posting.