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.

Thanks, nice article Bart. For acts that release albums every 4 years it ain't so bad but it seems our mate will be in supreme court every year fighting for his tapes, could be costly. I wonder why the court woulkd side with the record company?

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.

While I'm certainly no expert on this type of stuff, I will say that The Kid better stockpile the cash he's making on these tours if he's serious about obtaining his masters. Wars are very costly and there will be blood once this particular battle ensues.

Aricle already posted here

http://prince.org/msg/8/365096

I already have no love for the industry and would be happy to see all the labels go out of business.

I already have greatly reduced the amount of music I purchase from them.

If they are going to fight artists, and blatantly steal from them, I will never again purchase music from a major label. Only from independents that own their own masters.

The industry has been ripping off artists behind the scenes for the entire history of recorded music. This will be very much out in the open. They won't be able to play the victim any more and their cries that piracy is killing the industry will be mocked more than ever.

djThunderfunk said:

I already have no love for the industry and would be happy to see all the labels go out of business.

I already have greatly reduced the amount of music I purchase from them.

If they are going to fight artists, and blatantly steal from them, I will never again purchase music from a major label. Only from independents that own their own masters.

The industry has been ripping off artists behind the scenes for the entire history of recorded music. This will be very much out in the open. They won't be able to play the victim any more and their cries that piracy is killing the industry will be mocked more than ever.

I agree with what you say about the relationship between companies and artists, but it's also true that piracy is killing the industry.

Javi said:

djThunderfunk said:

I already have no love for the industry and would be happy to see all the labels go out of business.

I already have greatly reduced the amount of music I purchase from them.

If they are going to fight artists, and blatantly steal from them, I will never again purchase music from a major label. Only from independents that own their own masters.

The industry has been ripping off artists behind the scenes for the entire history of recorded music. This will be very much out in the open. They won't be able to play the victim any more and their cries that piracy is killing the industry will be mocked more than ever.

I agree with what you say about the relationship between companies and artists, but it's also true that piracy is killing the industry.

NO. It's not true. The industry is killing the industry.

They do everything they can to back talentless cookie cutter pop acts that they can control and keep from ever getting to the level of the rock legends of the past. You know, guys like Prince that challenge them publicly and want to control their own legacy.

They re-release material as many times as possible to double and triple dip the same customers into buying more than once.

Their releases are all mastered too loud, distorting the quality of the sound, so that they can release remastered hi-def recordings in the future and sell us our favorite music all over again.

They cheat, lie and steal from their artists.

They sue file sharers for thousands per song.

They helped usher in the death of local record stores while supporting the rise of Wal-Mart as the top music seller.

They had to be sued to stop putting DRM on CDs that infected their customers' computers.

They control the radio with payola so only their choices of music gets played and heard by the masses.

They've tried to stop reselling of used music and fought to stop collectors from buying, selling and trading promo copies.

If they had their way, we wouldn't even own the music we buy. We would rent it. We would have to "Pay to Play" everytime we want to hear a song. Sound good?

I could rant all day. But, now I don't have to. They are openly planning to fight every artist to keep them from what is legally theirs. Fuck the industry. It killed itself!!

[Edited 8/26/11 8:13am]

Sad.

Re-masters won't ever happen then.

Never ever.

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.

does this make U happy?

djThunderfunk said:

Javi said:

I agree with what you say about the relationship between companies and artists, but it's also true that piracy is killing the industry.

NO. It's not true. The industry is killing the industry.

They do everything they can to back talentless cookie cutter pop acts that they can control and keep from ever getting to the level of the rock legends of the past. You know, guys like Prince that challenge them publicly and want to control their own legacy.

They re-release material as many times as possible to double and triple dip the same customers into buying more than once.

Their releases are all mastered too loud, distorting the quality of the sound, so that they can release remastered hi-def recordings in the future and sell us our favorite music all over again.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you say. But I don't think one can deny that people downloading ilegally is damaging the music industry. Actually, I don't like the music industry, but I like ilegal downloading even less. Actually, I don't like downloading at all.

They cheat, lie and steal from their artists.

They sue file sharers for thousands per song.

They helped usher in the death of local record stores while supporting the rise of Wal-Mart as the top music seller.

They had to be sued to stop putting DRM on CDs that infected their customers' computers.

They control the radio with payola so only their choices of music gets played and heard by the masses.

They've tried to stop reselling of used music and fought to stop collectors from buying, selling and trading promo copies.

If they had their way, we wouldn't even own the music we buy. We would rent it. We would have to "Pay to Play" everytime we want to hear a song. Sound good?

I could rant all day. But, now I don't have to. They are openly planning to fight every artist to keep them from what is legally theirs. Fuck the industry. It killed itself!!

[Edited 8/26/11 8:13am]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think nobody can't deny that ilegal downloading is damaging the music industry AND the artists.

I'm not a music industry lover, but I dislike ilegal downloading even less. Actually, I don't like downloading at all, whether legal or ilegal.

thedance said:

Sad.

Re-masters won't ever happen then.

Never ever.

I wouldn't go that far. At some point Prince's crazy business practices and the sluggish economy may force him to cut a deal with WMG that he doesn't like rather than lose Paisley Park in a foreclosure sale. He won't be able to fight them in court if he doesn't have the money to pay his lawyers, and I can't see him taking it to trial anyway because he might be called to testify and he's way too shy to sit in a courtroom and testify with a court reporter taking notes (despite his posturing about talking about copyright issues at the White House or whatever).

Another, sadder possibility is that, after his death, whoever ends up controlling his assets will want to make some money from them and will cut a deal. It could be a relative like Tyka or it could be a charitable foundation.

The problem is not WMG, because they are in business to make money and won't turn down a reasonable deal just to prove a point. And I don't think Prince will ever destroy the tapes because he knows that's his retirement nest egg if he needs it. On the other hand, anyone who thinks Prince will cut a deal just to make the fans happy obviously hasn't been paying attention to the guy for the past couple of decades.

A couple of other points:

1. Prince aparently plans to make his money for the foreseeable future solely by giving concerts. But it's hard to see him doing that when he's in his 90s. At some point I think he's going to need another source of revenue even if he can somehow get through the current economic crisis without going broke.

2. If Prince somehow manages never to cut a deal regarding remasters during his lifetime, his intellectual property rights may need to be sold to pay the estate tax, unless he leaves everything to charity as James Brown tried to do. The rights might also be subject to creditors' claims. If he directs in his will that the tapes be destroyed after his death, that could be set aside as against public policy even if the estate is solvent and the taxes can be paid from another source.

3. Some have speculated that the tapes are in terrible condition. The recent vinyl reissues of Dirty Mind, Controversy, and 1999 were done from the master tapes and sound great. Also, it's likely the master tapes have been digitally archived already--Prince has said so and others have confirmed this. Whether the various outtakes will be usable is another question, but they can be baked and made to play decades after they were recorded.

Just trying to give you all some reason to hope.

Javi said:

djThunderfunk said:

NO. It's not true. The industry is killing the industry.

They do everything they can to back talentless cookie cutter pop acts that they can control and keep from ever getting to the level of the rock legends of the past. You know, guys like Prince that challenge them publicly and want to control their own legacy.

They re-release material as many times as possible to double and triple dip the same customers into buying more than once.

Their releases are all mastered too loud, distorting the quality of the sound, so that they can release remastered hi-def recordings in the future and sell us our favorite music all over again.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you say. But I don't think one can deny that people downloading ilegally is damaging the music industry. Actually, I don't like the music industry, but I like ilegal downloading even less. Actually, I don't like downloading at all.

They cheat, lie and steal from their artists.

They sue file sharers for thousands per song.

They helped usher in the death of local record stores while supporting the rise of Wal-Mart as the top music seller.

They had to be sued to stop putting DRM on CDs that infected their customers' computers.

They control the radio with payola so only their choices of music gets played and heard by the masses.

They've tried to stop reselling of used music and fought to stop collectors from buying, selling and trading promo copies.

If they had their way, we wouldn't even own the music we buy. We would rent it. We would have to "Pay to Play" everytime we want to hear a song. Sound good?

I could rant all day. But, now I don't have to. They are openly planning to fight every artist to keep them from what is legally theirs. Fuck the industry. It killed itself!!

[Edited 8/26/11 8:13am]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think nobody can't deny that ilegal downloading is damaging the music industry AND the artists.

I'm not a music industry lover, but I dislike ilegal downloading even less. Actually, I don't like downloading at all, whether legal or ilegal.

Well, that's too bad, because it's here to stay.

My experience with legal downloads has been fairly negative. Often low quality, often not the format of my choice, sometimes with DRM which restricts use.

As for illegal, you take your chances.

I would say that file sharing is THE answer to bootlegging. Fans are going to seek boots no matter what. They may as well trade them amongst themselves for free rather than make someone $ off an artists work.

Filesharing is also good for keeping alive out of print material. How are new fans supposed to get into older music not available at Best Buy or iTunes? We used to have record shows where dealers from all over converged and the hunt for old stuff was on. We also used to have many rather than a few local/used stores to search through bins looking for treasures. All that's going away. Now we can find out of print stuff online and experience music otherwise unavailable.

We used to hear 1 good song, buy a CD, only to discover it was the only good song. $15 down the drain. Now we can check it out first and only buy discs that give us our money's worth in quality.

Love it or hate it, downloading is here. I love it.

Support artists not labels.

And let's not forget, the industry could have embraced the technology and evolved with it into another profitable paradigm. Instead, they fought it tooth and nail trying to hold onto the system that they had profited on for so long and which they could control. By the time they began to adapt it was too late, the genie was out of the bottle and they were exposed as the greedy pigs they are. This alone is enough reason for the labels to die.

[Edited 8/26/11 11:16am]

electricberet said:

3. Some have speculated that the tapes are in terrible condition. The recent vinyl reissues of Dirty Mind, Controversy, and 1999 were done from the master tapes and sound great. Also, it's likely the master tapes have been digitally archived already--Prince has said so and others have confirmed this. Whether the various outtakes will be usable is another question, but they can be baked and made to play decades after they were recorded.

Concerning the possible deterioration of the master tapes, wasn't that concerning Prince's non-WB material? There was a thread about someone (H.M BUFF?) approaching Prince about digitizing his tapes fearing that they would become destroyed in the near future, and Prince turned down the offer? Someone help me.

djThunderfunk said:

Javi said:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think nobody can't deny that ilegal downloading is damaging the music industry AND the artists.

I'm not a music industry lover, but I dislike ilegal downloading even less. Actually, I don't like downloading at all, whether legal or ilegal.

Well, that's too bad, because it's here to stay.

My experience with legal downloads has been fairly negative. Often low quality, often not the format of my choice, sometimes with DRM which restricts use.

As for illegal, you take your chances.

I would say that file sharing is THE answer to bootlegging. Fans are going to seek boots no matter what. They may as well trade them amongst themselves for free rather than make someone $ off an artists work.

Filesharing is also good for keeping alive out of print material. How are new fans supposed to get into older music not available at Best Buy or iTunes? We used to have record shows where dealers from all over converged and the hunt for old stuff was on. We also used to have many rather than a few local/used stores to search through bins looking for treasures. All that's going away. Now we can find out of print stuff online and experience music otherwise unavailable.

We used to hear 1 good song, buy a CD, only to discover it was the only good song. $15 down the drain. Now we can check it out first and only buy discs that give us our money's worth in quality.

Love it or hate it, downloading is here. I love it.

Support artists not labels.

And let's not forget, the industry could have embraced the technology and evolved with it into another profitable paradigm. Instead, they fought it tooth and nail trying to hold onto the system that they had profited on for so long and which they could control. By the time they began to adapt it was too late, the genie was out of the bottle and they were exposed as the greedy pigs they are. This alone is enough reason for the labels to die.

[Edited 8/26/11 11:16am]

I wouldn't say I disagree with what you say. I have my doubts regarding small record shops, however; I think they are doing good enough given the current context. I don't have statictics or something, I talk from my experience in the city I live in (Madrid).

My rejection to downloading is due to my values regarding music. Buying records in shops and listening to the physical record or CD while contemplating the artwork is an essential part of my culture regarding music, and it means too much to me to get rid of it. I don't have to do it as long as record shops and physical music exist. I also prefer to buy an out of print record in the used market or a pressed boot than downloading; sorry, I know this isn't popular, but that's how it is. I can download, but only if there isn't other chance.

So for me it isn't a problem of supporting the artists or the labels. When I buy a record in a shop instead of downloading it, I don't think I'm particularly supporting the industry. I'm just doing what I've always done, and I love it. It's a problem of values. I don't have to change them just because everybody does.

Javi said:

djThunderfunk said:

Well, that's too bad, because it's here to stay.

My experience with legal downloads has been fairly negative. Often low quality, often not the format of my choice, sometimes with DRM which restricts use.

As for illegal, you take your chances.

I would say that file sharing is THE answer to bootlegging. Fans are going to seek boots no matter what. They may as well trade them amongst themselves for free rather than make someone $ off an artists work.

Filesharing is also good for keeping alive out of print material. How are new fans supposed to get into older music not available at Best Buy or iTunes? We used to have record shows where dealers from all over converged and the hunt for old stuff was on. We also used to have many rather than a few local/used stores to search through bins looking for treasures. All that's going away. Now we can find out of print stuff online and experience music otherwise unavailable.

We used to hear 1 good song, buy a CD, only to discover it was the only good song. $15 down the drain. Now we can check it out first and only buy discs that give us our money's worth in quality.

Love it or hate it, downloading is here. I love it.

Support artists not labels.

And let's not forget, the industry could have embraced the technology and evolved with it into another profitable paradigm. Instead, they fought it tooth and nail trying to hold onto the system that they had profited on for so long and which they could control. By the time they began to adapt it was too late, the genie was out of the bottle and they were exposed as the greedy pigs they are. This alone is enough reason for the labels to die.

[Edited 8/26/11 11:16am]

I wouldn't say I disagree with what you say. I have my doubts regarding small record shops, however; I think they are doing good enough given the current context. I don't have statictics or something, I talk from my experience in the city I live in (Madrid).

My rejection to downloading is due to my values regarding music. Buying records in shops and listening to the physical record or CD while contemplating the artwork is an essential part of my culture regarding music, and it means too much to me to get rid of it. I don't have to do it as long as record shops and physical music exist. I also prefer to buy an out of print record in the used market or a pressed boot than downloading; sorry, I know this isn't popular, but that's how it is. I can download, but only if there isn't other chance.

So for me it isn't a problem of supporting the artists or the labels. When I buy a record in a shop instead of downloading it, I don't think I'm particularly supporting the industry. I'm just doing what I've always done, and I love it. It's a problem of values. I don't have to change them just because everybody does.

Now this I understand. And, to a large part, agree with.

Not the part on the small shops, they've become a rarity in the U.S.

But, I do love artwork, liner notes, and actually having a physical product to collect. So, I still do that with favorite artists. But I can't waste money trying out stuff that I may not like. So, no more risking $ because I'm interested or curious about something. I'm gonna check it out for free first to determine if it's worth the cash.

And you're right. You don't have to change. Keep doing what makes you happy. I would. Don't completely ignore the technology though, you might miss out on something sweet. (like the 1984 birthday show that recently surfaced)

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....

blacknote said:

electricberet said:

3. Some have speculated that the tapes are in terrible condition. The recent vinyl reissues of Dirty Mind, Controversy, and 1999 were done from the master tapes and sound great. Also, it's likely the master tapes have been digitally archived already--Prince has said so and others have confirmed this. Whether the various outtakes will be usable is another question, but they can be baked and made to play decades after they were recorded.

Concerning the possible deterioration of the master tapes, wasn't that concerning Prince's non-WB material? There was a thread about someone (H.M BUFF?) approaching Prince about digitizing his tapes fearing that they would become destroyed in the near future, and Prince turned down the offer? Someone help me.

I hadn't heard that, but it may be the case. It would be quite ironic if the masters that Prince fought so hard to own ended up being destroyed over time while the ones from the WB era survive.

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.

It's very sad that most of the scenarios where I can envision remasters coming out involve some bad news for Prince: a bad financial situation or something even worse. I wish there were some way that he could be persuaded to go ahead with a remaster series without being in dire financial straits. But I just don't see what else would make him change his mind at this point.

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....

WMG will argue that the recordings are "works for hire" and therefore he doesn't get them back under the copyright law. But you're right that the contracts he signed may have more specific terms. In any case, if artists do succeed in getting their masters back under the 35-year rule, Prince may have bigger problems than WMG. Why shouldn't the other members of the Revolution own a share of the albums they contributed to, for example? The grand prize from a financial perspective is Purple Rain and that is an album by Prince and the Revolution, not Prince. The same argument that would help Prince against WMG would also help his bandmembers against him. That may partly explain why Prince is going to such lengths to keep The Time and The Family from continuing to tour and record under their original names. (Or he could just be acting like a jerk.)

bobbyperu said:

I also prefer a record that I can hold and look at. To me musical downloads always sound like music coming from nowhere. As long as there are people like us, there'll be record shops. But then we do have to keep buying from them! As for the recording rights and master tapes, everything we say here is nothing but speculation!

That quote could apply to the majority of threads in this forum.

electricberet said:

djThunderfunk said:

Javi said:

I wouldn't say I disagree with what you say. I have my doubts regarding small record shops, however; I think they are doing good enough given the current context. I don't have statictics or something, I talk from my experience in the city I live in (Madrid).

My rejection to downloading is due to my values regarding music. Buying records in shops and listening to the physical record or CD while contemplating the artwork is an essential part of my culture regarding music, and it means too much to me to get rid of it. I don't have to do it as long as record shops and physical music exist. I also prefer to buy an out of print record in the used market or a pressed boot than downloading; sorry, I know this isn't popular, but that's how it is. I can download, but only if there isn't other chance.

So for me it isn't a problem of supporting the artists or the labels. When I buy a record in a shop instead of downloading it, I don't think I'm particularly supporting the industry. I'm just doing what I've always done, and I love it. It's a problem of values. I don't have to change them just because everybody does.

Now this I understand. And, to a large part, agree with.

Not the part on the small shops, they've become a rarity in the U.S.

But, I do love artwork, liner notes, and actually having a physical product to collect. So, I still do that with favorite artists. But I can't waste money trying out stuff that I may not like. So, no more risking $ because I'm interested or curious about something. I'm gonna check it out for free first to determine if it's worth the cash.

And you're right. You don't have to change. Keep doing what makes you happy. I would. Don't completely ignore the technology though, you might miss out on something sweet. (like the 1984 birthday show that recently surfaced)

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.

Right ... I won't 'claim' that the WB will give P the rights to his recordings back but, I will say the SHOULD give it to him. It's his music, he made it, not them ... Plain & Simple ...

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.

^^

That.

If you ask me: Prince definitly is going to get his rights back.

But only HIS and not without a fight.

Tremolina said:

^^

That.

If you ask me: Prince definitly is going to get his rights back.

But only HIS and not without a fight.

Okay, wow, I'm agreeing with Tremolina on this subject... cool!

djThunderfunk said:

Tremolina said:

^^

That.

If you ask me: Prince definitly is going to get his rights back.

But only HIS and not without a fight.

Okay, wow, I'm agreeing with Tremolina on this subject... cool!

hahaha... well I don't think you agree for the same reasons. And note that I said ONLY HIS

electricberet 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....

WMG will argue that the recordings are "works for hire" and therefore he doesn't get them back under the copyright law. But you're right that the contracts he signed may have more specific terms. In any case, if artists do succeed in getting their masters back under the 35-year rule, Prince may have bigger problems than WMG. Why shouldn't the other members of the Revolution own a share of the albums they contributed to, for example? The grand prize from a financial perspective is Purple Rain and that is an album by Prince and the Revolution, not Prince. The same argument that would help Prince against WMG would also help his bandmembers against him. That may partly explain why Prince is going to such lengths to keep The Time and The Family from continuing to tour and record under their original names. (Or he could just be acting like a jerk.)

Exactly.

electricberet said:

3. Some have speculated that the tapes are in terrible condition. The recent vinyl reissues of Dirty Mind, Controversy, and 1999 were done from the master tapes and sound great.

Learn the difference between the mixdowns and the multi-track tapes.

Also, it's likely the master tapes have been digitally archived already--Prince has said so and others have confirmed this.

This technology made huge advances over the eyars. If this was done 10/15 years ago the quality might be merely "CD-quality", while these days far better quality can be achieved. Simply compare the first edition of Sly & The Family Stone's There's a Riot Goin' On to the latest.