databank said:

jaawwnn said:

Nevertheless Databank, I'm pretty sure there's some obscure technical loophole that makes them legal releases (in Europe anyway)

.

Not true. Such loopholes were alleged to be in Italian and German law, but they've been closed long ago by European law.

.

I'm astounded by this resurgence of these cheap-ass bootlegs out in the open considering there were significant raids against them in the past. I'm baffled to see a Russian vinyl releases of for instance a Talking Heads gig from the 1980s at the Rock Werchter festival for €9 in FNAC, a major chain. Because at a certain point these chains cannot claim innocence (i.e. their distributor offered them this and they thought it was legal).

BartVanHemelen said:

jaawwnn said:

Nevertheless Databank, I'm pretty sure there's some obscure technical loophole that makes them legal releases (in Europe anyway)

.

Not true. Such loopholes were alleged to be in Italian and German law, but they've been closed long ago by European law.

.

I'm astounded by this resurgence of these cheap-ass bootlegs out in the open considering there were significant raids against them in the past. I'm baffled to see a Russian vinyl releases of for instance a Talking Heads gig from the 1980s at the Rock Werchter festival for €9 in FNAC, a major chain. Because at a certain point these chains cannot claim innocence (i.e. their distributor offered them this and they thought it was legal).

Some Italian bootlegs labels wrote their mail address on booklets, and allowed mail order, up to the early 90's. I don't remember which it was but either the Maastrucht treaty or the 1994 GATT treaty put a final end to any loophole regarding copyright laws in 93 or 94. The next thing you knew by 1996 bootlegs had virtually disappeared from all record stores in France and most likely everywhere else.

The loophole regarding broadcasts doesn't seem to be sourced anywhere online and is only mentioned on music fans boards, it's a urban legend.

databank said:

callimnate said:

Prince couldn't stop this even when he was alive.
Remember these a while back??



Same story as now. It's nothing new, and it happens to all the artists.
Nothing to do with Tidal, or Amazon or any other provider.

Someone found a loophole and its as simple as that.

Prove that Prince could not stop them.

Well, these were at all record stores, readily available for anyone to purchace, without the need to ask for "anything behind the counter!?"

That would be proof in itself.

callimnate said:

databank said:

Prove that Prince could not stop them.

Well, these were at all record stores, readily available for anyone to purchace, without the need to ask for "anything behind the counter!?"

That would be proof in itself.

Country? (certainly not France)

Year?

How many records exactly and what was the content?

How many record stores?

My bet is 2 or 3 of them in a few selected record stores. Bootlegs always managed to slip thru the cracks every once in a while.

databank said:

darkroman said:

This is shocking and so very bad!

.

Prince's estate need to stamp out this activity! It's just got out of control!

.

How come Prince's estate can bully fans, take town YouTube videos and take town the website archive, but they can't stop boots going onto Amazon and Tidal.

.

They have their priorities wrong!!!

.

It's sad to see Prince's legacy being treated like this... particularly on the eve of his passing seven month's ago.

.

I know wrong artwork and all come on now.

oliviacamron said:

databank said:

It's still there. Found it in about 2 seconds.

What do I type in ? I tried Prince, not there, I tried the title, not there. I dont know why it won't come up. I have a basic membership. Do you have premium?

I don't have any membership at all. I just typed Prince Syracuse in the Tidal shop's search engine.

Just search for the Prince artist page:

.

https://listen.tidal.com/album/67408455

.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

Nevertheless Databank, I'm pretty sure there's some obscure technical loophole that makes them legal releases (in Europe anyway), if obviously not authorised.

The only source I've ever found regarding those supposed European legal loopholes were... posts on message boards. I believe this was made-up once by someone on a message board and became an internet urban legend. When one can't find any other source than someone saying something online, the infor is very likely false.

Many, many artists suffer from this and these albums aren't sold only online or in dodgy record stores, you can buy them in your local HMV (RIP) / Virgin (RIP) / Tower (RIP)/ Woolworths (RIP)/ whoever is still around.

Certainly not in French record stores.

None of these live albums came out when he was alive, i assume they wouldn't risk the lawsuit he would inevitably file. No matter what the legalities he could have kept these things going for an expensive amount of time.

Either he had ground to sue or he didn't. Either those things are legal or they aren't. You can't say "it's legal but they were afraid of Prince sueing". It makes zero sense.

These grey market live albums have been around since at least the 90's. I remember Ash talking wayyyy back in 1997 about how they couldn't stop the Live at the Wireless album coming out so they semi-endorsed it by (IIRC) releasing it themselves. They called it an "official bootleg"
I know nothing of Ash but according to the link you've posted it was released... on Ash's own vanity label. How can't a band prevent... themselves from releasing a record?

[Edited 11/21/16 20:20pm]

Slow down Databank, slow down.

The only source I've ever found regarding those supposed European legal loopholes were... posts on message boards. I believe this was made-up once by someone on a message board and became an internet urban legend. When one can't find any other source than someone saying something online, the infor is very likely false.

Yes i'd like to find it too.

Certainly not in French record stores.
They've been available for years in UK and Irish stores.

Either he had ground to sue or he didn't. Either those things are legal or they aren't. You can't say "it's legal but they were afraid of Prince sueing". It makes zero sense.

Prince did it all the time.

I know nothing of Ash but according to the link you've posted it was released... on Ash's own vanity label. How can't a band prevent... themselves from releasing a record?

Fucking hell man, read what I wrote. It was going to be released by someone else so to combat this they released it themselves (On their own vanity label, yes, that's what i meant by RELEASED IT THEMSELVES). TBH I think it might have been a totally different legal issue to these Prince recordings so it's probably a moot point.

[Edited 11/22/16 13:39pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

jaawwnn said:

Nevertheless Databank, I'm pretty sure there's some obscure technical loophole that makes them legal releases (in Europe anyway)

.

Not true. Such loopholes were alleged to be in Italian and German law, but they've been closed long ago by European law.

.

I'm astounded by this resurgence of these cheap-ass bootlegs out in the open considering there were significant raids against them in the past. I'm baffled to see a Russian vinyl releases of for instance a Talking Heads gig from the 1980s at the Rock Werchter festival for €9 in FNAC, a major chain. Because at a certain point these chains cannot claim innocence (i.e. their distributor offered them this and they thought it was legal).

Now this is more like it. I'm not aware of the legal history, thanks for that Bart. Maybe it's just people turn a blind eye to these things.

Off the top of my head I've seen these releases on cd by Talking Heads, Sparks, Cyndi Lauper and more in major stores in 2016.

[Edited 11/22/16 13:42pm]

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

Slow down Databank, slow down.

The only source I've ever found regarding those supposed European legal loopholes were... posts on message boards. I believe this was made-up once by someone on a message board and became an internet urban legend. When one can't find any other source than someone saying something online, the infor is very likely false.

Yes i'd like to find it too.

Certainly not in French record stores.
They've been available for years in UK and Irish stores.

Either he had ground to sue or he didn't. Either those things are legal or they aren't. You can't say "it's legal but they were afraid of Prince sueing". It makes zero sense.

Prince did it all the time.

I know nothing of Ash but according to the link you've posted it was released... on Ash's own vanity label. How can't a band prevent... themselves from releasing a record?

Fucking hell man, read what I wrote. It was going to be released by someone else so to combat this they released it themselves (On their own vanity label, yes, that's what i meant by RELEASED IT THEMSELVES). TBH I think it might have been a totally different legal issue to these Prince recordings so it's probably a moot point.

[Edited 11/22/16 13:39pm]

My bad for misreading what you wrote about Ash.

Well I still don't buy any of those Prince records being legal in any possible way in any possible developed country.

For one thing if they are they must be released by legit labels with a legal existence, home address, website, etc. I do not believe this is the case.

The Ash example sounds to me like an odd counterexample more than a representative one: we'd be flooded by musicians complaining about albums being released against their will and we're not.

If and when faced with a reasonable proof I may reconsider but as far as I know there is nothing but internet gossip and vague, unsupported legal theories.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

My bad for misreading what you wrote about Ash.

Well I still don't buy any of those Prince records being legal in any possible way in any possible developed country.

For one thing if they are they must be released by legit labels with a legal existence, home address, website, etc. I do not believe this is the case.

The Ash example sounds to me like an odd counterexample more than a representative one: we'd be flooded by musicians complaining about albums being released against their will and we're not.

If and when faced with a reasonable proof I may reconsider but as far as I know there is nothing but internet gossip and vague, unsupported legal theories.

Yeah, i'm certainly willing to concede that these are likely illegal, although possibly it's an untested case. I'll go digging around for a while to see if I can come up with anything definitive.

Ok, so it seems the Italy and German loopholes were closed on January 1st 1995 with something called the GATT agreement.

However, the only non-vague information I can find about these releases is indeed on the steve hoffman forums where a record store owner says he was sent this by a label:

Statement regarding Pearl Jam -1992 Broadcasts_- Vinyl Album – Catalogue Number: LETV045LP

This release is a legitimate LP within the EU.

This LP’s release, sale and distribution is legal under the the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 Sections 181 and 206 in respect of qualifying broadcasts. A qualifying broadcast is defined in Statutory Instrument 2008 No 667 The Copyright and Performances (Application to other countries) Order.

It should be noted that, with reference to US wireless broadcasts by US artists made prior to the year set out in the Statutory Instrument 2008 No 667, certain copyrights remain unprotected prior to the given year, in this instance prior 1 January 1996. All performances on the LP are from wireless broadcasts made in 1992. This release is therefore wholly legitimate within the territory of the European Union.

Any suggestions that the release purports to be an authorised release are incorrect. No claim to that this product has been authorised has been made either on the record or its packaging. The title, name and/or photograph on the packaging are used solely to allow the identification of contents of the LP. The title, name and/or photograph is not used or intended for use to indicate the origin of this product.

Whilst any sale of the LP in the USA may fall foul of that jurisdictions differing laws on Copyright, trademark and other proprietary rights the position throughout the EU is clear and is as set out above.

I had a look at the various acts mentioned here and I have to admit I was defeated by the legalese of it all, I suspect this is part of the plan. However, this does seem to the closest I can find to any kind explanation or formal justification as to why these releases are not stopped.

WTF!! This surely can not be there for long?!......oh man, this is beautiful!

[Edited 11/22/16 14:54pm]

jaawwnn said:

Ok, so it seems the Italy and German loopholes were closed on January 1st 1995 with something called the GATT agreement.

However, the only non-vague information I can find about these releases is indeed on the steve hoffman forums where a record store owner says he was sent this by a label:

Statement regarding Pearl Jam -1992 Broadcasts_- Vinyl Album – Catalogue Number: LETV045LP

This release is a legitimate LP within the EU.

This LP’s release, sale and distribution is legal under the the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 Sections 181 and 206 in respect of qualifying broadcasts. A qualifying broadcast is defined in Statutory Instrument 2008 No 667 The Copyright and Performances (Application to other countries) Order.

It should be noted that, with reference to US wireless broadcasts by US artists made prior to the year set out in the Statutory Instrument 2008 No 667, certain copyrights remain unprotected prior to the given year, in this instance prior 1 January 1996. All performances on the LP are from wireless broadcasts made in 1992. This release is therefore wholly legitimate within the territory of the European Union.

Any suggestions that the release purports to be an authorised release are incorrect. No claim to that this product has been authorised has been made either on the record or its packaging. The title, name and/or photograph on the packaging are used solely to allow the identification of contents of the LP. The title, name and/or photograph is not used or intended for use to indicate the origin of this product.

Whilst any sale of the LP in the USA may fall foul of that jurisdictions differing laws on Copyright, trademark and other proprietary rights the position throughout the EU is clear and is as set out above.

I had a look at the various acts mentioned here and I have to admit I was defeated by the legalese of it all, I suspect this is part of the plan. However, this does seem to the closest I can find to any kind explanation or formal justification as to why these releases are not stopped.

As Spock would say... Fascinating!

The label that released that PJ record is indeed officially identified on Discogs and has a website.

So basically, like with all those cheap old jazz shows that are being released legitimately, certain shows may actually be in public domain.

The text is pretty technical and I fail to truly understand what exactly falls under that or not. I've quickly looked up the laws mentionned (all the texts are online) and can't figure out what it means exactly, though it seems to mean what the text u've posted says it means.

So this may suggest that any wireless broadcast made in EU territory before 1996 falls under no copyright in the UE but do in the US.

I wish someone more at ease with legal language in English could examine this for us.

Admitedly this fails to apply to Tidal though, unless the show is only accessible from EU customers.

Besides, Syracuse was released after being broadcast, and must have been copyrighted as such in Europe as well as anywhere else: it's odd that there is no conflict of interest between the broadcast and the release.

It doesn't explain such things as Miami 94 on Deezer for example (it was indeed broadcasted but only in the clubs and only in the US! Does that count?).

In the end I'd say that if it ain't legal in the US, Prince being an American artist, it doesn't count as legit. Third world countries have very eccentric or non-existant copyright laws, and pirate releases are commonplace over there. Still we do not consider them to count as official or legit.

We would need a case by case study of all those "releases" in CD and streaming.

But I have to admit I was apparently wrong about the European loophole and that I'm bluffed, you've done an amazing research job!

.

[Edited 12/7/16 1:28am]

http://pitchfork.com/thep...leg-vinyl/

.

Baffling. This was the loophole used by German labels 20 years ago (resulting in super-dodgy boots), and that was rejected IIRC.

.

I very much doubt this is legal at all, especially considering this: http://www.nytimes.com/20...eases.html

BartVanHemelen said:

http://pitchfork.com/thep...leg-vinyl/

.

Baffling. This was the loophole used by German labels 20 years ago (resulting in super-dodgy boots), and that was rejected IIRC.

.

I very much doubt this is legal at all, especially considering this: http://www.nytimes.com/20...eases.html

Well the key part in that pitchfork piece to my eyes is this:

"You're making an assumption that they don't have the rights," notes Clinton Heylin, author of Bootleg: The Secret Histo...g Industry, the nearly definitive 1994 book on the subject. "It's a grey area only in the sense that one has to have sight of the original recording contract before one can make a judgment about whether something is an authorized release." In the case of fan recordings, European rights law grows murky and murkier. "These radio broadcasts and recordings that have slipped into the public domain, they're not really bootlegs," Heylin continues, "they're protection gap releases.


I suspect someone would need to go after these companies legally and it'd have to have its time in court to call them straight up illegal, and really who has the energy? Unless there's a massive crackdown on it I think we're gonna stay in the murky dark on it all.

3rdeyeboy said:

databank said:

Clearly its not bullshit. Evedence of their existance is one reason alone.

Under UK law (and not just UK), the copyright falls to the entity who pays for and broadcasts the perfomance, unless they sign it back to the artist.

The law states that if the performance is outside of the UK, and then broadcast, then it is not subject to artist copyright. The law was tightened up slightly in 1988, and any recording after Aug 1 1989 follows a slightly difference route, but in essence, the artist/performer has no rights to those previous recordings.

Its been a legal 'grey' for years. Legitimate labels existed (Such as king biscuit and RKO radio) who released live broadcast vinyl and CDs in the 80s and 90s. Some artists tried to stop it (Bryan Adams, and I think Genesis spring to mind) but they failed, as they had no legal hold over the performance.

That is why (as I said all along) the estate have no ability to take them off sale. The radio broadcast CDs are on Amazon UK right now, under Amazon distribution through Prime no less.

As I also said before, the copyright owner of the performance (the broadcaster) does have potential to stop it, but so far I've not hear of a case that has, and they may have given permisssion or sold those rights.

In the case of Syracuse, it was performed outside of the UK, and then broadcast on channel 4 in the UK. Channel 4 bought the rights to show it, and under UK law at the time, became the sole copyright owner for the performance in the UK. Prince's estate have no comeback or say.

The VHS release may have been a PP copyright, but that means no one can copy the VHS, not the C4 broadcast.

Prince wised up to this, and thats why he looked to control the broadcast of his performances in later years.

I appreciate that availabilty to download is another 'grey' and you want to ensure facts are correct, but please stop dismissing a fairly factual point of view as 'nonsense' without any evidence to the contrary. That in itself is creating the very misinformation you are trying to avoid.

These CD's (at least, the pre 89 performances) are not nessessarly bootlegs, but as artists used to describe them....'Unauthorised'.

Well as I said above I must admit I was wrong and there is, indeed, a grey area in the EU.

However if I understand properly the legal blebberish I've been reading, those recording fall into public domain, not under copyright from the TV or radio channel that broadcasted them, and only inside the EU.

I fail to understand, however, how a British law can be considered valid inside the whole EU, but it seems to be what those British legal texts claim.

jaawwnn said:

BartVanHemelen said:

http://pitchfork.com/thep...leg-vinyl/

.

Baffling. This was the loophole used by German labels 20 years ago (resulting in super-dodgy boots), and that was rejected IIRC.

.

I very much doubt this is legal at all, especially considering this: http://www.nytimes.com/20...eases.html

Well the key part in that pitchfork piece to my eyes is this:

"You're making an assumption that they don't have the rights," notes Clinton Heylin, author of Bootleg: The Secret Histo...g Industry, the nearly definitive 1994 book on the subject. "It's a grey area only in the sense that one has to have sight of the original recording contract before one can make a judgment about whether something is an authorized release." In the case of fan recordings, European rights law grows murky and murkier. "These radio broadcasts and recordings that have slipped into the public domain, they're not really bootlegs," Heylin continues, "they're protection gap releases.


I suspect someone would need to go after these companies legally and it'd have to have its time in court to call them straight up illegal, and really who has the energy? Unless there's a massive crackdown on it I think we're gonna stay in the murky dark on it all.

Well the thing is that while Syracuse, Detroit 86 and Tokyo 90 were aired in Europe, as well as the Spanish Nude show on radio, Rock In Rio wasn't, and neither Glam Slam 94 (that last one wasn't aired at all though it was indeed a wireless broadcast... in 3 clubs!). I fail to understand whether things aired outside of EU territory fall into that protection gap too, or not.

In the end this calls for one thing and one thing only: the estate must release this material ASAP to make sure fans buy a remastered official release instead of a semi-official bootleg.

Finally! I've been waiting for the org Sherlocks to get to the bottom of this...

I've been calling these releases Legal Bootlegs. After reading through this thread, might change that to Loophole Releases.

Regardless, they are certainly not authorized. I've suggested all along that those of us that trade bootlegs online (but avoid trading official releases that the artists/estates can profit on) should treat these releases the same as boots and openly share them with as many people as possible and cut into the profit margin of these "labels". I myself have been tempted to purchase the Miami shows, but, will settle for the download that was shared with me.

djThunderfunk said:

Finally! I've been waiting for the org Sherlocks to get to the bottom of this...

I've been calling these releases Legal Bootlegs. After reading through this thread, might change that to Loophole Releases.

Regardless, they are certainly not authorized. I've suggested all along that those of us that trade bootlegs online (but avoid trading official releases that the artists/estates can profit on) should treat these releases the same as boots and openly share them with as many people as possible and cut into the profit margin of these "labels". I myself have been tempted to purchase the Miami shows, but, will settle for the download that was shared with me.

.

I totally agree!!

.

Everyone should share these 'Loophole Releases'.

.

prince would have never allowed them so why now!!!

.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

Well the key part in that pitchfork piece to my eyes is this:

"You're making an assumption that they don't have the rights," notes Clinton Heylin, author of Bootleg: The Secret Histo...g Industry, the nearly definitive 1994 book on the subject. "It's a grey area only in the sense that one has to have sight of the original recording contract before one can make a judgment about whether something is an authorized release." In the case of fan recordings, European rights law grows murky and murkier. "These radio broadcasts and recordings that have slipped into the public domain, they're not really bootlegs," Heylin continues, "they're protection gap releases.


I suspect someone would need to go after these companies legally and it'd have to have its time in court to call them straight up illegal, and really who has the energy? Unless there's a massive crackdown on it I think we're gonna stay in the murky dark on it all.

Well the thing is that while Syracuse, Detroit 86 and Tokyo 90 were aired in Europe, as well as the Spanish Nude show on radio, Rock In Rio wasn't, and neither Glam Slam 94 (that last one wasn't aired at all though it was indeed a wireless broadcast... in 3 clubs!). I fail to understand whether things aired outside of EU territory fall into that protection gap too, or not.

In the end this calls for one thing and one thing only: the estate must release this material ASAP to make sure fans buy a remastered official release instead of a semi-official bootleg.

Sure! As I see it, since these releases are barely legal at best as it is I think an added technicality that some of them weren't even broadcast to begin with is just another thing that would only be cared about if someone went for these people legally. They'll push it as far as they can if there's profit to be made.

.

[Edited 12/7/16 1:30am]

.

[Edited 12/7/16 1:30am]

^ Damn! Those people do have some nerve!

beautyunaffected said:

God you guys are more annoying the estate. If you are so concerned.. did you ever tweet this to Londell? I just checked tidal and it's not even streaming on there.

yes it is http://tidal.com/gb/store...m/67408455