fortuneandserendipity said:

ForceofNature said:

Well technicaly musicologists argue them being not the "best" from an objective point of view, but rather most influencial. Meaning the first ones to do it, the ones to lay out a lot of the template for those who followed. They are not saying they make better music than their contemporaries. If they are doing that, well to be frank they are rather shitty musicologists you picked out lol

I'm not sure about that. 'Best' and 'most influential' can be falsely conflated. When one musicologist referred to Wagner's music in a recent documentary as 'exhibit A', with others in said documentary making the same case, as to whether or not the music was influential became a side issue. It would be fair to say they spent the whole programme debating the artistic quality of his music.

And the fact that they spend the whole time debating it instead of all agreeing further perpetuates the concept of subjetiveity being the law of the musical land here.

ForceofNature said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

I'm not sure about that. 'Best' and 'most influential' can be falsely conflated. When one musicologist referred to Wagner's music in a recent documentary as 'exhibit A', with others in said documentary making the same case, as to whether or not the music was influential became a side issue. It would be fair to say they spent the whole programme debating the artistic quality of his music.

And the fact that they spend the whole time debating it instead of all agreeing further perpetuates the concept of subjetiveity being the law of the musical land here.

Like I already said, where there is a general consensus formed over a lengthy period you can't ignore what that general opinion says. Music that stands the test of time is revered by musicologists and fans alike. There won't be any One Direction musicologists in one hundred years time. Bach wasn't loftily esteemed in his own time. And, likewise, I would point to a couple of bands from recent times that deserve much greater reverence. I've never bought the 'subjectivity argument' partly because some people - in the absolute minority - dig every genre.

http://www.startribune.co...423717653/

.

A sound engineer who worked with Prince is barred from publishing or disseminating any unreleased recordings that compromise the late superstar's work.

.

George Ian Boxill worked with Prince on five tracks in 2006 and made at least one recording — "Deliverance" — available online last month. Prince's estate and Paisley Park Enterprises sued to block it.

.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Wilhelmina Wright issued a preliminary injunction saying Boxill and independent label RMA can't publish unreleased recordings until the dispute is resolved. They are also barred from using Prince's trademark to sell or promote "Deliverance."

.

The lawsuit says Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement that the recordings would remain Prince's property.

.

BartVanHemelen said:

http://www.startribune.co...423717653/

.

A sound engineer who worked with Prince is barred from publishing or disseminating any unreleased recordings that compromise the late superstar's work.

.

George Ian Boxill worked with Prince on five tracks in 2006 and made at least one recording — "Deliverance" — available online last month. Prince's estate and Paisley Park Enterprises sued to block it.

.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Wilhelmina Wright issued a preliminary injunction saying Boxill and independent label RMA can't publish unreleased recordings until the dispute is resolved. They are also barred from using Prince's trademark to sell or promote "Deliverance."

.

The lawsuit says Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement that the recordings would remain Prince's property.

.

.
Don't know who wrote that last sentence ("Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement that the recordings would remain Prince's property") but it's very sloppy wording to say the least.
A confidentiality agreement is about keeping things confidential. It has nothing to do with ownership or rights to anything. So it would've been a bit more appropriate to say "Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement, and the parties have also agreed that the recordings would remain Prince's sole property."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRINCE_ESTATE_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The Associated Press is also reporting on the judge's ruling.

morningsong said:

Well if he signed a confidentiality agreement...

In earlier reports it stated that the agreement said he would have no ownership on any project they worked on.

laurarichardson said:

morningsong said:

Well if he signed a confidentiality agreement...

In earlier reports it stated that the agreement said he would have no ownership on any project they worked on.

Laura, Do you have a link to the earlier reports?

Prince wouldve had agreements with everyone he worked with. Boxill is a fool for thinking he could issue P music without permission from the estate. Hes lucky he doesnt have to pay damages.

MiceElfAgin said:

BartVanHemelen said:

http://www.startribune.co...423717653/

.

.

.
Don't know who wrote that last sentence ("Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement that the recordings would remain Prince's property")

.

It's a link. Click it.

.

but it's very sloppy wording to say the least.
A confidentiality agreement is about keeping things confidential. It has nothing to do with ownership or rights to anything.

.

Except one google search reveals: https://www.thebalance.co...ty-2275250

.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), sometimes called a confidentiality agreement, allows a company to share its IP with others, whose input it needs, without unduly jeopardizing that information. For example, if you have a new product or feature in development, but you need to consult an expert for advice on how to proceed, an appropriate NDA can ensure that the expert doesn't hand the details of your new product to a competitor of yours.

.
A non-disclosure agreement is a legal contract between you and the other party. You agree to disclose certain information to them for a specific purpose. They agree to not disclose that information to anyone else.

.

206Michelle said:

laurarichardson said:

In earlier reports it stated that the agreement said he would have no ownership on any project they worked on.

Laura, Do you have a link to the earlier reports?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/hear-unreleased-prince-song-drops-new-music-article-1.3073655

Also Bart is correct an NDA means not disclousing info to anyone other than the parties involved and that would include selling. Ian is an asshat and I was in communication with the owners of the lable as well as the two guys who made the video.

These people are not fans and their whole intent was to profit off of work they did not have the rights to and I actually question were they got the money from to pull this off.

Bart, Bart...

Ever tried not being an ass? You know, maybe just for a day to start with. You might find the experience worth it.
.
I didn't click the stupid link because I didn't care who wrote it or whose sentence was quoted by the Star Tribune. That wasn't my point. My point was: REGARDLESS OF who wrote it, it's a stupid sentence.

.

And it's funny to see that you don't even understand (or care to read) your own link on NDAs. NDAs have nothing to do with ownership. The purpose of NDAs – as your own link clearly explains it too – is to stop someone sharing information, including information regarding IPs. In the case of Prince and Boxill, it meant that if Boxill only signed an NDA and nothing else, he would have been forbidden to talk about their work and to share information on Prince's songs, for example. An NDA does not rule out the possibility of claiming co-ownership or co-composership of a track. They either had a separate agreement making that point clear too, or it's also possible that Prince didn't feel the need to put that in writing as it is obvious to anyone with a brain that neither a sound engineer nor an arranger would have a valid claim to co-ownership of the recordings or to co-composership of the songs.
.

BartVanHemelen said:

MiceElfAgin said:

BartVanHemelen said:

http://www.startribune.co...423717653/

.
Don't know who wrote that last sentence ("Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement that the recordings would remain Prince's property")

.

It's a link. Click it.

.

but it's very sloppy wording to say the least.
A confidentiality agreement is about keeping things confidential. It has nothing to do with ownership or rights to anything.

.

Except one google search reveals: https://www.thebalance.co...ty-2275250

.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), sometimes called a confidentiality agreement, allows a company to share its IP with others, whose input it needs, without unduly jeopardizing that information. For example, if you have a new product or feature in development, but you need to consult an expert for advice on how to proceed, an appropriate NDA can ensure that the expert doesn't hand the details of your new product to a competitor of yours.

.
A non-disclosure agreement is a legal contract between you and the other party. You agree to disclose certain information to them for a specific purpose. They agree to not disclose that information to anyone else.

.

[Edited 5/24/17 5:29am]

MiceElfAgin said:

Bart, Bart...

Ever tried not being an ass?

.

Yes, it is MY fault that you posted a bunch of BS and I exposed it.

.

But hey, let's look at a very generic NDA: http://www.ispgroupinc.co...ement.html

.

From point 1:

.

Confidential Information shall include all data, materials, products, technology, computer programs, specifications, manuals, business plans, software, marketing plans, business plans, financial information, and other information disclosed or submitted, orally, in writing, or by any other media, to Recipient by Owner.

.

Go on, explain how this does not include the sound recordings or the songs they co-wrote.

.

Perhaps point 2 makes things clearer:

.

Recipient agrees that the Confidential Information is to be considered confidential and proprietary to Owner and Recipient shall hold the same in confidence, shall not use the Confidential Information other than for the purposes of its business with Owner, and shall disclose it only to its officers, directors, or employees with a specific need to know. Recipient will not disclose, publish or otherwise reveal any of the Confidential Information received from Owner to any other party whatsoever except with the specific prior written authorization of Owner.

.

Oh look, yet more legalese that says that Ian couldn't use anything he did with Prince without permission.

.

Who could have known that NDAs aren't just simple "you cannot talk about this" promises? Hint: I've signed NDAs and yes, they usually include things like ownership of code etc.

BartVanHemelen said:

MiceElfAgin said:

Bart, Bart...
Ever tried not being an ass?

.

Yes, it is MY fault that you posted a bunch of BS and I exposed it.

.

But hey, let's look at a very generic NDA: http://www.ispgroupinc.co...ement.html

From point 1:

Confidential Information shall include all data, materials, products, technology, computer programs, specifications, manuals, business plans, software, marketing plans, business plans, financial information, and other information disclosed or submitted, orally, in writing, or by any other media, to Recipient by Owner.

Go on, explain how this does not include the sound recordings or the songs they co-wrote.

.

Perhaps point 2 makes things clearer:

Recipient agrees that the Confidential Information is to be considered confidential and proprietary to Owner and Recipient shall hold the same in confidence, shall not use the Confidential Information other than for the purposes of its business with Owner, and shall disclose it only to its officers, directors, or employees with a specific need to know. Recipient will not disclose, publish or otherwise reveal any of the Confidential Information received from Owner to any other party whatsoever except with the specific prior written authorization of Owner.

Oh look, yet more legalese that says that Ian couldn't use anything he did with Prince without permission.

.

Who could have known that NDAs aren't just simple "you cannot talk about this" promises? Hint: I've signed NDAs and yes, they usually include things like ownership of code etc.

.
I'll explain it to you because I'm trying to be a nice guy, even though you and your sickening attitude (ever since the AMP days) clearly don't deserve it.

An average NDA might give you a long list of what is to be considered confidential information, and it can of course include sound recordings and copyrights, but that doesn't necessarily mean that even though you had to sign that NDA, you cannot still be a co-owner of said recording. You can be a co-owner of the recording and you can even own a percentage of the copyright in the composition, and still have to sign an NDA that stops you from sharing information until all parties agree to share it. And even if Prince would've agreed to Boxill releasing something, Boxill would've still be bound by the NDA, so he couldn't talk about how the recording took place, for example, or about Prince's compositional method, or what he was wearing in the studio, or what other compositions were worked on etc, etc.
.
(And a hint for you too: I have written and signed plenty of NDAs in my life.)

MiceElfAgin said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Oh look, yet more legalese that says that Ian couldn't use anything he did with Prince without permission.

.

Who could have known that NDAs aren't just simple "you cannot talk about this" promises? Hint: I've signed NDAs and yes, they usually include things like ownership of code etc.

.
I'll explain it to you because I'm trying to be a nice guy, even though you and your sickening attitude (ever since the AMP days) clearly don't deserve it.

An average NDA might give you a long list of what is to be considered confidential information, and it can of course include sound recordings and copyrights, but that doesn't necessarily mean that even though you had to sign that NDA, you cannot still be a co-owner of said recording. You can be a co-owner of the recording and you can even own a percentage of the copyright in the composition, and still have to sign an NDA that stops you from sharing information until all parties agree to share it. And even if Prince would've agreed to Boxill releasing something, Boxill would've still be bound by the NDA, so he couldn't talk about how the recording took place, for example, or about Prince's compositional method, or what he was wearing in the studio, or what other compositions were worked on etc, etc.
.
(And a hint for you too: I have written and signed plenty of NDAs in my life.)

More to this then just an NDA see the article below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/hear-unreleased-prince-song-drops-new-music-article-1.3073655

In addition, the judge seems to agree so we can assume the estate has the docs to back up what they are saying.

laurarichardson said:

MiceElfAgin said:

An average NDA might give you a long list of what is to be considered confidential information, and it can of course include sound recordings and copyrights, but that doesn't necessarily mean that even though you had to sign that NDA, you cannot still be a co-owner of said recording. You can be a co-owner of the recording and you can even own a percentage of the copyright in the composition, and still have to sign an NDA that stops you from sharing information until all parties agree to share it. And even if Prince would've agreed to Boxill releasing something, Boxill would've still be bound by the NDA, so he couldn't talk about how the recording took place, for example, or about Prince's compositional method, or what he was wearing in the studio, or what other compositions were worked on etc, etc.
.

More to this then just an NDA see the article below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/hear-unreleased-prince-song-drops-new-music-article-1.3073655

In addition, the judge seems to agree so we can assume the estate has the docs to back up what they are saying.

.
Of course the judge agrees with the estate as Boxill's claims were ridiculous to start with and it's not because he signed an NDA – it's because even if there would be nothing in writing, a hired sound engineer has no rights to the recordings he works on for his client, and similarly: arrangers do not get song-writing credits (unless they are working on a composition that's already in the public domain, but that is obviously not the case here.)

MiceElfAgin said:

laurarichardson said:

More to this then just an NDA see the article below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/hear-unreleased-prince-song-drops-new-music-article-1.3073655

In addition, the judge seems to agree so we can assume the estate has the docs to back up what they are saying.

.
Of course the judge agrees with the estate as Boxill's claims were ridiculous to start with and it's not because he signed an NDA – it's because even if there would be nothing in writing, a hired sound engineer has no rights to the recordings he works on for his client, and similarly: arrangers do not get song-writing credits (unless they are working on a composition that's already in the public domain, but that is obviously not the case here.)

Could also be because he signed an agreement that specifically said he would have no ownership per media reports.