sabaisabai said:

Ultimately it's all just guessing because Prince and WB don't provide the public with the necessary insight into their agreements to answer these kind of questions correctly.

To try and answer your question: It is possible that a contract only grants a record company the right to release the Masters of entire albums plus a couple of singles and nothing more. Such a contract therefore doesn't cover remixes, extended versions etc, etc. The Crystal Ball set contained remixes from recordings made under Prince's early 90's, 100 million dollar contract. It is possible that this contract only granted WB the right to release copies of Master recordings of entire albums plus a couple of singles per album and nothing more. If so, it would explain why Prince was able to release remixes of those tracks on Crystal ball without permission and without the risk of a lawsuit by WB against it.


And think about the following as well: The release of "The very best of Prince" contains versions of 80's and early 90's recordings on that are all the originals, (which makes it hell to listen to since the sound gets louder and clearer when the songs get younger.) WB definitly didn't get permission from Prince to release TVBOP using digitally remastered versions.
[This message was edited Thu Jun 26 1:04:20 PDT 2003 by huggy]

BanishedBrian said:

The remixes and extended versions and b-sides were all originally released by WB, therefore orginally released under contract, but only on CD or lp, not on mp3 or in digiatlly remastered versions. Prince released various recordings from original WB releases via the club, e.q. the ballad of Doroty parker and Thieves in the temple remix.


That is possible, but not likely since the copies that were released of those remixes, 1'2"s etc, all have a copyright owned by WB notice on it.


That is defintly a wrong guess. That is not fair use and never will be. Once copies of recordings are released publicly and for money it can never be fair use. Fair use is a very limited exception to the the copyright onwer's exclusive rights.


I said that the contracts covering the recordings he released via the Club were signed before the early 90's when nobody had ever heard of MP3, or digital remasters.
Therefore there is no possibility that the rights to release the recordings like that was covered by those contracts.

There is an important rule developed by the courts in copyright contract cases that rights to use "future technology" can only be fully transferred to another party if the future technology is explicitly stated in the contract and if the parties to the agreement were equal in their bargaining power, which is impossible in the case of WB and Prince, especially when Prince signed his first contracts (he hardly had any bargaining power back then).
Since the fact is also that the mp3 and digital rematsers didn't exist in the 80's or the early 90's WB can't own those rights... Prince does.


Like I said before, it remains guessing, but this is the most likely explanation. Not that yours is by defintion false, but imo less likely.
[This message was edited Thu Jun 26 1:25:24 PDT 2003 by huggy]

kmc said:

That's what I mean. prince can obviously do all that, but only via the Club on mp3 or streams, not on CD.

CAMILLE4U said:

Yup, every last one.
He confirmed this himself a while back.
The final track to be re-recorded was 'Soft & Wet',
and it was completed roughly about 2 years ago.

He also said that some songs were re-interpreted,
and sounded quite different from the originals,
(I think they were mostly re-recorded with a live band)
whereas other songs just didn't sound right played
any other way than the way he'd originally done them
(he cited 'Sign O The Times' as an example of this).

When he originally embarked on this re-recording
process he said that he intended to create new
versions of all his WB albums, which he would
release himself in competition. He later changed
his mind, and compiled a 2CD 'Greatest Hits'
compilation using these 'New Masters' which was
going to be called 'Prince: A Celebration', and
would have also included 3 or 4 brand new tracks
as well. This idea seems to have been shelved,
though it has been suggested that the 'Very best
of ' that was listed as one of the 4 potential
CD's for last years NPGMC was in fact another
incarnation of this album. Currently there appears
to be no plans to release any of these recordings.
.
[This message was edited Thu Jun 26 2:23:00 PDT 2003 by BorisFishpaw]

BorisFishpaw said:Yup, every last one.
He confirmed this himself a while back.
[/quote]

Fascinating stuff here! I am not doubting you, but I'm curious about where you heard this stuff?

huggy said:

I'm not an IP lawyer, but my guess is that streams are OK under "fair use" laws because they are like playing a song on the radio... but releasing songs as mp3s is analogous to releasing a song as a CD and is therefore not permitted under his contract.

Thus, IMHO Prince cannot release remastered mp3s of his WB catalogue until the 35-year periods end. When Prince and WB signed their contract, I don't think mp3 technology even existed (or if it did, it wasn't widely used).

Can anyone think of any album track mp3 that the Club (in its entire history) has ever released in non-streaming or non-ahdio show format? I can't think of one... and I think it's pretty likely he would be doing this if he could legally, because it would make the Club a lot more lucrative.

huggy said:

Didn't Prince transfer ownership of his masters in the 1991 contract, at which point he was represented by counsel and had plenty of bargaining power?

Once again, I'm not an IP lawyer, and you may be one, but it suprises me quite a bit if the default rule right now in music IP cases is that artists own the rights to release mp3s of master recordings owned by the record company. Is that in fact the current status of the law?

If that's the case, why doesn't every artist like Prince simply put up a website with their entire catalogue available for purchase as mp3s?

KingSausage said:

I don't think WB releases SuperAudio CDS, that's Sony Music. The only high end audio that WB releases is DTS masters and DVD Audio.

I have Grover Washington's Winelight on DVD Audio and it sounds supurb.

huggy said:

According to your argument, wouldn't the digital music channels on Comcast digital cable violate copyright laws since they make the songs available in digital quality and charge for the service? (or do they have to license all of the songs first?)

"Fair use" may be the wrong term of art... but isn't whatever gives Comcast the right to air digital music the same principle that gives Prince the right to release streaming audio and radio shows in low-quality mp3?

Note that neither of the formats Prince has released this material on are of CD quality.
[This message was edited Thu Jun 26 9:36:34 PDT 2003 by BanishedBrian]

One fundamental idea here is in the definition of 'copyright'. Copyright is really the right to make copies of something. This is restrictive in that the copyright owner has the right to copy specific things. It is not a right to ownership and complete control of the whole product.

My guess, based on my narrow knowledge of the field, is that Warner Bros has the right to make copies in specific formats of specific recordings. That is, they don't have the right to withhold copying of those recordings in all forms.

Can somebody more informed expand on this?

BanishedBrian said:

Streams are legally not the same as radio and both do not constitute "fair use". But there is a system of compulsory licences in place for internet streams and radio, which makes it possible to stream and broadcast songs in return of a fixed fee. (And, copyright in SOUNDRECORDINGS is a different copyright than the copyright in the SONG (composition and lyrics). owners of copyright in a recording don't have the right to be paid when the recording is played on the radio, only the owner of copyright in the song has that right.(well... at least that is how the system in the US works lol)

Prince's contract with WB simply won't state anything about streams, mp3's or any other new technology because those technologies have been invented AFTER the signing of the deal and therefore are not covered by it. Therefore the rights to do that can not have been transferred to WB and therfore belong to Prince, not WB.

If he can't release them untill after the 35 year period then how can he get away with it? Because he can because he owns those rights. But you are absolutely right that these technologies didn't exist when they signed their contract, which is the basis of my argument: therefore these rights are not covered by the contract and Prince owns those rights.

The 35 year period refers to all the rights under copyright that in fact HAVE been transferred by contract to WB; i.e. the rights to release entire albums plus some single tracks on CD, lp, cassette using the original master soundquality and other technologies that existed already when they signed their deal. THOSE rights will belong to Prince again after the 35 year period.

The rights to use the new technologies however have simply always belonged to Prince, ever since these technologies were invented. Ever heard of the lawsuits by freelance journalists against the NY times? The NY times put articles by these journalists on their websites and were ordered by the courts to take them off, because they didn't own the rights to do that and didn't ask for permission. They didn't ask for permission because they thought the rights to do that were covered by a transfer of copyright clause signed years before. The courts decided they were wrong, because the technology wasn't covered by the contracts.




he has regularly released WB tracks on mp3 via the club. It doesn't matter whether they were released via an "ahdio show" (which is not the same as internet radio, just a nice word to describe what they did), in low file quality, or as separate files. What matters is that WB doesn't own the rights to do just that, but Prince does.


I know, I know it is complicated...lol.


....
[This message was edited Fri Jun 27 11:06:05 PDT 2003 by huggy]

BanishedBrian said:

He transferred the ownership of the COPYRIGHT in his masters, but ONLY the copyright as it existed back then and probably only the right to releas entire albums and some singles on CD, LP and cassette, using the original master soundquality.

You should see copyright as a right that can "grow", i.e. the right gets vaster when new technologies to are invented.
When a transfer is made only thre rights that are stipulated are tarnsferred. Future technolgy rights are very hard to stipulate, beacsue they don't exist yet, and therefore most probably weren't stipulated in prince's contracts.


It in fact is, but it depends entirely upon the wordings of the deal. Many artists produce albums under a work for hire clause, which automatically makes the employer (the record company) the owner of all copyrights, current and futre rights.


1) because many don't realise

2) many work for hire

3) many aren't able to do that, because they are bound to a record deal which prohibits them to release music by themselves.

4) the demand for entire albums of mp3's is not that big.

5) if e.g. prince would do that WB could make a case against him on grounds of unfair competition, or on the grounds that prince DID transfer the right to relase ENTIRE albums. As long as Prince doesn't release entire albums he is on relatively safe ground.

6) Only if an artist records all by himself will he own the entire copyright. there are only a few artists like Prince who can claim that.

7) probably a number of other individual reasons for
artists not to do that.


...
[This message was edited Fri Jun 27 11:00:39 PDT 2003 by huggy]

BanishedBrian said:

they probably pay the copyrightowners via compulsory licences.


That could be, but I don't think so, because Prince has also released numerous songs on mp3 format.


exactly, if he would it would all in all be much more risky since WB does own the right to release entire Prince albums plus some singles on CD and in CD quality (from the original master sound, thus NOT the digiatlly remastered sound),
let alone that Prince would take the risk that WB would sue for unfair competition and ruin it all. And it is not yet very commercially interesting to release entire albums on mp3 due to the low quality and the fact that most people still prefer cd's instead of computer files..


...
[This message was edited Fri Jun 27 11:02:45 PDT 2003 by huggy]

sabaisabai said:

Copyright is more than just the EXCLUSIVE right to make copies. It is the EXCLUSIVE right to GIVE PERMISSION to reproduce the copyrighted work. It is also the right to give permission to make derivative works of the copyrighted work AND more importantly it is also the right to give permission to make the work public in any given way imaginable. In practice copyright is therfore a right to CONTROL, provided the exceptions made by law.(e.g. compulsory licences and fair use)


Prince at least transferred the rights to release entire albums and some singles on CD, lp and cassette, but probably not more than that. Releases using new technologies are not covered by that, but he needs to watch out releasing entire albums on mp3 because that is in direct violation of WB's right under the contract to release entire Prince albums and could also constitute unfair competition.

...
[This message was edited Fri Jun 27 10:43:50 PDT 2003 by huggy]