David Ayers

Sound recording. Yes, completely different and independent of each other. Absolutely different, yes. The composition is copyright for a period of x years from the death of the composer (where x depends on prevailing law at the time, same as for books). The recorded performance is 28 years from issue plus renewal period (I admit I am hazy about how long the second renewal period is). I'd like to know too, but I assume they wouldn't, no more than would EMI Europe. Do you pay money you don't owe? They are paying....like I said earlier, they believe their contract with the artist trumps the copyright laws. I don't believe EMI Europe presses their own copies of say Blue Note reissues, they just import the American pressings. I guess if they decide to stop importing these and press their own copies so they don't have to pay royalties to the artists then you will have made your point. EMI Europe do press their own copies, yes, just as they issued the so called euromosaics.

Deep. Meet you at midnight for skinny dipping in Walden Pond?

I'd like to know too, but I assume they wouldn't, no more than would EMI Europe. Do you pay money you don't owe?

Here's an example. Registered in 1956, re-registered in 1984 (28 years) and according to my calculation, set to expire in 2012, after which it becomes PD. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search%5FArg=fruscella&Search%5FCode=NALL&CNT=25&PID=fmvCHnW09Ux5YsmcwN4HMVY9S&SEQ=20111114181959&SID=3

I think this might be sort of besides the point.... The question is whether the CDs that are being released in Europe because they are after the 50 year period can legally be sold here, a country that does not have the 50 year expiration date so this stuff is still copyrighted here. I don't know the answer to that actually though I assume it is an issue. That you pay 3% on the transfer price to sell your CDs here might not address the question of it's legality here. Subject to copyright could mean legal copyright and then the question again is whether you can sell something in the US that according to US law is not legally copyrighted here. I don't know the answer. This is why we have copyright lawyers and also why most don't waste their time on this sort of thing because it is cost prohibitive for most to pursue and that only helps the likes of Jordi et al stay in business. Well, one thing you need to know is that copyright on material issued in the US issued before 1964 and after 1923 was copyright protected for 28 years from date of issue. That copyright was renewable for 28 years if an application was made in the year of its expiration and lodged at the Library of Congress. See where this is heading? Some stuff will never have been renewed, so copyright will have lapsed. And the rest, help me out, 2 x 28, I'm struggling... Do we care - well , not much, but more interesting than this thread is the catalogue where you can look up every single registration. Mad joy for the likes of us: http://www.copyright.gov/records/ What you say on previously unissued material such as extra tracks is kind of true but depends on recording date in relation to changes of law, so not as cut-and-dried as you think if you read the small print. What you say on international copyright is unworkable - copyright is national, period. National courts could not in practice enforce copyright laws of all other nations, any more than they would enforce property laws or any laws of other nations. Nice try.

Hm. Now I was sure you said before you could get whole albums from torrents and sharesites. Not just the odd mix tape. However. By the way I don't think you really have a question on PD (re. my justification of the law in my country). There is PD in the States just as there is PD in rest of the world. The U.S. laws are different to most everyone elses. But this is the law, and I am not talking about how that term is set. Of course laws are not immutable, and European copyright laws have recently changed. I've no strong opinion about the term. 50 years was ok, 70 is fairer to those who earn good incomes (mainly the companies and a few superstar artists), but may affect access to most work 50-70 years old for the purposes of scholars and enthusiasts interested in a broader history. In that sense it may inflict a cultural damage. ASCAP does not make the law, it defends the rights of composers. To that end, it explains the law, which includes that fact that dissemination over the internet (i.e. via share sites) is public performance and therefore requires licensing. The notion of added value which you attempt to introduce is not really relevant. Copyright owners cannot extend their rights in a copyright by remastering or any other form of rehashing. PD is paramount, in the US as in Europe. This is an intended consequence of these laws. I sometimes think people use this argument alongside others to justify illegal sharing ('it hasn't been reissued/remastered'; 'it isn't in print' [and never will be if everyone keeps stealing it]; 'it is in print but costs too much'; 'it has been remastered but I want the superior Japanese version which isn't in print or costs too much'; 'it was recently in print but I missed it'; 'it costs too much on ebay and I don't want to pay'; 'Sony/EMI/anyone-but-Nessa/Cuscuna are thieves' etc. etc.). All this reasoning is found on this board. FWIW, I think your feelings about the need to share obscure things with no real market value is basically the same as Pujol's, as is your notion of the gray area. And as is your changing story on your file-sharing habits...

Oh really? If I sell it, yeah, composers have rights. But if I gift it to my friends, if no money changes hands, then what? I make a "mixtape" of Public Domain material for my friends as a gift, who is owed what, exactly? Nobody? Nothing? Sounds right. If I circulate said mixtape to my friends over the internet, who is owed what, and on what basis? Nobody? Nothing? Still sounds right. Now, if one of my "friends" takes my mixtape and starts selling it "as is", then yes, we have a problem. But only then. Jim, the stuff you share is not in the public domain in your country. Why do you think you and others are entitled to it without paying the owners? Read more here http://www.ascap.com/music-career/resource-guide/dtd/

This stuff is legal almost everywhere in the world except the U.S. And in the U.S. it's legal if you compete the right paperwork. The stuff about the ability of small labels to sue is not relevant to labels which are either owned by majors or unowned (most of them). And it also applies to their inability to sue illegal music sharers. It can't legally be given away because the composers have rights. In the U.S.A., where it is not PD and is still subject to copyright, the owners still have rights, and may owe a tiny percentage to the artist (there again, they can charge back for all sorts of things). But see above. The reason that 'small labels' can't take you to court for illegal file sharing is that the costs to them are too high. So you are safe. What you do has nothing to do with PD laws in the rest of the world. He's hiding. Or maybe he's listening to this gem:

So no lie then? You can buy Lonehill from amazon and Dusty Groove. So...?

Larry was quoting Laurie Pepper (jazzwax comments)... those claims about not being involved with Lonehill etc are somewhat thin anyway because Pujol is one of their main distributors it seems... Larry claims Pujol is lying to our faces in the interview. Yes he mentions Laurie, whose remarks have a bearing only if Pujol is the owner of Lonehill and not just the distributor. So let me ask, what evidence is there that Pujol owns Lonehill, rather than just being the distributor? And what other lies does Pujol tell?

I can also now happily tell you what the law is. Have a look here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html To save you reading it, when you import recorded media which are subject to copyright you pay 3% on the transfer price, the money basically goes to the Treasury, and then interested parties can claim it back. That's the law and if you pay the 3% you are covered. Pujol says he imports legally (this means he pays the 3%). Does anyone have evidence that he doesn't? Or that others do? Um, this page adds another dimension to that: http://www.harryfox.com/public/Import.jsp But who says Pujol doesn't do this? On what evidence is Larry calling him a liar?

Well the 'lie' here is interpretation of the law around importation of such goods. So what is the law? As I explained with reference to PD in Japan, it would be the same for Japanese PD issues. And for importations from the European branch of labels that formerly owned material which is now PD. Without facts, this is all just behavior.

This argument is generational. The energies tied up in it are more complicated than can be easily unpacked. They way to death is paved with recorded music, which turns out to be just nothing, bought and traded like illegal guns, piles of trash in an anonymous garage sale, and the Hobby which thought it was History flaps its last on the receding Embassy in Saigon. PS I imagine they took it with them, but, uh, you know what I mean... PPS uh, the flag I mean... apologies for the convoluted metaphor...

Japanese PD is 50 years, same as European. There is an insane fantasy on this board about payments to musicians, a fetish. You can be certain that major labels wherever located pay nothing to musicans where the work has entered PD. So on your euromosaics, your European RVGs, your Sony Europe Original Masters, your JRVGs, your UCCIs, or whatever, even though those companies (EMI/Sony/Universal) own the TAPES (or mostly copies of the tapes, in Europe and Japan) they do not own the WORK, so while they do pay money to composers through the relevant organisation, they do not pay royalties to musicians or their estates because there is no contractual reason for them to do so. Just like Mr Pujol. Get it? Europe and Japan. Japan. You can be certain too that for reissues in the U.S., the only place where the 50s stuff we all like is not yet PD, the companies who own the works have ways of reducing their (already minimal) royalty exposure by e.g. charging back additional costs for remastering etc.

Do we know what the packaging is going to be yet? Will it be possible to break the set up in some practical way? No we don't know, and I just saw amazon.co.uk put the release date back to 17 January, so it could be some time before we find out!

Instore at UK HMV these are going at 2 for £10. When was the last time such refreshing reissues appeared as an instore item from a major? Oh and Miles 65-68 box for £12 instore. They are practically giving it away...

Oh sorry I posted in the wrong Impulse thread! I meant to post in the 2for1 reissue thread. Damn, sorry if I mislead anyone... Ubu send me your list and if I see them at Fopp as singles I'll buy them. It's an off-chance but it has happened before. PS if I do find them they will be cheap so send a full list, don't hold back.

Instore at UK HMV these are going at 2 for £10. When was the last time such refreshing reissues appeared as an instore item from a major? Oh and Miles 65-68 box for £12 instore. They are practically giving it away... SORRY GUYS WRONG THREAD THIS WAS MEANT FOR 2 ALBUMS-ON-ONE-CD THREAD. VERY SORRY.

As people are saying in the existing thread. Search: Universal or look at Today's Active Content.

Yes, it has. Close this please?

Jazz always had a recreative dimension, now it is rarely anything other than recreative in any of its aspects. As Moms says it is not really a mainstream in any of its manifestations and for that reason interesting to few but musicians and select enthusiasts. That said, the point of recreating Ascension is to rebut the claims of the Marsalis/Crouch axis to define jazz in terms of its landmarks up to but not including the avant-garde. So this project claims that kind of terrain and cites Ascension as a classic. Lets play it again and see what happens. Vandermark got his prize for realising that the the avant-garde needed to be treated with the respect of a classic. That wasn't genius, that was a good grasp of the facts. I don't doubt Lovano and Liebman looked sluggish and old, Coltrane tributes I've seen (some of which included Tyner, Jones and Workman) were so earthbound they made me doubt Coltrane (the records restored my confidence). Let's say someone plays Ascension and it's a bore. Let's say it always was a bore, or has become even more boring with the passage of time. So what? We decided to take another look, that's all. You think people are getting rich off this or it's some form of sell-out? It is perfectly valid, perfectly respectable and respectful. Odd target for the sneerers.

Conrad and Johannes Bauer, not always that far out, if that's what you find to be out.

I have heard some of his compositions and arrangments, but I mainly know him as a writer. He really is one of the most important writers on jazz. I am somewhat interested in the question of the theoretical modeling of jazz over time and AH is a stand-out figure in terms of that bibliography. For me, yes, since I am a professional and it is my business, I see these things in a fairly scientific way, so in endorsing Hodeir I am not really stating a preference for his arguments, though I think that the question of European reception of - or, I might better say, construction of - jazz is quite fascinating, and Hodeir's is a key voice.

Japanese PD is 50 years so you can be 100% certain of that (um, though I didn't check the dates of the releases you mention). BTW I don't know how licenses are sold in music but I do know that many times with books if a publisher sells a licence to another territory they do so for a flat rate and the author gets a percentage of that. In other words once goods are licensed abroad there is no author royalty. I suspect that music contracts of the period were like that. Add to that too that you can be 100% certain that the owners of many of the copyrights we are discussing (EMI/Sony-RCA/Universal/Warner) will certainly not pay royalties on their own Japanese/European PD reissues as none are due.

You could also check that against MDT, though I guess amazon work out better on shipping: http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product/NR_December11_Jazz_World_Nostalgia_Audio_Books/2777143.htm