Pacific Jazz JWC-507 - West Coast Jazz - Vol. 3 [1956]

[Edward Lopez]

Hi jazz aficionados: Back in the early 1960s I owned the LP listed below. It's a compilation of the nicest West Coast Jazz music one could wish for. I dubbed a few numbers to cassette but my recorder was basic so the copy leaves a lot to be desired (no Dolby!) although the saving grace is that the LP was new when I bought it so there were no scratches, pops, etc. I do play the cassette once in a while always wishing it had been released on CD or I could find it in a thrift store for a buck so that I could make a new cassette with Dolby C or ask my nephew to dub it to CD since he has a computer that can do it; I don't. Maybe for Christmas it will appear under the tree!

Pacific Jazz JWC-507 - West Coast Jazz - Vol. 3 - Various Artists [1956] There Will Never Be Another You - Gerry Mulligan Sextet/Mr. Smith Goes To Town - Chico Hamilton Quintet/Polka Dots and Moonbeams - Bud Shank Quartet/Old Croix - Art Pepper Quartet/Little Girl - Chet Baker Sextet/Love Nest - Russ Freeman - Chet Baker Quartet/Sweet Georgia Brown - Bud Shank - Bob Cooper Quintet/Things Ain't What They Used To Be - Jim Hall Trio/Too Marvelous For Words - Phil Urso - Bob Burgess Quintet/Brother Can You Spare A Dime - Russ Freeman - Bill Perkins Quintet

Edited December 3, 2008 by Jazzpizzi-Cat

[Bluerein]

This was on CD issued in Japan only part of a 5 CD box set with 4 other volumes in these Jazz West coast series. I sold my copy some time ago to someone on this board so he might be able to assist you in some way (although I don't approve these kind of things).

[Edward Lopez]

This was on CD issued in Japan only part of a 5 CD box set with 4 other volumes in these Jazz West coast series. I sold my copy some time ago to someone on this board so he might be able to assist you in some way (although I don't approve these kind of things).

Thanks for passing on that important bit of info, I appreciate it.

However, it's too bad that you "...don't approve these kind of things" for in this case the only way for one to acquire this great music compilation is to buy the vinyl from such places as eBay, or GEMM, or any of the vinyl-selling websites. And if I didn't want to buy the vinyl because chances are it's not going to be a sealed or a mint copy, and if it was it would cost approximately $50 as I've seen, just to dub the material into a different format and then you have an expensive collectible that you might not be able to pass on to someone else to get your money back...

The only recourse is to, then, request from someone who has the vinyl or, as you say, the CD box set. It isn't as if I'm ripping off the record company or the musicians since the LP is over 50 years (!) and the only CDs available were made in Japan. I would agree with you 100% if it was newer material which had been released on CD or reissued on vinyl then I would never have made my request for I would buy the newer format.

All I want is to enjoy that great music again in better fidelity than my cassette. Nothing unethical in my request. At least I don't mean it to be.

Jazzpizzi-Cat

Edited December 3, 2008 by Jazzpizzi-Cat

[kh1958]

I'm no expert on the Pacific Jazz label, but looking at the names of the artists on this anthology, I would guess that much of this material has been reissued on CD, at some point. So I would think you could pursue reassembling the anthology yourself by finding as many of the source albums on CD as possible, though amazon.com and ebay. It might take some time and effort (a Pacific Jazz discography would probably be a big help), but wouldn't this be more enjoyable anyway, as you will learn about more music by the artists on the anthology that you apparently enjoy?

[Bluerein]

I sold this box set because of the reason kh1958 states above. About 6 tracks from the 5 cd box were not on other cd's by the respective artists. So you could easily make your own West Coast CD by combining those tracks from their original session/albums. The fact the music is over 50 years old is of no importance to me it's a matter of principle. If the music is available in a legimite way you should go that route in the first place.

[Chas]

The fact the music is over 50 years old is of no importance to me it's a matter of principle. If the music is available in a legimite way you should go that route in the first place.

A matter of principle ? You flatter yourself . Copyright law exists as an expression of a public purpose not as a recognition of some pre-existing moral right for you to be 'principled' about . Ignorance of this ( willfull or otherwise ) when combined with a strong desire for moral agency leads to the absurdity that is copyright fundamentalism .

If you choose not to avail yourself of public domain music that's your business , but spare us the self-righteous counsel not to engage in what is a legitimate activity both legally and morally .

[Bluerein]

OK if you say so I will.......Thanks for this, just what I needed.

[paul secor]

I'm happy that Chas has decided what is morally correct for me to do.

[J.A.W.]

I'm happy that Chas has decided what is morally correct for me to do.

We're obviously mere mortals who need guidance...

[Edward Lopez]

People: There's no need to get on each other's case because of my request. The suggestions made to acquire the 10 (really 6 out of the 10) tunes on Vol. 3 don't make sense, financially or otherwise. To do so your way would leave me with empty pockets and a possibly 10 CDs whose contents I may not enjoy 100%.

Ethics can be criticized but not challenged since we all have a right to our opinion. It will always be up to the individual to make the decision to copy music for others or not, if it's done privately. My asking for a CD-r of Vol. 3 on this forum was done out of ignorance of the forum's rules, not because of ethics. If you want to call me unethical, it's your right.

The music industry is not going to collapse if a few dubs are made. Some bootlegs are being released officially. Some CD companies allow one copy to be made before the equipment's anti-copying software kicks in, etc.

Live and let live.

Jazzpizzi-Cat

[Bluerein]

But you could download only the tracks you need from those sessions. I don't know for sure if they all excist as downloads but it can't hurt to look for them.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Bluerein

[J.A.W.]

My asking for a CD-r of Vol. 3 on this forum was done out of ignorance of the forum's rules, not because of ethics.

You could have read the rules (see rule #6) before posting your request.

Edited December 3, 2008 by J.A.W.

[Edward Lopez]

But you could download only the tracks you need from those sessions. I don't know for sure if they all excist as downloads but it can't hurt to look for them.

Thanks for the suggestion. I know of one music blog that includes hundreds of other blogs that include out-of-print LPs from early 1900s to the '70s that include many jazz albums but no one has included any of the Pacific Jazz series. I'll continue looking.

[Edward Lopez]

My asking for a CD-r of Vol. 3 on this forum was done out of ignorance of the forum's rules, not because of ethics.

You could have read the rules (see rule #6) before posting your request.

I have admitted my failure to have read the rules. The removal of my post with a notice from the forum administrator learned me good! Trust me I won't violate the rules again.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Jazzpizzi-Cat

[Chas]

I'm happy that Chas has decided what is morally correct for me to do.

We're obviously mere mortals who need guidance...

Both of you need to put aside your personal antipathy ( if you're able to do so ) and go back and read more carefully .

It is Reinier who is telling you what is morally correct for you to do . I'm not telling you or anyone what morality requires . In fact , my position is that copyright law is , both as a matter of historical fact and philosophical consideration , not a matter of morality at all , in the sense that copyright protection exists at the discretion of and in the interests of the public , rather than arising from some obligation on the public to afford legal recognition to some extra-legal (moral) rights of copyright holders . I challenge you or anyone to offer reasons to the contrary . My insistence on reasoned discourse should only irritate those without the intellectual capital to meet the challenge .

[paul secor]

spare us the self-righteous counsel not to engage in what is a legitimate activity both legally and morally .

You used the term "morally" - no?

[Chas]

My saying that accessing public domain materials is a morally legitimate activity should not be read as a moral endorsement , but rather as a denial of Reinier's contention that it is morally illegitimate . It isn't illegitimate , in the sense that it is not a matter of morality whatsoever .

[Bluerein]

Good to read my "statement" is causing so much offence!!!! Keep 'em coming Chas we need you for this........

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well, I largely agree with Chas except that the reality is that the law only sometimes expresses the true public interest. Often it expresses the interest of "interested parties"; and that's true of copyright laws, I think.

So, if a law expresses the interests of a specific section of the public, it's arguable that it isn't a good law and that following it could be seen as immoral.

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

I also agree with Chas - including (particularly so) in view of the fact that it might very well be that European copyright laws might well change and become much more stringent from sometime next year (adopting somethg like a 95-year rule in fact) which OF COURSE was something invoked not to protect some poor session men possibly facing poverty at old age (THEIR rights were signed away long ago in most cases) but to feed the greedy "needs" of those early rock stars (Cliff Richard was instrumental in arguing for a tightening down of rules) as the 50-year cutoff rate would have meant that within the next few years all that r'n'r/60s beat stuff etc. would have gone P.D.

However this evidently does NOT mean that all the material from past periods would be reissued comprehensively by those oh so "legitimate" nominal rights holders. Instead, many will sit on material that is no longer PD but not available either from "legitimate" sources, i.e. the public willl be deprived entirely of a lot of music because even collectors' reissue ventures would have a hard time making the music avilable as strictly collectors' ventures (because they can't afford the rates the "rights holders" would charge - ask the guys at HEP Records if you want proof of the situation!).

Now if that isn't a law made not in the interests of the public at large but in the interest of a select few then I don't know. In line with MG's arguing, it is therefore very much open to debate if the new version of those rules would be a good law or a bad law (as it was manifestly instigated by "interested parties").

At any rate, self-righteous pseudo-morality in this respect is totall uncalled for. There are MANY more facets to this entire history so that narrowing it down to a question of morality or immorality is missing the point entirely. And besides, once it is P.D. (at least as long as the music remains P.D.past the 50-year cutoff date) there are no legal (and therefore NO moral) angles to burning a simple CD-R. After all we are NOT talking about high-volume grey-market affairs here.

Now be that as it may - @Jazzpizzicat: Unfortunately I don't have the equipment (yet) to burn CD-R's from vinyl (only CD to CD) so I cannot burn you a CD-R of my copy of JWC-507 (the one with the famous cover of the frogman stepping out of the water) for the time being but I'll go on record right here saying that otherwise I'd be happy to oblige! (But note: My copy is about VG+ so there might be some pops and crackles here and there )

Yet I hope for you somebody else will oblige too (without speaking out publicly here ).

P.S. A final note re- that Rule #6 invoked above:

At least as far as European parties in such transactions are involved, that material on the record Jazzpizzicat asked about no longer falls under copyright rules as the 50-year limit has been passed. And as long as any more stringent European rules have not yet come into force that's the applicable law at least in Europe and Rule#6 does NOT apply and that's that.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[J.A.W.]

I'm happy that Chas has decided what is morally correct for me to do.

We're obviously mere mortals who need guidance...

Both of you need to put aside your personal antipathy ( if you're able to do so ) and go back and read more carefully .

(...)

My insistence on reasoned discourse should only irritate those without the intellectual capital to meet the challenge .

At any rate, self-righteous pseudo-morality in this respect is totall uncalled for.

Nice tone, gentlemen, not condescending or intellectually superior at all

What I meant was that I don't like to be told what to think or find.

[Bluerein]

Happy burning (down the house)!!!!

[J.A.W.]

P.S. A final note re- that Rule #6 invoked above:

At least as far as European parties in such transactions are involved, that material on the record Jazzpizzicat asked about no longer falls under copyright rules as the 50-year limit has been passed. And as long as any more stringent European rules have not yet come into force that's the applicable law at least in Europe and Rule#6 does NOT apply and that's that.

I don't know where Jazzpizzi-Cat lives and I don't know much about law that's applicable to internet sites, but, putting aside any moral issues one might have, are you saying that the European and not the American copyright law applies to Europeans exchanging copies on a U.S.-based internet forum like this one? Isn't U.S. copyright law exclusively applicable to U.S.-based internet fora, no matter who are involved?

Edited December 4, 2008 by J.A.W.

[Big Beat Steve]

Now look ... first of all, we are not talking about wholesale marketing of illegal bootleg items that are still protected by copyrights but about an ISOLATED single favor on a personal basis for an item that apparently is OOP and that falls beyond the 50+-year limit as per the PD rule as it (still) stands in Europe at THIS time of writing.

I am no legal expert but until conclusive proof to the contrary I consider the law effective at MY place of residence to be applicable to what I do here at MY place of residence OUTSIDE any forum (talking about what one MIGHT perhaps be doing, like in this case, is of no relevance, I guess ). And as it is, recordings that have passed the 50-year mark thereby are in the P.D. by the laws applicable here (for the time being).

And as for being told what to do or think, I for one certainly didn't mean to tell anybody what he is supposed to think, but doesn't the door swing both ways? Couldn't it be argued just as well that "being told what to do or to think" starts when somebody starts off by saying he does not approve of certain acts that others MIGHT possibly be doing (thereby implicitly putting the (moral?) blame on those others )?

And again - we've been talking about an ISOLATED case as a personal favor. So isn't it really high time to bring back things into perspective and all take it a little easier?

Or should we really carry things further by asking if those who are so indignant here never ever bought ANY CDs by Definitive, Lone Hill, Fresh Sound, Proper, etc. (remember the accusations made against them, and there are many more labels operating on the P.D. principle - even some that aren't usually mentioned in the "Andorran" debate) nor ANY vinyl on any of the 70s/80s grey market collector labels?

So therefore ... PEACE!

BTW: I understand Jazzpizzicat has received what he has been looking for - courtesy of an obliging board member.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

So therefore ... PEACE!

Indeed!

Though, of course, it takes two to make a deal and, if one lives in the US and the other lives in Europe...

MG