yeah that would suck - but it would mean the artist could in that circumstance remaster them from vinyl or off-air recordings, at the very least. Which is better than a poke in the eye. Maybe.

(Actually I guess I am in that situation myself with a radio session I did for an ITV local station in the 1990s. I did try several times to licence the recordings, but in the end just got some "oh we had a clearout, the DJ took some reel-to-reels home to keep in his attic, but we don't have them any more") - I'd wondered about the legality of me releasing remastered off-air copies (not that they'd probably ever have known, but all the same).
Looks like I can now do so with impunity in any case?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote Frisonic:

---

My guess would be not but that would make it rather easy for the record company/BBC etc. to just say 'sorry mate, long gone'. Even if just to save themselves the task of simply digging the stuff out.

---

I'd imagine, in many cases, the artist would have perfectly good copy themselves.

E.g in the case of a deleted CD, the artist has copy, many punters have copy, and indeed copies may be circulating illegally on filesharing networks. But new fans can't legally buy a copy. Until now.

yeah, there are tons and tons of albums and releases in that state -

even ones where a CD was issued, but of course is long long since out of print.

There's no realistic prospect of new CDs being pressed, but a digital release would be highly appropriate....... but the record company can't be arsed (or have gone out of business, or been bought out several times over)

In fact, if all goes well, this really could see us finally move to what the internet SHOULD have meant, which is "all of music" being available in a wonderful online library, with no packaging, storage, physical distribution overheads, with means in place to remunerate the artists.

One might very well argue that the filesharing mania which started in the late 90s happened because "the kids" and music fans immediately and intuitively grasped this concept (i.e. that any music you wanted, no matter how obscure or niche, could be available and distributed for zero cost) but the industry failed to.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Fighting talk - it'll never catch on!

I'm wondering if it was mostly music fans that started it (filesharing), and then "the kids" cottoned on.

well, I know when I was music-loving kid in the late 80s/early 90s, I'd buy "record collector" magazine, I'd go to record fairs, I'd get some other little A5 publication, forget what it was called - "old gold" or something perhaps - basically had endless lists of old deleted stuff for sale.....
...a lot of my mates were into doing all this too - we were endlessly trying to get our mits on all this old deleted stuff by bands we liked or had heard of...

...by the end of the 90s, all that stuff was on Napster! So it seems obvious the demand was there in the music community to be able to get their hands on more than just the latest Shitney Houston album.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote chris...:

---

Quote feline1:

---

I think this is pretty important though: "A requirement for labels to make sure all recordings are commercially available, failing which the artist will be entitled to release their recordings themselves."

---

Interesting...

Quote:

---

And what about all those radio sessions? Bands that want their Peel Session or "In Concert" or whatever put out - if the BBC doesn't do it, does this mean the band can ask for the rights themselves?

---

Interesting...

---

Agreed, very interesting on all counts. For a few years now I've been thinking about something like this. Use it or Lose it. If you own it and can exploit it, go ahead. But if you can't or won't, then stand back and let someone else give it a go.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Quote feline1:

---

seriously though, do [ ****** ] off.

With all due deference to the forum mods, you persistently troll mine and others' threads with your asinine snide comments, and are clearly a total dick. (And, notwithstanding that, demonstrably factually wrong in your characterisation of my critiques of dysfunction IT systems and bureacracy of collection societies).

---

I think this is very unfair, Feline. I never even open your threads.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law -beatles

This awful article in the Grauniad could also do with addressing. Please comment.

Quote johnny h:

---

I think this is very unfair, Feline. I never even open your threads.

---

Oh, and you're an liar as well. Anything else?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote MC Deli:

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law -beatles

This awful article in the Grauniad could also do with addressing. Please comment.

---

I wish I could, but I'm banned from the Grauniad about 4 times over and long ago ran out of email addresses

As you note, it is full of egregious inaccuracy and wrongheadedness.

The new leglislation will actually enable the poor disabled folk musician to release his own recordings AND RETAIN THE COPYRIGHT IN THEM and in his PERFORMANCE ON THEM...
rather than try to flog his public domain copies of him (which any competitor could do instead) - plus, legally, he'd still have to pay for an MCPS audio product license to press copies of them...

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

I'm banned from the Grauniad about 4 times over

---

A splendid achievement deserving of public recognition! So the Guardian actually censors its readership? Well, well. Of course we have no means of censoring the Guardian, even when they knowingly publish falsehoods which they know, for various reasons, will go unchallenged and lead their gullible readerships' thoughts in populist misdirections. Personally I wouldn't use it to line a hamster cage, any more than I would use the Daily Mail. Not fair on rodents.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

lol I am basically "a Grauniad reader" (albeit online - i never buy print newspapers),
but it is clear to me that they regularly troll the own readership - publishing a never-ending stream of articles designed to morally outrage right-thinking liberal types across the land.

This of course violated their own Comment is Free rules. Curiously I never had much success in pursuing this line of reasoning with them...

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I think this is very unfair, Feline. I never even open your threads.

---

Oh, and you're an liar as well. Anything else?

---

Not sure why you don't believe me on this one. Perhaps this might come at quite a shock, but reading about your own personal lack of success in claiming extremely small amounts of money is actually not that interesting.

yes quite, and I'm sure the dozens of threads of mine which you haven't read, yet which curiously feature your trolling shite, are just a mass hallucination on rest of the forum users...

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

lol I am basically "a Grauniad reader" (albeit online - i never buy print newspapers),
but it is clear to me that they regularly troll the own readership - publishing a never-ending stream of articles designed to morally outrage right-thinking liberal types across the land.

This of course violated their own Comment is Free rules. Curiously I never had much success in pursuing this line of reasoning with them...

---

I ended up being a moderator on a newsgroup formed by CiF regulars for this reason. Amazingly I've never been banned, but I've been moderated many times . . .

--------------------
Gear List: reverse only.

Edited by Dave Gate (17/09/11 07:27 PM)

Quote feline1:

---

yes quite, and I'm sure the dozens of threads of mine which you haven't read, yet which curiously feature your trolling shite, are just a mass hallucination on rest of the forum users...

---

I have read some of your threads. This is why I don't open them anymore. I feel you have some kind of personal thing against me. You are perfectly entitled to snarl all you want if it makes you feel any better, but in the interests of forum clutter, please direct any spit and venom to my pm where it will be promptly ignored.

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat. A number of previous posts have talked about the Guardian, not least because it is running several pieces on this very topic and we are being invited to comment over there..

In a free country I'm entitled to contribute. In either forum.

Who made you chief censor round here? And why?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat. A number of previous posts have talked about the Guardian, not least because it is running several pieces on this very topic and we are being invited to comment over there..

In a free country I'm entitled to contribute. In either forum.

Who made you chief censor round here? And why?

---

Go Steve!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat.

---

Mods, I wonder if we could do something about the constant bad language? It's all rather uneccesary and perhaps those wishing to express themseleves so assertively (some might say aggressively) could find a more suitable platform elsewhere? I would also add that the above quote is offensive to those of a religious inclination.

It is unfortunate that some individuals seem to be ignoring Hugh's gentle warning given earlier in the thread:

"Gentle warning on a Friday afternoon chaps. Please re-read the forum rules, specifically rule 2. There's really no need for the personal abuse, regardless of the exasperation anyone might be feeling."

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat. A number of previous posts have talked about the Guardian, not least because it is running several pieces on this very topic and we are being invited to comment over there..

In a free country I'm entitled to contribute. In either forum.

Who made you chief censor round here? And why?

---

Like a moth to the flame Mr. Hill - I knew I could count on you

Welcome to the cheap seats Steve - how does it feel to be thinking the exact same thoughts we all had when you were waving your big stick around these parts, not so long ago? With just one post you've made the day of sooooooo many people out there who used to frequent these parts.

Ahhh - it's the little things in life that give the most pleasure, don't you find?

Edited by ex-reid (18/09/11 07:37 AM)

I must say, I do find it rather surprising that a former mod isn't familiar with the forum rules. Specifically rule 2.

At that, a former mod who used to be a lawyer - for 30 years!

Oh, the irony.

I think it may help at this point if I quote specifically rule 2 in order to head any further rule infringements 'off at the pass', so to speak:

"Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law."

I'm no expert on this but I would say the 'T' word could be associated with at least 4, possibly 5 of the above terms.

Fortunately, I know Hugh is very keen to uphold and maintain the high standards of the forum and such rule 2 digressions in the past have, quite rightly, been met with stern admonishment and even, in some cases, bannage. I hope this adherence to decent values can be maintained. After all, the integrity of the forum depends on a fair but trusty sword of truth and justice being wielded deftly yet ninja-like by those in the positions of power.

Quote Sue Dunnim:

---

I think it may help at this point if I quote specifically rule 2 in order to head any further rule infringements 'off at the pass', so to speak:

"Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law."

I'm no expert on this but I would say the 'T' word could be associated with at least 4, possibly 5 of the above terms.

---

What on earth is racist, abusive, hateful, obscene or even particularly sexually orientated about a word that is affectionately used to refer to the female genitalia in some regional dialects of the UK? Vulgar perhaps but not even that particularly. I mean about half the population have female genitalia. How can that be derogative? There seem to be some narrow horizons taking small pleasures where they can find them in this thread lately. Time we all grew up?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote Sue Dunnim:

---

I think it may help at this point if I quote specifically rule 2 in order to head any further rule infringements 'off at the pass', so to speak:

"Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law."

I'm no expert on this but I would say the 'T' word could be associated with at least 4, possibly 5 of the above terms.

---

What on earth is racist, abusive, hateful, obscene or even particularly sexually orientated about a word that is affectionately used to refer to the female genitalia in some regional dialects of the UK? Vulgar perhaps but not even that particularly. I mean about half the population have female genitalia. How can that be derogative? There seem to be some narrow horizons taking small pleasures where they can find them in this thread lately. Time we all grew up?

---

"What on earth is...sexually orientated about a word that is affectionately used to refer to the female genitalia..."

Perhaps I'm just not very bright, but you're going to have to explain that in a little more detail I think. On the face of it, your sentence makes no sense whatsoever and seems a tad contradictory. But perhaps you're making a more subtle point that hasn't yet registered with me? Or is this an example of the new form of post-modern irony that I know is very popular amongst some students at the moment?

Quote Frisonic:

---

I mean about half the population have female genitalia. How can that be derogative?

---

- actually, I'm not sure that the medical / technical word used to describe female genitalia is - Twat.

I think there are a number of comprising elements of the female reproductive system, Vagina, Cervix, Uterus etc ...
I don't think Twat is in there ...

Despite Hugh's request to show some restraint with the name calling it has continued. And as discussion about the original topic has run its course it seems a suitable time to draw a line.

And it's good to see that so many of you are familiarising yourselves with the forum rules.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.