Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Jim Lesurf <jcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:07:58 +0100
In article <dhja7b$8hn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Iain M Churches
<tael@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Jim Lesurf" <jcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4db26c929bjcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > There is a distinction to be made between "giving away" copies of your
> > *own* work, and "giving away" the work of others.
> But even worse is to sell the work of others.
I would agree, although in either case, the creators of the work will have
been disadvantaged, and that would be the main concern for me. (Speaking as
an occasional author.)
> > If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow people
> > access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to pay if they
> > want a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you are not entitled
> > to decide on their behalf that they wish to work for nothing.
> Even if the work is yours, usually the number of complementary copies
> available to you is normally stipulated in the contract.
This would depend on any contract or agreements you had entered into
regarding the work. By saying the "work is yours" I was meaning the
copyrights remained with the creator. When I sign a book or article
copyright agreement I now longer have all the rights.
> >
> > [1] In my case, particularly annoying that EMI kept many Barbirolli
> > recordings 'out of print' for decades.
> Yes, that is difficult to understand. It is not as if the demand was
> not there. Such recordings have steady sales over a large number of
> years, so one would think it would be to the advantage of the record
> company to get them released a.s.a.p I wonder if there was some other
> reason.
In this case, there are reasons to think that there were. Various people
found over some years that there were a few individuals inside EMI who were
specifically reluctant to re-release Barbirolli recordings. Various reasons
have been suggested for this, but those involved were unwilling to say.
Society members who had relevant contacts were reluctant at that time to
publically criticise EMI for fear this would aggrivate the situation...
:-/
It may have grown out of the way Barbirolli and the Halle were sometimes
seen as 'second rank' with Boult and London Orchestras being 'first rank'
in terms of what works they were sheduled to perform and release, etc. This
may have developed into EMI re-issuing and promoting Boult (and other)
recordings and avoiding Barbirolli re-issues as being unwanted 'internal
competition' in terms of sales and promotion effort.
Whatever the reasons, the effect was clear if you were to note the dates
and frequencies of re-issues during, say, the first decade of CD
production, and compare 'competing' versions of various works recorded by
EMI.
In the end, there was a steady growth in interest in Barbirolli and the
Halle as a result of the Society re-issuing CDs with the help of Mike
Dutton and others. (I hope my website helped a bit with this, but can't be
sure.) The proven demand probably eventually helped encourage EMI to do
their own-label re-issues in due course. Pleased to say that a large amount
of the back catalogue has been available - in some cases in really
excellent versions that are clearer to enjoy than the old LPs!
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Audio Innovations silver speaker cable
- Next by Date: Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- Previous by thread: Re: Audio Innovations silver speaker cable
- Next by thread: Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
