[78-L] oBoo turning a blind eye to bootlegs?

[Steven C. Barr]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "eugene hayhoe" <jazzme48912 at yahoo.com>
> Frederic k Dannen's Hitmen is also an interesting read on the topic of 
> record companies and mobsters. Am also glad to see that maybe I'm not the 
> only one to read aurhors like Gary Webb, Jonathan Kwitney, Robert Perry, 
> Alex Cockburn and the like.
> Gene
> --- On Tue, 12/22/09, Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com> wrote:
> From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
> The fall into the same category as LP issues by non-successor companies
> of unissued sides and unissued alternate takes of, for example, Bix or
> Benny. If Columbia or Victor issues them, or perhaps Mossaic which has
> licensed them from the original company, that is one thing, but if any
> other company issues them for the first time from a collector's find of
> a test pressing, that is no different from a studio test of Ozzie
> Osborne or Kiss. Issued alternate takes are different. We're talking
> about unissued materials.
> Benny Goodman, a noted curmudgeon, is noted to have said that he
> disliked the issuing of unissued alternate takes because there must have
> been some reason for them to have been rejected in the first place. Of
> course, that is not true. In most cases it was a situation of having
> two or three takes but only one could be issued. They picked what was,
> perhaps, the overall best of the three, or perhaps one of three equally
> good takes but only one could be issued. Sometimes there was difference
> of opinion. Take one was better in this place, but take two was better
> in the other place. In the case of Benny Goodman, I bet the one where
> HIS solo was better would be issued even though in another take his solo
> was ordinary but someone else's was phenomenal.
> oBoo's policy is based on the RIAA's scheme of intermixing counterfeit,
> pirate, and bootleg issues into one category to confuse the consumer and
> the law officers. While they are at it, they also drag in promo and DJ
> copies. Prior to their campaign suing grandmothers without computers
> for downloading, the RIAA's theory was that counterfeit records were
> trafficed by the mob, and that they were also responsible for pirates
> and bootlegs. There is even a book about it "Stiffed: A True Story of
> MCA, the Music Business, and the Mafia" by William Knoedelseder. When
> you read it you find that the crimes really centered around CUT-OUTS,
> not bootlegs! Counterfeits were the second main problem, but pirates
> and bootlegs were minor league. Presumed members of the mob were
> dealing in million disc lots of MCA/Decca cut-outs, and companies like
> Roulette and Sugar Hill were dragged into it. This book reads like a
> comedy like "The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight" if it weren't so
> serious and so many lives unnecessarily ruined. It really was more like
> a bunch of small-time middle-aged show biz hangers-on who were out to
> make a fast buck on a tractor trailer load of old Brenda Lee and Jack
> Jones LPs, rather than deal in cocaine, fake purses, or Tommy Helfinger
> T-shirts.
> But the result was that the RIAA started convincing prosecuters that the
> guys making 50 copies of a concert recording or dub of a studio master
> reel were part of the Mafia feeding your kids with heroin (when really
> it was the CIA that was trafficing in it). They also like to scare the
> powers that be into believing your white-label DJ copies are illegal.
> But because they often give away "Not For Sale" promos to the GENERAL
> PUBLIC (look at the front cash register counters of record stores and
> you will often find some free CDs so marked) and because things they
> have sold things to the general public for $1.00 like the old
> Warner/Reprise Loss Leaders marked "Promo", they have lost the battle
> against selling promos in the secondary market whenever they are called
> on it.
> oBoo might be ignoring you because they are sick and tired of the RIAA's
> lies. I know I am. Only Ozzie Osborne and Kiss can prove that these LPs
> are unauthorized. How do you know that these were not issued by THEM?
> How do you know that they did not give a bunch away to friends? How do
> you know that they did not sell them at concerts? Unless you can prove
> that these specific items are unauthorized, they might be legal.
>
Well, down there in the US Of A, EVERY sound recording is protected
until (so far) January 1, 2068...so there are no such things as legally-
reissuable recordings!! Nor will there be for another 58 years!! However...
here in Canada (and in much of Europe), there exists a 50-year term (in
Canada, as of the end of the fiftieth year after initial "fixing!"), so 
there are
sound recordings which might still interest buyers which are already
"Public Domain!"

In all probability, however, the issue is actually THIS: (1) does the owner
of the copyright care enough to take the necessary legal action...and (2) is
that owner even aware that he/she/it controls the copyright on the
particular sound recording?

One will note that MANY of the reissue CD sets come from either
Canada or other foreign lands! Note that with literary copyrights,
ANY "reissue" MUST be within the legal p.d. definition for the
work in question; however, that does NOT appear to be the case
with sound recordings...?!

However, those of us who can survive until 1/1/2068 (unless that
date is extended...?!) can presumably expect a HUGE flood of
US-ian reissues,,,>!

Steven C. Barr