[QUOTE] [b]John S Stuart wrote:[/b]
It is the parent company (EMI, Sony, Hollywood etc) who owns the material. Not the artist.Likewise my acetates say "property of EMI" not property of Brian May.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. EMI don't own the rights to ANY Queen sound recordings. A generic record company label slapped on an acetate means diddley squat.
Have you transferred the Trident Sound reels you bought via Amiga Auctions last month yet? :)
"I wanted a video expert who could work on some video restoration projects"
.... HAHA. Oh God.
You'd meet better video experts hiding out in Tibetan monasteries. Being able to hit 'Upload' does not a video maker make.
I shouldn't laugh though. How the hell did you make that mistake anyway??
"if I want to spend my hard earned cash on acetates, fast cars, drugs, alcohol or even hookers"
You rock, sir. \m/
No tax no royalty.
How is it possible to pay tax on something you haven't earned?
Royalty payments, in music, are of two types. Mechanical and publishing. Mechanical royalties are payed to an artist or band for each album sold. The amount is a percentage of what you pay over the counter. The percentage differs greatly from act to act. And the advance that is payed to a band/artist is repaid out of mechanical royalties. Publishing royalties are payed to the writers of songs, so as the old story goes, Freddie and Roger make more out of the single sales of Bo Rhap because they are the writers of the two songs on the single
Artists are taxed on their earnings, not directly on the sales of each album. EMI, Sony or whoever pay sales tax on everything they sell. As does any type of bussiness selling products.
To say that an artist pays tax on an album before he gets payed is crazy, what is that tax rate based on. . . .0% sales?
You can't compare George Michael's contract or court case with other artists. Everyones contract is slightly different. As for record companies being in ownership of music over the people who have recorded it, that is entirely accurate either. Michael Jackson bought ownership of the Beatles back catalogue. He owned it, not the record company. Frank Zappa owned his publishing rights, hence his songs have stayed in his families control and Queen are the same, they have ownership of their songs. Their deal gives them control over what Island can do at the end of the day. As for old acetates having property of EMI and not Brian May written on them. they were the company who payed for and released the albums and up until John Read became the bands manager Queen had a lot less control over their recordings.
V.H., please learn to spell. It's paid, not "payed".
The bottom line is that really the only people who know every bit of what happened are DRF and JSS (and the group).
A. I don't know why this has devolved into an argument over what IS ownership. It really doesn't matter. Unless you know for a fact that how they got the recordings was illicit you are making unsubstantiated accusations and thus unnecessarily clouding the situation.
B. With that being said, some hard working collectors have amassed a collection that people would love to hear. With what is being said I have no reason to doubt that they do want to leak the material as they have done over the past few years. Where would we be without those leaks? And how did those leaks happen? Over time and by collectors acquiring them...using other rare collectible tracks or what not at times.
C. Sure I would love a crack at getting all of the Fanthology stuff at once...BUT at the same time once it is out there - that's it. Once the hardest working collectors out there release all of their stuff - THAT'S IT. There will be little way to get any other stuff that hasn't quite made it out there yet. So I am certainly content to wait a bit - considering I'm doing nothing for the material (with that being said - the problem is that there's not much we can do to help and most of us would help if we could).
D. At the end - the real bottom line - if a promise was made during a trade not to publicly leak. The leak happened. It's wrong.
"A. I don't know why this has devolved into an argument over what IS ownership. It really doesn't matter. Unless you know for a fact that how they got the recordings was illicit you are making unsubstantiated accusations and thus unnecessarily clouding the situation."
Because unfortunately, as one of my friends pointed out, people LOVE to sensationalize things here (I think in the name of self-serving convenience, whatever that may be). Hence why this place tends to earn it's unofficial label "MOANzone"
"B. With that being said, some hard working collectors have amassed a collection that people would love to hear. With what is being said I have no reason to doubt that they do want to leak the material as they have done over the past few years"
PRECISELY. Me and Brian's Wig have been trying to clarify this from the beginning, the intent of the group WAS to put out the rarities that have only seen dim cellar lights so far. Why the hell would a group get together otherwise to amass their collection and filter out the higher-generation duplicates in order to bring out the best quality material! Surely, that would defeat the purpose of trading??
"D. At the end - the real bottom line - if a promise was made during a trade not to publicly leak. The leak happened. It's wrong"
Bingo! This is the CORE issue at hand, NOT the far-away tangent that was the separate issue of bootleg sources and morals!
JSS your comments were not generic. You named artists, songs, albums record companies and a court case to illustrate your point.
You however chose not to present a broader view, and indeed with regard to the fact that their are artists, Queen included who do have ownership of their songs. Licensing songs to EMI or Sony does not give them ownership.
As far as me going back and changing past posts. Please read the 17th post on page 9 of this thread.
Again I will explain. I did not accuse you of stealing any of the records, Cd's DVD or what ever you have. What I said was that the contents of these items could easily be viewed as stolen material, because if certain tracks were not released then no royalty has been paid for them, and the reason they are collectable is because they were never released. If that's the case I stand by what I've said, that the contents of some of the mediums you have amount to stolen music. If that's not the case, and all you have in your collection is rare hard to obtain official releases then I apologize.
