If he had of, then surely he's have made a better job of it, and done a press release like the 69 represses.
I don't think there was a single person who didn't know 69 was going to be repressed. p -----Original Message----- From: quest pond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 May 2004 10:23 To: matrix313; Martin Dust; 313@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: (313) bad pressing alert Thanks everyone. How do we know Carl didn't re-release this copy then? Might be a silly question sorry, its just everyone is saying bootleg but i'm wondering. Quest -----Original Message----- From: matrix313 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 May 2004 19:03 To: Martin Dust; 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) bad pressing alert on 5/6/04 5:38 AM, Martin Dust at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Does anyone know what happens to the rights of defunct record lables like >> Buzz? Could Carl bootleg his own release? > > Carl still owns the rights, Buzz just licensed tracks... > > > Martin > exactly. Carl would not have to bootleg his own compilation. all licensing contracts state how long the licensing agreement will be in effect and what territories they cover. if you have your own label its best to maintain the rights to press in your own territory. in most cases the agreements are in effect for 60 months (five years) with the licensors rights and claims to the recordings expiring after that time. I've even seen some contracts for as little as 6 months :^) after the agreed upon time the artist/owner (licensee) is free to do with the master recordings what he or she wants in all territories (re-release, remix, re-license to someone else, bury in a landfill in Arizona). there are many other legal stipulations to licensing but I only mean to address why there is no need for Carl to bootleg this compilation. sean deason: contract killer
