> [...] A bootleg is> an unlicensed release. You stripped the important part out of it.
My apologies, it was unintentional. That's the definition as I saw it repeated in the last few digests where it was quoted, my apologies if there was something else snipped out. It might be useful, so we're all on the same page, if you wouldn't mind re-posting in your proposed definition.
The right owner (eg: publisher) didn't gave them a license to issue the
stuff => bootleg.
It's not a law question, nothing to do with legal/illegal, right?
Well, that's what I was trying to point out. At certain times, various countries have become the focus for where bootleg companies base themselves, because the local laws via some loophole grant the company a, for lack of better word, "self-licensing" capability, as long as certain specific rules are followed (hence my previous example from Italy.) For a while it was Italy, then Australia, now my understanding is that many (including Kiss the Stone) have relocated to San Marino, due to favorable local laws regarding bootlegs, licensing, and legality regarding production/sale.
There was a similar loophole in Australian laws in the 1990's - I'm not clear on the details, but it involved a requirement that "unauthorized" be prominent on the liner art.
Same here: if you ask the publisher, he will tell you these are not properly licensed, end of the story. You missed the whole point of the definition I guess (unless I did :p).
I think it's the "proper licensing" part which gets to the point of what I was trying to say. Local laws and loopholes may make it possible for a bootleg company to be properly licensed, at least under the laws in that country. Perhaps changing "unlicensed release" in your definition to "release not licensed by the band or the authority that handles licensing for the band"? This would preclude those situations where a bootleg company is legally licensed, but that license is not derived from the band or the agency handling the licensing for that band.
Also, what about bands who grant permission to tape, but don't actually
own
the rights to their works?
Sticking with the proposed definition: either the release received a
license from the rights owners, either not. I don't see a problem
here. Am I misunderstanding your question?
Here I'm thinking more with regards to ASCAP/BMI issues, where a band may give permission to tape, but then perform a cover song for which the band has not paid ASCAP or BMI performance or release fees. By performing a unlicensed work, does that revoke any authorization granted (at least for that one song) regarding taping (ie: release)? Brian
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
