On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 07:04:37PM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Sami, problem is, it's not always illegal. It's *always* illegal to sell
bootlegs. It is illegal to make (in some countries, at least) and/or sell
copies of official/promo releases. But many bands allow taping and
trading.
While the record labels are truly evil, I don't think they have the
copyrights on the songs themselves, only on the recordings they
distribute. This means that the labels probably have most of the
rights on the albums, and probably very few on the concerts
themselves.
On 5/9/07, Kuno Woudt
2007/5/9, Rob Keeney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sure, this one:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/e991d3e4-4316-4445-a330-94bdc4d4845a.html
and
http://musicbrainz.org/release/d766bdf7-8de8-40d3-88ca-12f83ce192d8.html
These are not bootlegs in the normally understood sense of illegal or
illicit, but they
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
While the record labels are truly evil, I don't think they have the
copyrights on the songs themselves, only on the recordings they
distribute. This means that the labels probably have most of the
rights on the albums, and
2007/5/9, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sami, problem is, it's not always illegal. It's *always* illegal to sell
bootlegs.
I don't understand. You seem to be saying something and it's own opposite.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
___
On 5/9/07, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/5/9, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sami, problem is, it's not always illegal. It's *always* illegal to sell
bootlegs.
I don't understand. You seem to be saying something and it's own opposite.
What he's saying is that it may
2007/5/9, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 5/9/07, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/5/9, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sami, problem is, it's not always illegal. It's *always* illegal to
sell
bootlegs.
I don't understand. You seem to be saying something and
2007/5/9, Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 09/05/07, Rob Keeney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, this one:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/e991d3e4-4316-4445-a330-94bdc4d4845a.html
and
http://musicbrainz.org/release/d766bdf7-8de8-40d3-88ca-12f83ce192d8.html
These are not bootlegs in the
On 09/05/07, mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the publisher who owns the rights to the songs, the publisher may be
the record label, or the artist or a totally separate company.
Northern Songs is the publishing company that owns the rights to most
Beatles songs, ATV music then bought
On 5/9/07, Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/05/07, Rob Keeney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, this one:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/e991d3e4-4316-4445-a330-94bdc4d4845a.html
and
http://musicbrainz.org/release/d766bdf7-8de8-40d3-88ca-12f83ce192d8.html
These are not bootlegs in the
2007/5/9, mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's the publisher who owns the rights to the songs, the publisher may be
the record label, or the artist or a totally separate company.
[...]
they have total control over releases and licensing.
[...] A bootleg is
an unlicensed release.
I like that, and
2007/5/9, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2007/5/9, mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's the publisher who owns the rights to the songs, the publisher may
be
the record label, or the artist or a totally separate company.
[...]
they have total control over releases and licensing.
[...] A bootleg is
What does it mean in practice:
a.
using the dfinition as proposed below:
MB users cannot know if the label has all the right licences for the release
(we don't even know that for releases from majors).
As such it doesn't solve anything
b.
in use of the system for tagging
You need to label all
2007/5/9, P. HarryE. Coenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What does it mean in practice:
a.
using the dfinition as proposed below:
MB users cannot know if the label has all the right licences for the release
(we don't even know that for releases from majors).
As such it doesn't solve anything
Wrong.
Btw,
WE DO HAVE right now a ROIO status.
It's called I Don't Know in the release status drop down list.
Each release entering the system is a ROIO, unless set to something
more specific, and such a specific setting *should* be reviewed by
voters as well.
2007/5/9, P. HarryE. Coenen [EMAIL
Sami, problem is, it's not always illegal. It's *always* illegal to sell
bootlegs.
I don't understand. You seem to be saying something and it's own opposite.
Frederic,
You're confusion may be because you cut out the rest of my statement. It IS
illegal to sell them, and it's illegal to
What are these releases, though? Since debussy et al, don't have a
'record label' (their copyright has expired, i guess!), i assume
permissions/rights are sought from the orchestras performing. if they
have these rights, then it's official, if not then it's a bootleg.
Well, the symphonies I
2007/5/9, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...] A bootleg is an unlicensed release.
I'm all for a simple definition, but I think this definition leaves too much
still unclear.
You stripped the important part out of it.
For example, the way the pre-EU Italian bootleg CD companies
in
ReleaseStatus page has been transcluded. We can now edit the wiki page at will.
I'm working on the revised bootleg definition.
Feel free to go ahead with updating ReleaseStatus for your own
upcoming status.
If you need help with setting up sthing on the wiki / page whatever,
do ping me (or
The WikiPage ReleaseStatus is now transcluded (also needed for the
work on the upcoming release status).
I'll update the wiki page with what came out of this discussion, and
summarize things back here when I'll be done with that so we can move
forward to the next part of the question: what is
Jason Salaz wrote:
On 5/4/07, Chidade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So...
All latin (on the back of the CD)
All kanji and kana (on the CD's obi and inside the CD booklet)
A mix of kanji/kana and latin in other officially recognised places, like
the website
Which one of these should get
21 matches
Mail list logo
