2007/5/11, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On a bit of a tangent, but sparked by this conversation; My ideal
situation would be to allow a multiple choice out of the current
release status and types. I think I've said this before too, but I
can see a 'live official spoken word' recording being
2007/5/11, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Publisher license has nothing to do with local laws.
It normally doesn't. My point was that at certain times, local laws have
granted a "publisher license" without requiring authorization from the
publishing license rightsholder. If we're going
In general, I agree with the consensus that seems to be developing. Off
topic, I too would love to see the more specific classification that was
mentioned.
You still miss the point. :(
We are not talking about "legality" anymore, I don't know why you
insist on that: the "does the law of country
2007/5/11, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [...] 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 som
On 5/11/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/5/11, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My conclusion would be to actually do as Olivier said and rename the
> status to "unofficial".
What I didn't like in Olivier's original proposition was a purely semantic
issue: something must
2007/5/11, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
My conclusion would be to actually do as Olivier said and rename the
status to "unofficial".
What I didn't like in Olivier's original proposition was a purely semantic
issue: something must be either Official or Unofficial, where does that
leave Prom
On 5/11/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, I am still unsure. Here are the important definitions that were
proposed during this thread (did I miss one?)
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:21:54 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
> Any release that was not legally sanctioned by the rights holder,
> which
> [...] 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'r
It works for the releases I'm likely to enter from ReDiscovery. I like it.
Rob..
On 5/10/07, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/10/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lauri: a not legally sanctioned release.
> Mudcrow: a release that was not sanctioned by the publisher.
>
On 5/10/07, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lauri: a not legally sanctioned release.
Mudcrow: a release that was not sanctioned by the publisher.
Bogdan: a recording that was made without the cooperation of the artist.
Both the "Lauri definition" and the "Mudcrow definition" could describe
Hmm, I am still unsure. Here are the important definitions that were
proposed during this thread (did I miss one?)
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:21:54 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
Any release that was not legally sanctioned by the rights holder,
which is normally, but not always, the artist and/or thei
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 th
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
On 09/05/07, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] A bootleg is> an unlicensed release.
I'm all for a simple definition, but I think this definition leaves too much
still unclear. For example, the way the pre-EU Italian bootleg CD companies
in the 1980's and 1990's, like Kiss the
[...] A bootleg is> an unlicensed release.
I'm all for a simple definition, but I think this definition leaves too much
still unclear. For example, the way the pre-EU Italian bootleg CD companies
in the 1980's and 1990's, like Kiss the Stone, were allowed to be so public
was that Italian law (a
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,
You're confusion may be because you cut out the rest of my statement
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 used
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 pirat
a, andmay forget that a lot
of users couldn't care less about that work, as long as they can tag their
favorites.
Cheers
Harry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: 09 May 2007 13:54
To: MusicBrainz st
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.
W
t that work, as long as they can tag their
favorites.
Cheers
Harry
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: 09 May 2007 13:54
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Bad Terminology: bootleg
2007/5/9, Olivier <
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 b
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, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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 t
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 Nor
icBrainz style discussion"
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Bad Terminology: bootleg
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:14:35 +0200
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 la
On 5/9/07, Kuno Woudt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 probabl
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 someth
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
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
___
Musicbrainz-s
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 prob
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 <[EMAI
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.
This is of course just my opinion, but I think it's just another attempt
to dampen the fact that they are actually dealing with illegal copies of
music. It's easier to throw your hands in the air and claim ignorance.
Sami, problem is, it's not always illegal. It's *always* illegal to sell
boo
I'm sorry, I didn't follow the entire thread from the beginning, so I
apologize if this was mentioned before.
Unless I'm mistaken, the original meaning of the word bootleg when
applied to music is "unofficial recording" of a show. That is, the
show was recorded without the cooperation of the band
So what term would we then use to describe an unofficial release that is not
illegal (or, whose legality is questionable). I have used Bootleg to
describe several 'releases' I added from the ReDiscovery catalog (
http://www.rediscovery.us/ ). Their claim of legal status due to the
copyright laws i
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 09:21:25PM +0200, Don Redman wrote:
> "Bootleg" is a term that describes the status of a *recording*. It
> The term says *nothing* about the legality of the distributed medium.
> For example IIRC there are some reocdings of Jimi Hendrix' concerts
> which are now legall
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 08:08:16AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> Well, just to throw it out there, one term which has begun to be used
> more frequently these days is ROIO. I think it began with the Pink
> Floyd collectors, but this same type of discussion has led others to
> use it. It stand
2007/5/8, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> suggestion: let's get rid of bootleg and use in it's place some word
> which
> will not have such problems. This new word could be a MB neologism,
> which
> would avoid any discussion and most misunderstandings. But if we choose
> a
> common wor
suggestion: let's get rid of bootleg and use in it's place some word which
will not have such problems. This new word could be a MB neologism, which
would avoid any discussion and most misunderstandings. But if we choose a
common word, it should could not cause users to enter bad data because
th
2007/5/8, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Bootleg" is a term that describes the status of a *recording*. It
> describes a recording which was made without the rightsholder's
> permission. The rightsholder is usually either the artist or the record
> company, that the artist has an excl
"Bootleg" is a term that describes the status of a *recording*. It
describes a recording which was made without the rightsholder's
permission. The rightsholder is usually either the artist or the record
company, that the artist has an exclusive contract with.
The "fan recordings" could al
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:09:03 +0200, Sami Sundell wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 07:59:55AM +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
I honestly don't understand the wikipedia article's point of view.
For once, I do, at least in some respects :P
Ok, I'll give it a try (this is DonRedman's definition, not W
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 07:59:55AM +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
> I honestly don't understand the wikipedia article's point of view.
For once, I do, at least in some respects :P
> The word is not, and has never, been used solely for the purpose it
> states, that's just one of the uses for it.
I my
On 5/2/07, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/5/1, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:21:54 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
> > A bootleg is illegal. Always.
> > Every time.
Obviously not the opinion of the wikipedia article I linked to in the
first message of this thread...
2007/5/1, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:21:54 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
> A bootleg is illegal. Always.
> Every time.
Obviously not the opinion of the wikipedia article I linked to in the
first message of this thread...
> Any release that was not legally sanctioned by
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:21:54 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
As was pointed out last time this argument came up, the thing missing
in our definition is legality. It's not a matter of sanctioned or
not, it's a matter of legal licensing. A bootleg is illegal. Always.
Every time. Anything that's legal
On 4/27/07, Locustus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The current status for Bootlegs is "not sanctioned by the artist and/or the
record company" but this isn't the covering the situation where only *one*
of them (most likely the record company) is involved. To make this more
This also touches on t
The current status for Bootlegs is "not sanctioned by the artist and/or the
record company" but this isn't the covering the situation where only *one*
of them (most likely the record company) is involved. To make this more
concrete I mention here my surprise of Vangelis' older releases "Hypothesis
2007/4/27, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:11:00 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2007/4/27, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I think you are not getting his point.
>>
>> Bootleg *means* someting and MB has been using the term for a lot of
>> stuff
>> that means no
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:11:00 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2007/4/27, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I think you are not getting his point.
Bootleg *means* someting and MB has been using the term for a lot of
stuff
that means nothing. Thus our formal and very broad definition.
I am n
2007/4/27, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I think you are not getting his point.
Bootleg *means* someting and MB has been using the term for a lot of stuff
that means nothing. Thus our formal and very broad definition.
I am not sure whether removing a meaningful entry of the status' list is a
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:33:28 +0200, Olivier wrote:
2007/4/26, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well, as I mention in my note on the LiveBootlegStyle proposal wiki
page, we
have several classes of bootlegs that are left undefined under current
bootleg definitions.
No. Our current "bootl
2007/4/26, mud crow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm not keen on unofficial, I feel it's more vague than bootleg.
A bootleg is an unlicensed release. A unsanctioned or unofficial release
could well be licensed but the artist does not control the licensing, so has
little or no say in how tracks are relea
I'm not keen on unofficial, I feel it's more vague than bootleg.
A bootleg is an unlicensed release. A unsanctioned or unofficial release
could well be licensed but the artist does not control the licensing, so has
little or no say in how tracks are released.
I see a lot of "Best of" compilat
2007/4/26, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 25/04/07, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/4/25, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > i agree. however i think it must be made clear that, although not
> > 'commercial' releases, things like demos and promos are not
> > 'unofficial' in their origina
On 25/04/07, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/4/25, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> i agree. however i think it must be made clear that, although not
> 'commercial' releases, things like demos and promos are not
> 'unofficial' in their original forms, despite not necessarily being a
> usual
2007/4/26, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well, as I mention in my note on the LiveBootlegStyle proposal wiki page, we
have several classes of bootlegs that are left undefined under current
bootleg definitions.
No. Our current "bootleg" definition is exactly equivalent to
"unofficial". I
Well, as I mention in my note on the LiveBootlegStyle proposal wiki page, we
have several classes of bootlegs that are left undefined under current
bootleg definitions.
On http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ReleaseStatus :
Definition of a bootleg: "This includes unofficial live recordings,
pirated relea
On 4/25/07, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i agree. however i think it must be made clear that, although not
'commercial' releases, things like demos and promos are not
'unofficial' in their original forms, despite not necessarily being a
usual part of an artist's discography.
Like ReleaseS
2007/4/25, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
i agree. however i think it must be made clear that, although not
'commercial' releases, things like demos and promos are not
'unofficial' in their original forms, despite not necessarily being a
usual part of an artist's discography.
"Promos" should sti
i agree. however i think it must be made clear that, although not
'commercial' releases, things like demos and promos are not
'unofficial' in their original forms, despite not necessarily being a
usual part of an artist's discography.
On 25/04/07, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
Our
Hi all,
Our definition of bootleg [1] as a release status is IMHO bad
terminology, and is:
- at least, an incorrect use of the word in its common meaning [2].
- or even in complete contradiction with it [3]
This is not only about accuracy, but about the problems this is causing:
- unclear field
63 matches
Mail list logo
