For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
retired_dog
It's not really complicated, it only gets complicated because people mix up songwriter's copyrights (including first release rights) with neighboring copyrights (performers, record companies) all the time - despite the fact that it all has been discussed here again and again in the past.
Only the latter (neighboring copyrights of performers, record companies) expire if they are not legally released within a period of 50 years in the EU, counting from the end of the year the actual recording of a performance took place. This does not affect the songwriter's copyrights because they usually expire 70 years after their death(s).
That means that while the recording of say, Rolling Stones in Paris 1965 is already in the public domain, if one actually uses it for a CD or vinyl release, one still has to pay mechanical royalties to the songwriters who can't block such a release, but still need to get paid.
This basically also works for studio outtakes of previously released songs, but not for previously unreleased songs like Curtis Meets Smokey or She's Doing Her Thing because while the recordings are in the public domain, the songwriting copyrights aren't, and songwriters can still use their first publication right to effectively block them from release.
Quote
timbernardis
Italian seller? I "pre-ordered" one from the second batch that is supposed to be coming in in 2-3 weeks, but the seller is from Stockholm.
Quote
shadooby
So, if from Italian seller it's not the real deal? Call me stupid but those graphs look identical to me, there should be a huge difference in dynamic range between 320 and 160. Maybe they were mastered at different (lower or higher) levels as most cd's are
Quote
MathijsQuote
retired_dog
It's not really complicated, it only gets complicated because people mix up songwriter's copyrights (including first release rights) with neighboring copyrights (performers, record companies) all the time - despite the fact that it all has been discussed here again and again in the past.
Only the latter (neighboring copyrights of performers, record companies) expire if they are not legally released within a period of 50 years in the EU, counting from the end of the year the actual recording of a performance took place. This does not affect the songwriter's copyrights because they usually expire 70 years after their death(s).
That means that while the recording of say, Rolling Stones in Paris 1965 is already in the public domain, if one actually uses it for a CD or vinyl release, one still has to pay mechanical royalties to the songwriters who can't block such a release, but still need to get paid.
This basically also works for studio outtakes of previously released songs, but not for previously unreleased songs like Curtis Meets Smokey or She's Doing Her Thing because while the recordings are in the public domain, the songwriting copyrights aren't, and songwriters can still use their first publication right to effectively block them from release.
If 100's of sharp dressed lawyers can make a living out of this matter I call it 'complicated'.
Question though -your example of the 1965 Paris show: who has the publishing rights? You would expect hundreds of 'official' releases from 1960's artists, but that is not happening. In fact, try to release something I consider to be in the open domain by Jimi Hendrix or The Beatles and you will be prosecuted the next day.
Mathijs
Quote
Massimo68Quote
shadooby
So, if from Italian seller it's not the real deal? Call me stupid but those graphs look identical to me, there should be a huge difference in dynamic range between 320 and 160. Maybe they were mastered at different (lower or higher) levels as most cd's are
Graph are identicals because the source is the same : 128 kbps mp3.
You can convert the files to 320 kbps mp3, flac CD quality, or flac HD 24 bits 96 kHz, the graph 'll be still the same.
Frequencies over 16 kHz are definitively lost because the files were encoded at some point (before the bootleggers got them) in 128 kbps mp3.
We can't compare with the original files, but many high frequencies are now missing in this wonderful leak.
If one day we get the lossless files, the difference 'll be clearly perceptible for everyone.
128 kbps mp3 is very lossy.
Quote
floodonthepage
Wow, this has been quite a thread. I've learned some things, been confused by some things and shook my head at A LOT of things, but ultimately...I hope to finish this collection this weekend. I've gotten through 2 1/2 discs worth so far. I burned the initial offering of mp3s to CDRs and then burned the "FLACs" that were later offered, though they sound to me like they are the same quality...which seems to have been confirmed by the reports that these "FLACs" aren't actually FLACs after all.....but whatever they are.....these sound AMAZING! I too remember listening to countless hours of hissy outtake bootlegs over the decades, and indeed paying $75-100 for a collection such as this (boxes like "Performances", "Hot Stuff Vol.2 - In Studio", etc.) and now you can get this stuff for free AND it sounds this good?? Holy hell, how great is that! Even as mp3s I'm in hog heaven.
P.S., I'm still the weirdo (I suppose) who thinks that "Nobody's Perfect" could be from later than '85, seems too clean for the Dirty Work seesions, maybe even a track from the Licks sessions...the production seems very "Keys to Your Love"-ish to me. But that's another story
Quote
bv
The following link has been added to the first post of this thread, as a reference:
Ideas about the sources of the new outtakes collection (Hot Stuff Thread)
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
floodonthepage
Wow, this has been quite a thread. I've learned some things, been confused by some things and shook my head at A LOT of things, but ultimately...I hope to finish this collection this weekend. I've gotten through 2 1/2 discs worth so far. I burned the initial offering of mp3s to CDRs and then burned the "FLACs" that were later offered, though they sound to me like they are the same quality...which seems to have been confirmed by the reports that these "FLACs" aren't actually FLACs after all.....but whatever they are.....these sound AMAZING! I too remember listening to countless hours of hissy outtake bootlegs over the decades, and indeed paying $75-100 for a collection such as this (boxes like "Performances", "Hot Stuff Vol.2 - In Studio", etc.) and now you can get this stuff for free AND it sounds this good?? Holy hell, how great is that! Even as mp3s I'm in hog heaven.
P.S., I'm still the weirdo (I suppose) who thinks that "Nobody's Perfect" could be from later than '85, seems too clean for the Dirty Work seesions, maybe even a track from the Licks sessions...the production seems very "Keys to Your Love"-ish to me. But that's another story
The vocals on Nobody's Perfect are obviously from the 2000s. The guitars sound like 1977-79 to me.
Quote
gotdablouse
Andbon NP Mick sounds exactly like he did on Primitive Cool so...each to their own I suppose ;-)
Quote
monkberry00Quote
DandelionPowderman
The vocals on Nobody's Perfect are obviously from the 2000s. The guitars sound like 1977-79 to me.
You may have a lot of guitar strings but you don't have a clue about the music, you never did.