Re: [KLF] Back to boots, back to legality
However, is anyone who sells ORIGINAL copies of "1987" on LP and cassette break the law too? Can Abba's lawyers nab you for selling an original "1987" now, with the illegal samples on it?
I would think so, since they were ordered to destory all copies including the master tapes, but it really depends. Would be interesting to see the legal decision on this tho. To what degree were they expected to recall copies. Did the courts say "all remaining unsold copies" or was a proper recall advised in which case owners had to turn their copies in? As far as semi-official discs. Some retailers do get duped into selling boots as legal product (ie finding Space at HMV a couple years back). Some knowingly sell them (one place told me I was buying an "import" and was therefore not returnable. "I know what it is" I told him and he nodded and went on with the sale). As for the Beatle interview discs, these aren't copyright material from Apple, et al so are legal to sell. Technically public domain stuff. -paul
On 11 Oct 2004, at 15:05, TheMgnt@aol.com wrote:
However, is anyone who sells ORIGINAL copies of "1987" on LP and cassette break the law too? Can Abba's lawyers nab you for selling an original "1987" now, with the illegal samples on it? I would think so, since they were ordered to destory all copies including the master tapes, but it really depends. Would be interesting to see the legal decision on this tho. To what degree were they expected to recall copies. Did the courts say "all remaining unsold copies" or was a proper recall advised in which case owners had to turn their copies in?
the original FAQ says "The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society got in touch with the JAMs and ordered the masters and all copies destroyed, and all copies in the shops recalled" and i don't remember ever hearing about owners being asked to return their copies. -- --- "I never, never, never wanted any more Something better change, something better change Don't wanna feel like this Don't wanna work like this We're making life so leavers can't I'm going to be free" - "Hip Hop Metal" - Utah Saints
Isn't that how Bill & Jimmy got round it, by buying 5 (or more!) copies from second-hand record shops and then selling them at a grand a piece via an advert in the Face magazine? i.e. the court decision didn't take into account second-hand copies, so Bill & Jimmy took advantage of that loophole! I think they sold 7, btw? L8rs, Nick ;-)
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of jai
On 11 Oct 2004, at 15:05, TheMgnt@aol.com wrote:
However, is anyone who sells ORIGINAL copies of "1987" on LP and cassette break the law too? Can Abba's lawyers nab you for selling an original "1987" now, with the illegal samples on it? I would think so, since they were ordered to destory all copies including the master tapes, but it really depends. Would be interesting to see the legal decision on this tho. To what degree were they expected to recall copies. Did the courts say "all remaining unsold copies" or was a proper recall advised in which case owners had to turn their copies in?
the original FAQ says "The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society got in touch with the JAMs and ordered the masters and all copies destroyed, and all copies in the shops recalled" and i don't remember ever hearing about owners being asked to return their copies.
Nick King wrote:
Isn't that how Bill & Jimmy got round it, by buying 5 (or more!) copies from second-hand record shops and then selling them at a grand a piece via an advert in the Face magazine?
i.e. the court decision didn't take into account second-hand copies, so Bill & Jimmy took advantage of that loophole!
I think they sold 7, btw?
Firstly, there wasn't a court decision, it was an out of court settlement. Secondly I don't think there is a loophole that second hand copies are OK - I would say that all copies were to be destroyed and that consequently the Face advert was illegal too. I would have thought that the price in the UKP 1000 Face advert was not to be taken seriously and was intended to add to the myth, and that they may have sold many more than 5 as a result, many of them for much less than 1000, however they still may not have managed to recoup the cost of the Face advert. I have never seen any sources that mention how many they sold, or a journo questioning them about how the Face ad could possibly be legal, but I'm prepared to be wrong on that one :-) cheers -- Stuart Young, Michelle Ardern & Felix Ardern-Young (3) Live at: 42B, Sefton Ave, Grey Lynn, Auckland, NZ Phone: +64 (0)9 376 8100 say.map@ihug.co.nz Graphic and Web design, Web development and hosting: http://www.pixelandgrain.co.nz/ Stuey's personal website - a cobweb site: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~stuey/ Any views expressed in this email are those of the author and not of any of the organisations we are involved with.
Hmmm... I'm sure I've read the "they sold seven copies" story before, but I'm buggered as to where! However, the KLF Info Sheet 2 states (http://www.klf.de/online/articles/infosheets/2.htm): "The Face Add? We sold 3 of the 5 L.P.s we were selling for a $1,000 each, it went some way to paying off our creditors, we gave one away as a prize. We have one left, the price just keeps going up. But I'm sure I've read an interview somewhere that states they sold 7 copies (the Select fold-out poster, perhaps?), and another with Bill explaining how they managed to get away selling copies in The Face... L8rs, Nick ;-)
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Stuey and Michelle
Nick King wrote:
Isn't that how Bill & Jimmy got round it, by buying 5 (or more!) copies from second-hand record shops and then selling them at a grand a piece via an advert in the Face magazine?
i.e. the court decision didn't take into account second-hand copies, so Bill & Jimmy took advantage of that loophole!
I think they sold 7, btw?
Firstly, there wasn't a court decision, it was an out of court settlement.
Secondly I don't think there is a loophole that second hand copies are OK - I would say that all copies were to be destroyed and that consequently the Face advert was illegal too.
I would have thought that the price in the UKP 1000 Face advert was not to be taken seriously and was intended to add to the myth, and that they may have sold many more than 5 as a result, many of them for much less than 1000, however they still may not have managed to recoup the cost of the Face advert.
I have never seen any sources that mention how many they sold, or a journo questioning them about how the Face ad could possibly be legal, but I'm prepared to be wrong on that one :-)
cheers
--
Stuart Young, Michelle Ardern & Felix Ardern-Young (3)
I'm only guessing here, but I don't think the lawyers could legally insist people returned the records that had already been sold (also, it would be practically impossible to do this - could you imagine them saying "okay, who's got the remaining 323 out there?") Also, I think the copyright infringement only covers public broadcasting of the records - in the same way that anyone can put together a compilation/remix/bootleg and listen to it on their own - they're only breaking copyright law if they play it to someone else and/or they try to sell it on. I think there is also a gap - as someone pointed out - whereby if you really do give the item away for free, that's allowed. It's a really messy area of the law and I guess theoretically that offering effectively banned records for sale (even second-hand ones via an auction) is probably contravening one of the subclauses in the Copyright Act. However, I don't think any lawyer would find it worth their while to take legal action against a person - at the end of the day there would be massive legal costs and you could simply turn round and say "oh, sorry - I didn't know it was banned" and give it them back. Okay, you'd be 60-90 quid down but they'd have costs in the hundreds... I have a friend who deals with music royalties - I'll ask her next time I see her.
participants (5)
-
Chris Peel -
jai -
Nick King -
Stuey and Michelle -
TheMgnt＠aol.com