Very interesting. I'm not sure I understand the legalese, though. Does that just mean Victor Willis (or whoever) can give notice that their label/song publisher can no longer sell their records or profit from their songs and that the musician gets his master recordings, rights to sell/license/etc. back?
― some dude, Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's what it seems like to me. because it can be hard to determine the value of a work/recording at the time, this gives artists/musicians a chance to regain control and enter into new/more lucrative ventures with their works.
― call all destroyer, Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost -- As I understand it, pretty much, though there's doubtless more I'm missing -- a lot of it comes down to the validity of the work for hire argument as well being advanced by the companies. The Eagles, especially Don Henley, are also champing at the bit on this one.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
available exclusively on classicrockdudes.com
― yo just a couple (Matt P), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
keeping my fingers crossed for a giant shitshow
― yo just a couple (Matt P), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
An NYT post that sets things clearer:
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 May 2012 21:00 (1 year ago) Permalink