12.04
Bredonborough.
The morning: dealing with the Lakeshore dispute.
What does the traffic of Bredonborough care for dissension in the music industry?...
Not a jot…
It just goes on its way, as if the D words all added together came to nil…
16.05 A post-lunch walk down the garden with the Minx I…
II...
III...
IV...
V...
VI...
The afternoon: addressing the Apple i-Tunes dispute. So, another day of continuing angst, aggravation & words beginning with both A & D this time.
What is the Lakeshore Dispute, referred to in this Diary on several recent days & only one of the several dissensions that have been attracting my attention since October 2007? This particular D refers to the downloading of Moonchild (from In The Court of The Crimson King) being made available for as part of the soundtrack album to Buffalo 66. My contention is that the track was licensed for hard-copy product release, and not download. Lakeshore’s LA lawyer argues differently, and has challenged me to provide proof of copyright ownership.
In my letter to Mr. Lakeshore Lawyer of this morning I have done so, and also this…
I accept that you are making your claim on behalf of Lakeshore in good faith. However, I do not believe that you will be able to substantiate the claim to download rights.
The licensing-sequence is this:
RF > EMI > Muse > Will Records LLC > Lakeshore.
For Lakeshore to have the rights you claim on their behalf, you need to demonstrate that:
1a. RF granted (inter alia) download rights to EMI;
1b. EMI had download rights, with and/or without RF’s permission;
2. EMI granted download rights to Muse;
3. Muse granted download rights to Will Records LLC;
4. Lakeshore acquired download rights from Will Records.
You may have gathered that I take an active and hands-on role in the granting of KC licenses, including where only 121 downloads are involved. But even were I not involved in the licensing agreement with Virgin in respect of the disputed track, you would have to demonstrate that:
1. EMI granted bona fide download rights to Muse;
2. Mute granted bona fide download rights to Will Records LLC;
3. Lakeshore acquired bona fide download rights from Will Records.
I do not believe you will be able to do so, although I accept you may be able to show paperwork where:
1. Muse granted download rights to Will Records LLC;
2. Lakeshore acquired download rights from Will Records.
I suggest that you will not be able to provide evidence of bona fide download rights from Virgin to Muse, a point I will return to below...
Muse would only have been able to grant the right to exploit the soundtrack album "by any method, whether utilizing technology now known or hereafter devised” if they themselves were granted a bona fide right to do so by Virgin…
The license to Muse originated in the UK in 1998 and my distributor Declan Colgan was involved in the discussions. If I recall correctly, Vincent Gallo (a star of Buffalo 66 and an enthusiast for In The Court Of The Crimson King) approached me directly regarding granting the license for Moonchild. I agreed to the track being included in the soundtrack album and it was therefore “recompiled” with my permission - for physical product. Download rights were not part of my discussion.
I note in addition that it was standard policy within Virgin, certainly by 1998, to carefully check license requests for applicants attempting to include (ie sneak in) digital rights. These were routinely refused, probably because Virgin were holding open options to launch / participate in their own downloading vehicle (a function that Apple eventually created in i-Tunes).
I think it likely that the rights granted by Muse to Will Records were improperly conferred because:
i) Someone at Virgin mistakenly granted Muse download rights in 1998;
ii) Someone at Muse didn’t read the license properly and granted the presumed rights to Will in error; and / or…
ii) The license was granted in the USA where licenses "by any method, whether utilizing technology now known or hereafter devised" are more commonplace than in the UK; and consequently download rights were mistakenly granted in this case also.
… Proposal: if you are able to produce the original 1998 UK agreement where Virgin (in my view, mistakenly) granted download rights to Muse, I am prepared to withdraw my objection in this specific case...
If you are not able to do so, and I believe it unlikely that the original agreement between Virgin & Muse allowed for more than physical product, well… it’s only 121 downloads anyway.
Over to you.
What does this have to do with disputation involving Apple i-Tunes, the dear & most-welcome innocent DGM Diary visitors might clamorate in enquiry? More on that in the near-future Diary.
And what’s the future-good news? Steven Wilson is at Wilson World HQ mixing ITCOTCK in 5.1 & has reported the discovery of several outtakes.
It’s a beautiful day.
Back to dissension with Apple i-Tunes…
20.12 A walk around the town with the Minx, and a first: a pint of cider in the newly-refurbished Angel & Trumpet hostelry for the discerning.
Dribble.
Bredonborough.
The morning: dealing with the Lakeshore dispute.
What does the traffic of Bredonborough care for dissension in the music industry?...
Not a jot…
It just goes on its way, as if the D words all added together came to nil…
16.05 A post-lunch walk down the garden with the Minx I…
II...
III...
IV...
V...
VI...
The afternoon: addressing the Apple i-Tunes dispute. So, another day of continuing angst, aggravation & words beginning with both A & D this time.
What is the Lakeshore Dispute, referred to in this Diary on several recent days & only one of the several dissensions that have been attracting my attention since October 2007? This particular D refers to the downloading of Moonchild (from In The Court of The Crimson King) being made available for as part of the soundtrack album to Buffalo 66. My contention is that the track was licensed for hard-copy product release, and not download. Lakeshore’s LA lawyer argues differently, and has challenged me to provide proof of copyright ownership.
In my letter to Mr. Lakeshore Lawyer of this morning I have done so, and also this…
I accept that you are making your claim on behalf of Lakeshore in good faith. However, I do not believe that you will be able to substantiate the claim to download rights.
The licensing-sequence is this:
RF > EMI > Muse > Will Records LLC > Lakeshore.
For Lakeshore to have the rights you claim on their behalf, you need to demonstrate that:
1a. RF granted (inter alia) download rights to EMI;
1b. EMI had download rights, with and/or without RF’s permission;
2. EMI granted download rights to Muse;
3. Muse granted download rights to Will Records LLC;
4. Lakeshore acquired download rights from Will Records.
You may have gathered that I take an active and hands-on role in the granting of KC licenses, including where only 121 downloads are involved. But even were I not involved in the licensing agreement with Virgin in respect of the disputed track, you would have to demonstrate that:
1. EMI granted bona fide download rights to Muse;
2. Mute granted bona fide download rights to Will Records LLC;
3. Lakeshore acquired bona fide download rights from Will Records.
I do not believe you will be able to do so, although I accept you may be able to show paperwork where:
1. Muse granted download rights to Will Records LLC;
2. Lakeshore acquired download rights from Will Records.
I suggest that you will not be able to provide evidence of bona fide download rights from Virgin to Muse, a point I will return to below...
Muse would only have been able to grant the right to exploit the soundtrack album "by any method, whether utilizing technology now known or hereafter devised” if they themselves were granted a bona fide right to do so by Virgin…
The license to Muse originated in the UK in 1998 and my distributor Declan Colgan was involved in the discussions. If I recall correctly, Vincent Gallo (a star of Buffalo 66 and an enthusiast for In The Court Of The Crimson King) approached me directly regarding granting the license for Moonchild. I agreed to the track being included in the soundtrack album and it was therefore “recompiled” with my permission - for physical product. Download rights were not part of my discussion.
I note in addition that it was standard policy within Virgin, certainly by 1998, to carefully check license requests for applicants attempting to include (ie sneak in) digital rights. These were routinely refused, probably because Virgin were holding open options to launch / participate in their own downloading vehicle (a function that Apple eventually created in i-Tunes).
I think it likely that the rights granted by Muse to Will Records were improperly conferred because:
i) Someone at Virgin mistakenly granted Muse download rights in 1998;
ii) Someone at Muse didn’t read the license properly and granted the presumed rights to Will in error; and / or…
ii) The license was granted in the USA where licenses "by any method, whether utilizing technology now known or hereafter devised" are more commonplace than in the UK; and consequently download rights were mistakenly granted in this case also.
… Proposal: if you are able to produce the original 1998 UK agreement where Virgin (in my view, mistakenly) granted download rights to Muse, I am prepared to withdraw my objection in this specific case...
If you are not able to do so, and I believe it unlikely that the original agreement between Virgin & Muse allowed for more than physical product, well… it’s only 121 downloads anyway.
Over to you.
What does this have to do with disputation involving Apple i-Tunes, the dear & most-welcome innocent DGM Diary visitors might clamorate in enquiry? More on that in the near-future Diary.
And what’s the future-good news? Steven Wilson is at Wilson World HQ mixing ITCOTCK in 5.1 & has reported the discovery of several outtakes.
It’s a beautiful day.
Back to dissension with Apple i-Tunes…
20.12 A walk around the town with the Minx, and a first: a pint of cider in the newly-refurbished Angel & Trumpet hostelry for the discerning.
Dribble.
