Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 8:28:51 GMT -5
Only IAAP could do that. But there's no way he filed those directly with Apple. That's not possible these days. One uses an aggregator such as Tunecore to place items in the Apple Store and they receive then receive royalties and pass on the statements.
When submitting them, IAAP would have simply asserted copyright and indemnified both the aggregator and Apple in respect of any claims against this (standard contract), which, as we're saying, is by no means something he isn't entitled to do.
Which brings us back out of the loop.
I was looking forward to major journalists finding out about this project but can now see that IAAP is afraid that if they do, he'd be facing a writ.
I'm not sure that would actually happen but I can't blame him for not taking the chance.
I have thought of making direct contact with IAAP a few times to advance a media plan, I must admit.
I think I could actually take this to the mainstream without lawyers but that's easy for me to say as I would have zero personal risk.
On the Macca profit front, I think you're mischaracterising the guy, dead or not. He's got a long record of being generous on all fronts and has gone on record at length supporting the validity of what the samplists do, who have taken from The Beatles and his own stuff.
And not just sonically. Miles has noted that Macca was mystified when Zappa complained that 'We're Only In It For The Money' was taken as an offence by him whenever it's actually establishable that McCartney ON REQUEST BY ZAPPA made sure that no action was to be taken on the Mothers' satire of the Sgt Pepper cover (and nobody else subsequently doing the same has ever had a problem)
His best quote on the subject is 'I've always said that I don't have a problem with bootlegs . Then my lawyers call to say 'Oh yes you do'
When submitting them, IAAP would have simply asserted copyright and indemnified both the aggregator and Apple in respect of any claims against this (standard contract), which, as we're saying, is by no means something he isn't entitled to do.
Which brings us back out of the loop.
I was looking forward to major journalists finding out about this project but can now see that IAAP is afraid that if they do, he'd be facing a writ.
I'm not sure that would actually happen but I can't blame him for not taking the chance.
I have thought of making direct contact with IAAP a few times to advance a media plan, I must admit.
I think I could actually take this to the mainstream without lawyers but that's easy for me to say as I would have zero personal risk.
On the Macca profit front, I think you're mischaracterising the guy, dead or not. He's got a long record of being generous on all fronts and has gone on record at length supporting the validity of what the samplists do, who have taken from The Beatles and his own stuff.
And not just sonically. Miles has noted that Macca was mystified when Zappa complained that 'We're Only In It For The Money' was taken as an offence by him whenever it's actually establishable that McCartney ON REQUEST BY ZAPPA made sure that no action was to be taken on the Mothers' satire of the Sgt Pepper cover (and nobody else subsequently doing the same has ever had a problem)
His best quote on the subject is 'I've always said that I don't have a problem with bootlegs . Then my lawyers call to say 'Oh yes you do'