HW:A Few Topics

[Jon Browne]

In message <Pine.OSF.3.95.970420121533.4697A-100000 at csgrad.cs.vt.edu>,
Paul Mather <paul at CSGRAD.CS.VT.EDU> writes
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Jon Browne wrote:
>
>>                                      If you have another look at the
>> letter, at no point does it actually say this is a pirate or bootleg
>> production.
>
>Yes, I noticed that, which is why I didn't actually say the same thing
>myself. :-)
>
>There are several possible scenarios here.  I think two are likely:
>
>
>If we take scenario 2 to be most likely, then it doesn't matter if
>Emphorio bought the tracks in good faith: they still have no rights under
>law to release them.  If I unwittingly buy a stolen car, in good faith, I
>still don't legally own it, and its ownership still reverts back to its
>original owner.  All I can say to Emphorio is "caveat emptor!"
If you unwittingly buy a stolen car, you lose the car, but you haven't
broken the law.

Both sound equally plausible to me. But one way or the other, I can
understand DS's ire at this same batch of stuff turning up again and
again undermining the artistic credibility of the band over the years.
>
>I am also suspicious that they are unwitting dupes.  To claim these tracks
>are "rare" is bad enough.  But, to depict Ron Tree, circa 1995, as is
>alleged, smacks of dissembly.
Agreed but.....
> (Eager Hawkwind fan, on seeing sleeve
>drools, "Rare tracks from a recent tour!  Gimme, gimme!)
Few fans are going to get suckered by this. Only people who've never
bought anything before and want to check the band out by only spending a
coupla bucks. That's actually what pisses me off about this, the fact
that new listeners get the wrong impression of the band and don't go on
to buy the next 78 albums. <g>
> Emphorio must
>have even a passing knowledge of Hawkwind, having released material by
>them previously, so there is a fair chance that the origin (date wise) of
>the tracks is known.  But maybe they didn't, and were taken for a ride.
It probably wasn't that calculated but I wonder where or who supplied
the stills for the artwork. it's possible that *they* are unlicenced and
the co. could be nailed on that. I don't think the label would have
worried overly about the age of the material. It's not the aspect which
troubles me. I don't think the band would repudiate early material
otherwise why the remasters? No, problem is a) the quality/artistic
control and b) the money.
>
>>                                             The point is Emporio as far
>> as I know (at this stage) cannot be sued, forced to withdraw the disc or
>> even hand over any cash. (Not that there's going to be lot of cash
>> involved in a record with a dealer price of around 1.50 UKP.)
>
>If they published this material illegally, then I disagree with you.
>But, the sad thing about illegal releases is that pragmatics, and not
>legalities, hold sway.  These companies know that if they're found out,
>often it is too costly for a band to sue (unless they are mega-rich), and
>so they're not likely to.  And meanwhile, the probability that a Hawkfan
>gets conned when they buy a Hawkwind release increases slightly but
>steadily...

Actually, I think you're right here. Upon reflection the fact that the
thing made the company 4 1/2 quid wouldn't prevent punative damages of
thousands+ as was the case with Griffin recently with that Bowie disc. I
doubt v. much if they netted a coupla million but I gather that's what
had to be stumped up. As for Emporio being too big to get sued, no, I
think they could be brought to book *if* they've broken the law, which I
still don't think they have.

best
--
Jon Browne

ObCD Supergrass - In It For The Money. (Now where have I heard *that* title
before? FZ perchance?)