Real Gone Jazz re-issue label

http://www.silverdisc.com/images/5/5036408125521.jpg
Been seeing these comps more and more in record stores — one artist, multiple "classic albums." They're amazing deals — anywhere from around $12 to $20 each — and they appear to be the original releases. Lots of major jazz and rock stars featured.
Sounds almost too good to be true, however. How's the sound/mastering compare to the original single-disc releases? I bought a couple of jazz ones, but they were albums completely new to me so I have no reference point. Anyone try any of these?

I got the Blakey "19 Classic Albums" set, and the sound is fine on all but one disc (and that one, Ritual, isn't horrendously awful or anything). I compared the Live at Birdland in the box to the Clifford Brown Complete Blue Note and Pacific Jazz set, and couldn't really tell any difference.

I would imagine that most of the albums included in these (which I believe exist because the music in question has gone public domain in the UK/EU) have been remastered in the past, so it's not like you're gonna get some shitty mastered-from-thrift-store-vinyl copy.

which I believe exist because the music in question has gone public domain in the UK/EU

This seems to be the case... I haven't bought any Real Gone boxes, but I've noticed that other companies too have begun to reissue very cheap comps of albums originally released in the late 50s and early 60s, i.e. stuff that's now in public domain because it was released 50 or more years ago. I've bought some Mingus, Duke, and Brubeck 2CD sets released by Avid (under the title "Three Classic Albums" or "Four Classic Albums", so they're pretty similar to the Real Gone series), and they sound fine to me - they're not vinyl rips. I guess with most of these they've simply copied the music from the CD issues released by the original labels, since I assume those big labels wouldn't just license their master tapes so that some minor label can release them for cheap? Though at least one of the Brubeck sets inludes an album that hasn't (as far as I know) been released on CD before, and I have no idea how they managed to get the master tapes for that. (I guess it's theoretically possible it's a vinyl rip, but in that case it's the best-sounding vinyl rip I've ever heard, as there is no sound distortion or vinyl crackles etc.)

I guess you could say these reissues are a legal form of the old-school pirate CD... But since it's a nice way of getting some good music in for cheap with CD quality sound (and Avid at least tries to include the original liner notes too with their reissues), I see no big problem. Though there could be an ethical problem in that some of the original artists might still be alive 50 years later (Ornette Coleman is one example), and won't presumably get any royalties from these unofficial reissues... But on the other hand, the same applies to all art that's in the public domain.

Hmm, looks like the EU directive to extend the copyright was implemented this month in the UK. Though Wikipedia says "phonograms already out of copyright in 2013 will not be retroactively protected" - does this mean that anything released in 1963 and before will still remain in the public domain, while it's only the records from 1964 and onwards that will benefit from the new 70 year rule?

Fopp in the UK are currently selling these sets for the impossible-to-resist price of £7. I bought the Sun RA and Cecil Taylor collections, both of which sound fine to me. The Taylor in particular is a real gem, bringing together pretty much all his earliest studio recordings.

I checked some Finnish sites, and in here at least this seems to be the case: the EU directive was implemented this year, and any recordings published in 1962 or earlier will remain in the public domain, while those from 1963 onwards will benefit from the new 70 year copyright.

(xpost)

Ah, looks like the same thing applies to UK too:

[url]http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/reissue-labels-capitalise-on-love-me-do-going-public-domain-as-ipo-begins-consultation-on-copyright-extension/[url]

Input on all of that is being welcomed by the IPO until 4 Mar this year. How quickly UK copyright law will then be amended isn’t clear, though under European Union rules the extension must be in place by November. Because sound recordings actually go ‘public domain’ at the end of the year in which the 50 year term expires, that means that anything released in 1963 will get the 70 year term.

However, those recordings released in 1962 went into public domain at the end of last month, and as the extension will not be applied retrospectively, they will remain out of copyright. And that includes the original recording of ‘Love Me Do’ and its b-side ‘PS I Love You’.

But if the artists have the the copyright for the music, they should still get a license fee from the cheapo labels, as the new directive doesn't change their personal copyright period:

The copyrights in the songs, of course, are not affected, because they are subject to a different term (life of the creators – ie Lennon and McCartney – plus 70 years), but providing the songs’ publishers are paid a licence fee, it means anyone can distribute those original recordings without the permission of their former owners, EMI, or now Universal Music.

I would have thought that remasters would be a different thing so wonder about that aspect. If these do sound like they're more recent masters would think that other laws would be brought into play.
So yes the music itself is in public domain but does that also cover masters done over the last 10, 20 years and otherwise how come these don't sound like needledrops?

I'm not sure what the copyright law says about remasters, but the records I've heard definitely sound like their source was from the CD era, they don't sound like any vinyl rip I've heard. (And I've heard many professional vinyl rips too, i.e. official CD reissues done from needledrops.) I can't imagine the big labels would loan the cheapo labels their master tapes, so I assume they are mostly copies of remastered recordings released on CD by the original labels. Maybe the law simply doesn't cover remasters, or maybe it'd be two difficult for the big labels to prove the cheapo labels are using a particular remaster as the source? (Especially if the cheapo labels have tweaked the sound a bit.)

I was going to expand on what I said there , realising i just asked 3 variations on the same question.
I don't know what this public domain thing really means but am aware that to make a recording available you need a source of taht recording. So was wondering what that actually meant in practical terms. Would have thought taht if these labels were just pretty much pirating releases by other labels they would be closed down rapidly.
Are they actually budget depts of more major labels?

Just was thinking about what you could use as an analogy & thought postcards & prints of famous paintings. Like you do need an original in some way to duplicate, not really sure how you do that outside of being a museum gift shop where you are part of something that has the actual original and can scan it & duplicate from taht. Or from a photograph which would lose even more of the original. & in the process you are losing various dimensions of the original such as brushstrokes, texture etc. Would think that for the recording replication to work these days you would be expected to have the equivalent of things like that to be included, which is what would differentiate it from sounding like a needledrop.

Sorry if that loses you, but just can't think how to properly contextualise what is included in the act of duplication of what exactly is in public domain. Is it just there is no longer somebody around to protect the copyright (since the copyright itself is lapsed) so if you play a track on a radio there is no longer a royalty needing to be payed.

Are they actually budget depts of more major labels?

I don't think so, because some of these cheapo box sets have the same albums. Like, both Avid and Real Gone have released Dave Brubeck box set with many of the same records, and there are also official major label box sets (like Columbia's "Original Album Classics" series) that include some of the same stuff.

in the process you are losing various dimensions of the original such as brushstrokes, texture etc. Would think that for the recording replication to work these days you would be expected to have the equivalent of things like that to be included, which is what would differentiate it from sounding like a needledrop.

With digital technology this is different, though. Since the music on CD is digital information, you can copy it and produce a new CD with the exact same information (i.e. music) with no losses. This is how I assume these cheapo comps are mostly done. Though I still don't know how a few of them apparently include albums that have never been released on CD...

Is it just there is no longer somebody around to protect the copyright (since the copyright itself is lapsed) so if you play a track on a radio there is no longer a royalty needing to be payed.

As explained in the article, the 50 year (70 year for records released in 1963 and after) copyright is for recordings. It only means that a cheapo label can reissue an album released in 1962 without having to pay a penny for the label that originally released it. But the copyright for the compositions is much longer: in the UK and Finland (maybe elsewhere in the EU too?) it doesn't lapse until 70 years after the songwriter (or the final songwriter, if there are many) has died. So, depending on what sort of deal the songwriter has with her music publisher, she should receive royalties, because the cheapo labels still have to pay a licence fee to the publisher.

Still really confused by that. Not sure what Use it or lose it really means, is it if item is on current catalogue it is exempt from this public domain thing in which case can't see how some of those box sets are working & certainly not how the Beatles track which was only remastered & reissued a couple of years back could apply.

& again what is the source of the recording taht is being remastered? Not been 100% sure how the labels like JSP & Proper who seem to be doing this about right have been operating, if they are actually being given access to mastertapes or if such a thing wold even exist on some of the material they're issuing. Or if they are very well done needledrops. Like if it is in public domain and hasn't been issued in years is a reissue label successfully able to ask the original label for access to mastertapes at all or what these things are being worked from.
All I do know is that unless you have some form of an original recording source to be remastering you can't go through the process since you don't have one of the central items needed.
Also not sure about piracy, aren't people able to close down pirating operations so that somebody who is issuing an unlicensed rerelease of a recording that was remastered over the last couple of decades could & would be sued issued with a cease & desist order etc. I guess that is more complex as to how it is policed but still surprised that a company that was acting in that way would be able to continue having their material widely circulated.

Does have me asking questions in a number of different directions. Copyright, duplication, distribution, access to whatever passes as an original with sufficient detail to duplicate.