Does your label have the right to your masters?

[stringtapper]

It's an Austin thing, just nod and move on

Fixed for accuracy

[ibdk]

Yup, yet for some reason, so many people still do, supporting this violence.

You live in a very safe world if you think making a contract is violent. Pain in the ass, yup. Shady due to the lawyers in shark skin clothing, sure. Deathrow Records may be different when dealing with contracts tho...

Would you rather have full ownership to your music and nobody but whoever you can reach listen, or a label deal with distribution so more people can hear you, which could give you a bigger market, which could give you more say in your future recordings/publishing?

I think the biggest mistake artists early in their careers in any field is making their artwork so precious that they can't let go of it and move on. Personally, I always felt that if I ever have any feeling like that about something I made, it's a subconscious way of thinking I won't get better that that.

Of course it's a different case if your artwork has become a commodity already, then you might as well self-distribute if you have the time.

[Jarvisimon]

I'm not 100% certain on this but I believe the owner of the recording is the person who made it possible. The record company does not immediately obtain ownership, especially if they in no way funded the recording (who paid to hire the studio where it was recorded?) or their studio was not used for the recording.

So if it's something you recorded at home, then you are probably the legal owner of the recording, in which case, your label is only entitled to profits from whatever number of pressings you consent to.

If you agree they can press 10 000 copies, then that is the deal. Should they try and profit beyond this, you should be within your rights to sue and gain compensation for any pressings made without your agreement. Which could end up with you taking 100% profit.

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch so you probably need to see one but I shouldn't hand over any masters without first finding out.

[tinymachines]

It's an Austin thing, just nod and move on

Fixed for accuracy

Austin has nothing to do with it. I'm from St. Louis. It's the theory from Rothbard, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Spooner, Goldman, Molyneux and countless others...any of you who claim to be Christian should take a close look at the sermon on the mount for this too.
The use of something that is paid for through coercion makes you guilty of that violence. There's no way around it because of intention or whatever. It supports violence.

Would you rather have full ownership to your music and nobody but whoever you can reach listen, or a label deal with distribution so more people can hear you, which could give you a bigger market, which could give you more say in your future recordings/publishing?

I don't think violence is an morally justified means of distribution. I distribute where I can though. Bandcamp, and getting covered by music blogs, local bookstores, and the like. It's all free.

[stringtapper]

As an anarchist I'm sure you'll understand if others don't adhere to your particular form of moral governance.

[lunabass]

i love the ableton forum

for a dance music label, owning the copyright in the sound recording (master) is normal. signing it over for 3-5 years is what most artists are doing, regardless of who made or mastered the track.

the only person that is allowed to reproduce or copy the recorded work is the copyright owner...if the label doesn't own the copyrigh, or have rights to copy it, how the hell are they supposed to reproduce and sell it?

get yourself some legal advice

[Jarvisimon]

Would you rather have full ownership to your music and nobody but whoever you can reach listen, or a label deal with distribution so more people can hear you, which could give you a bigger market, which could give you more say in your future recordings/publishing?

I said no such thing.

[grooverb]

i love the ableton forum

for a dance music label, owning the copyright in the sound recording (master) is normal. signing it over for 3-5 years is what most artists are doing, regardless of who made or mastered the track.

the only person that is allowed to reproduce or copy the recorded work is the copyright owner...if the label doesn't own the copyrigh, or have rights to copy it, how the hell are they supposed to reproduce and sell it?

get yourself some legal advice

Someone else talking sense at last