Years ago, I worked for WEA Record (Warner Bros), and one of our labels was Rhino Records, who liked to release great reissues and compilations of our-of-print albums and artists.
They did it by the book at first, getting permission from the copyright holders, who were happy to see their stuff back in print, and get royalty checks again, especially since most of them were getting older, and didn’t mind an extra income stream as they headed into retirement, even if it was small.
There were some cult classics that they wanted to release, but couldn’t find the copyright holders. After a while, they decided to go ahead and release that albums anyway, but put the royalties into escrow. When/if the rights holder came forward, their royalties would be waiting for them.
It seemed like a reasonable, moral way to handle the situation, unlike the way record companies usually do business, which is to just steal as much as they can, and if they get sued, bury the plaintiff in expensive litigation. Rhino Records, and the people who worked there, always seemed like a relatively honorable outfit, by comparison.
slimerancher@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So, it happened once. And they hired one private investigator. Not that it isn’t interesting, but why exaggerate everything?
Remaining quotes from article:
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
that’s not exaggerating anything. it’s merely saying it has happened at least once before.
slimerancher@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Okay, so grammatically, in perfect tense we can use plural to mention a thing that has happened at least (or exactly) once? Wouldn’t using a plural imply multiple, when the known fact is singular?
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
“investigators” is plural tho so that is indeed wrong