3 ms·

I think currently he is in Jail, but I followed him a bit on YouTube where he said, that he is contractually obligated not to release it for 88 years (for Wu Ta

I think currently he is in Jail, but I followed him a bit on YouTube where he said, that he is contractually obligated not to release it for 88 years (for Wu Tang Clan album). One of the reason Wu Tang et al. released these limited edition albums was they hoped they would be bought by art museums or so, in this case ended up with private collector.

wlesieutre 9y ago
But if someone seizes it from him through legal means they wouldn't be bound by that agreement, would they?
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  I don't think they would. That'd be an interesting legal matter to see play out.
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  Let's say the government gets it, auctions it, you (legally) purchase it (at that auction), and are now the owner. While you wouldn't be bound by any agreements that Shkreli had w/ Wu-Tang Clan, you would still be in violation of copyright laws if you released it publicly (and the government could, potentially, put stipulations on its sale if they wanted). In addition, if you owned the only existing copy, I think it would be pretty easy to prove that it was you who released it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    None of that is true. Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. >"There are strict limitations on the distribution of the 31-track double album, with a statement from the band reading: "It can be exhibited publicly and it can be given away for free. But it cannot be commercialised as a conventional album release until 2103"[1] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-album-sale-ebay-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bids-a7933636.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/m...
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      > Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. Someone who buys it from a government auction is not bound by any contract signed by the original purchaser. They are still bound by copyright law, although the copyright holder (presumably Wu-Tang Clan) could (and likely would) allow them to exhibit it or give it away.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
austinprete 9y ago
The agreement only prevents its commercial release for 88 years [1], he can still release it as free under the contract however. [1] - http://www.musictimes.com/articles/30821/20150306/wu-tang-clan-statement-once-upon-time-shaolin-release.htm http://www.musictimes.com/articles/30821/20150306/wu-tang-cl...

wlesieutre 9y ago

But if someone seizes it from him through legal means they wouldn't be bound by that agreement, would they?

godzillabrennus 9y ago
I don't think they would. That'd be an interesting legal matter to see play out.
jlgaddis 9y ago
Let's say the government gets it, auctions it, you (legally) purchase it (at that auction), and are now the owner. While you wouldn't be bound by any agreements that Shkreli had w/ Wu-Tang Clan, you would still be in violation of copyright laws if you released it publicly (and the government could, potentially, put stipulations on its sale if they wanted). In addition, if you owned the only existing copy, I think it would be pretty easy to prove that it was you who released it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bogomipz 9y ago
  None of that is true. Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. >"There are strict limitations on the distribution of the 31-track double album, with a statement from the band reading: "It can be exhibited publicly and it can be given away for free. But it cannot be commercialised as a conventional album release until 2103"[1] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-album-sale-ebay-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bids-a7933636.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/m...
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    > Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. Someone who buys it from a government auction is not bound by any contract signed by the original purchaser. They are still bound by copyright law, although the copyright holder (presumably Wu-Tang Clan) could (and likely would) allow them to exhibit it or give it away.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

austinprete 9y ago

The agreement only prevents its commercial release for 88 years [1], he can still release it as free under the contract however. [1] - http://www.musictimes.com/articles/30821/20150306/wu-tang-clan-statement-once-upon-time-shaolin-release.htm http://www.musictimes.com/articles/30821/20150306/wu-tang-cl...