Without getting into the politics of it, court filings, unless under seal, are public documents. The Judiciary originally sought funding to make an electronic, publicly accessible system happen. Congress refused to fund it, so it is behind a fairly expensive paywall.
Since I retired, I don't have access to it. (Actually, I never accessed it directly- our docketing clerk's office did). I don't know if big firm pricing structure is different than random individuals like me, but the prices are pretty high. There are alternate means on the open web, but one of the data bases is impossible to use and some of the others are simply snapshots in time, and sorely out of date.
Mobile Fidelity made certain conciliatory statements in its initial public reply.
What do you mean by “accept the claim”?
Accepting the claim isn’t necessarily an apposite concept in a American legal settlement context. Individuals and entities often enter into settlement agreements regardless of their beliefs about the underlying facts.
Thanks. By "accept the claim", as you inferred, I meant did MoFi accept they were at fault as laid out in the lawsuit against them. Seems not. Apologies if my language is fuzzy here, I'm not a lawyer.
Asking prices on the secondary market are not the same as selling prices on the secondary market. I would welcome the opportunity to sell my stack of UD1Ss at the purchase prices + shipping.
Considering current prices of sold LPs in eBay - usually close or higher than the purchase price - I would say that keeping them for some time is a wiser decision. Soon all will be forgotten, the number of LPs being offered in the market will decrease and these LPs will be much more valuable. Collectors buy for possession and rarity, not for sound.
The full refund is not fair. I think cancelling all the titles' licence agreements would be fairer due to misrepresenting and deceiving. MOFI is blocking all those important titles to be released by other companies which will cut from tape. I think that's more important.
Isn’t this a bit of an overreaction? Considering everyone that bought a copy before, thought they are good sounding pressings till they found out there may have been some digital in the process.
Thanks. By "accept the claim", as you inferred, I meant did MoFi accept they were at fault as laid out in the lawsuit against them. Seems not. Apologies if my language is fuzzy here, I'm not a lawyer.
The full refund is not fair. I think cancelling all the titles' licence agreements would be fairer due to misrepresenting and deceiving. MOFI is blocking all those important titles to be released by other companies which will cut from tape. I think that's more important.
The only titles that are cut from DSD need a licence cancellation, so other companies can cut those titles from tape. Because of that problem we can not get those titles other than MOFI's digitally processed vinyl. Old MOFI, Anadisc or the ones before DSD involved in the proces are not mentioned here. Reissuing a huge number of titles doesn't give any company the right to lie customers and make a lot of money.
Besides MoFi, I think the main people who will lose money, would be those who bought titles like Abraxas for several times the retail price in the aftermarket. Of course, they can still just keep the record in their collections.
The only titles that are cut from DSD need a licence cancellation, so other companies can cut those titles from tape. Because of that problem we can not get those titles other than MOFI's digitally processed vinyl. Old MOFI, Anadisc.or the ones before DSD involved in the proces are not mentioned here. Reissuing a huge number of titles doesn't give any company the right to lie customers and make a lot of money.
It looks like Mofi has exclusive licenses for the titles it produces (at least some of them). If they give them up, then the other companies would have the opportunity to negotiate with the owners of the rights to the tapes. These days, I think it would be a rare owner who would allow their original masters to go out. So the reissue company would probably have to make a copy of the original tape, and use the copy (effectively a production master) to cut the lacquers, if they want to have an all analogue chain. One-Steps from an original master would likely be impossible, since the reissue company would need to cut a lacquer from the original master - bringing their cutting equipment to the original master.
In looking over descriptions of some reissues, it looks like some owners are allowing the master tapes to go out. I know, Paul Stubblebine of Tape Project was able to get the original masters loaned out to him for their tape reissues. In the case of Reference Recordings, he got the original tapes which were done on Keith Johnson's own custom built tape recorder with Keith's EQ, electronics, etc. and Keith lent him both original master tapes and the tape recorder to create the running master for the tape copies.
There are definitely some owners who given non-exclusive rights for reissues. This was true for Universal for some of their classical titles which have been reissued by more than one company.
The only titles that are cut from DSD need a licence cancellation, so other companies can cut those titles from tape. Because of that problem we can not get those titles other than MOFI's digitally processed vinyl. Old MOFI, Anadisc or the ones before DSD involved in the proces are not mentioned here. Reissuing a huge number of titles doesn't give any company the right to lie customers and make a lot of money.
They would allow or at least negotiable if you don't insist to ship tapes from one coast to another in order to use your own mastering facility. The problem with MOFI is their mastering facility in the west coast which they always insist on using. On the other hand other companies that cut from tape use multiple mastering facilities depending on the tape's location.
Thanks - is there any public way of getting access to this list?
IMO MoFi should be obliged to show it in their site. And then let consumers choose what to do.
BTW I just saw :
Santana - Abraxas - Mobile Fidelity UltraDisc One Step - #2479 - MOFI - MFSL 45 in new condition sold one month ago for $1525 at eBay.
That same minority made MOFI to accept their mistake publicly, opened couple of legal cases, caused big articles on major newspapers to be written and being offered full refund.
Goes to show most people don’t care apart from some people with bruised egos, probably because they swore blind it was all analogue from start to finish. Now they know it’s not, they have egg on their faces.
Thanks - is there any public way of getting access to this list?
IMO MoFi should be obliged to show it in their site. And then let consumers choose what to do.
BTW I just saw :
Santana - Abraxas - Mobile Fidelity UltraDisc One Step - #2479 - MOFI - MFSL 45 in new condition sold one month ago for $1525 at eBay.
That same minority made MOFI to accept their mistake publicly, opened couple of legal cases, caused big articles on major newspapers to be written and being offered full refund.
And yet only on Steve Hoffman's forum is there any traction and that is wanning. The Washington Post wrote the article to convince people audiophiles are nut jobs. Easy to file law suits, a bigger company would have won the case at the cost of large legal bills.
