GUEST,Malcolm Storey said
> Punkfolkrocker - the second part of your argument would only work if such a body or body of persons existed.
For the first part what obligation is there to buy something and then give it to a third party? I think people are picking on the wrong devil here. <

DB bought the Leader tapes and their copyright for whatever seemed to him a good reason at the time. Whether that was wise or foolish, virtuous or wicked, an obligation or not, it is fait accompli. But there is now, in the opinion of many people, an ethical obligation on his heirs to do something positive with that material.

There are various organisations and individuals unconnected to the original performers that might be willing to take some or all of it, but that should only be as second choice to the performers or their heirs.

If DB's heirs consider it not worthwhile to publish it themselves, they should give it not to "a third party" but to the original first parties, the artists, or their heirs. Or they could even sell it back for a reasonable price. Sitting on the copyright and leaving the tapes to deteriorate does no-one any good, and is unethical because it does actual harm to those who are prevented from raising some cash from re-issued recordings.