This is a complicated subject. A contract is a contract, and while 'moral' issues may be present, there are also 'ethical' questions. I'm not defending Bulmer, everything I have read about him makes him sound slimey. Still, I think there are other sides to the issue.

I can't find where Mr Olesko said this. Did it vanish when Joe Offer issued his red closure notice?
Mr O to be just as slimey a git as Bulmer.
Mr O describes himself as a dinosaur, but weren't these gentle creatures?
Yes, he's trying to bully me by threatening to publish a book of lies about me, but to what end?
I can strike back. Those deprived of their intellectual property, and thus a source of income, because of the terms of a contract can not - because that contract is 'legal'.

The 'other side of the issue' is exactly as described by Steve Shaw above. Although not obliged in law to do anything at all, Bulmer's publishing company could perform a humanitarian function not only for the artists but a lucrative one for himself as well as them by selling the rights back.

Please do not bore me either with attempts to justify why he should not.