[HiTech RedNeck]

But what the artists don’t get is the label name that originally carried their recording (like Capitol did the Beatles etc.) So if the artists want to keep selling it they have to come up with a private but convincing label name, or come to a new marketing agreement with their old label.

[TalonDJ]

Label name? Who bothers to check the label name when they click ‘buy’ in itunes?

[chris_bdba]

With the advent of downloadable music there really is no need for a record lab;e for the older stuff.If they need one they can call it “Directly from” and form their own to allow downloads of their previous hits.There are many loyal fans who would gladly pay the artist rather than the record company.

[FateAmenableToChange]

But what the artists don’t get is the label name that originally carried their recording (like Capitol did the Beatles etc.) So if the artists want to keep selling it they have to come up with a private but convincing label name, or come to a new marketing agreement with their old label.

If the song is big enough to still be making profits, all that will happen is that the old label that used to own it will pony up some more cash for a license fee. Or another label will buy it. As long as there's a cash stream involved, one of the labels will pay a discounted present value of those future earnings. All this provision does is permit the artist to renegotiate (or even refuse to negotiate at all) for the royalties she or he will get from proven moneymaking songs.