The copyright extension release thread (w/r/t EU copyright law)

Well, why not. First, to explain what's going on with these fifty-years-later compilations from an American perspective, with specific reference to the Beatles release today:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/15/the-european-copyright-law-reason-were-getting-a-new-beatles-live-album-on-apples-itunes/

Sound recording copyright has, historically, only lasted for 50 years. So those recordings from 1963 are just about to go out of copyright. Except, the European Union has just changed the law. As a result of a campaign fronted by Cliff Richard the sound recording copyright was extended to 70 years. But the recordings must have been released for that 20 year extension to apply. And thus we’re getting this new album of live in the radio studio and TV show stuff from the Beatles. A release purely on Apple’s iTunes does indeed count as a release and so that’s why they’re doing it. If they didn’t release these songs then anyone who already had a bootleg version (and there’s tens of thousands of copies around) could release it themselves, even charge for it.

Of course, they’d still have to pay the songwriting royalties on those bootlegs but they’d be free of the sound recording fees. There’s also one more difference between the two types of copyright. While this isn’t exactly true it is generally so. The owner of the recording copyright is able to detail who may release it in what form and so on. The owner of the songwriting copyright not so much: pretty much anyone who is willing to pay the royalties can record their own version of the song. So releasing this album gives Apple (that’s Apple the record company of course) continued control of who may release these songs, not just the revenue stream from them.

So at the start of the year there was the Dylan thing:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/01/12/169133556/there-are-only-100-copies-of-the-new-bob-dylan-record

And today, the Beatles and the Beach Boys:

http://theseconddisc.com/2013/12/17/the-beatles-and-the-beach-boys-beat-the-boots-on-the-big-beat-1963-and-bootleg-recordings/

So...what now and what next? Presumably a similar set of releases from all three come out next year. But what else has surfaced, or is rumored to come?

Side note that this is separate from the termination notices issue here in the States:

The termination notices issue (w/r/t copyright, artist rights, etc. in the US)

But both are part of larger facets of licensing, ownership, control and copyright.

I was wondering about this -- turns out Motown HAS been doing this:

http://theseconddisc.com/2013/01/11/beat-the-boots-digital-volumes-of-motown-unreleased-1962-quietly-released-online/

And what do you know! Motown Unreleased 1963 ALSO now live today. Stevie, Marvin, Supremes, R. Dean Taylor...

http://www.amazon.com/Motown-Unreleased-1963-Various-artists/dp/B00H7IF0WG

alternate 'Fingertips"!

thanks for starting this thread, should be an interesting few years

It's a weird confluence of technology and legal limits here -- turns out the digital marketplace is the perfect way to put all this out without too much overhead, both to obey the intent of the law and not to have to think about it too much. (Downside by default would be lack of annotations/notes, above and beyond questions of audio quality via mp3.)

I was expecting that Motown set to be MP3 only, but it appears to be a double CD...

This whole thing is crazy to me. I can't believe that there are people who still think copyright owners have too much power. This is almost like extortion. Release a bunch of stuff you don't necessarily want the public to hear or else anybody is free to release it for sale without your permission!

xpost -- yeah, wondering that myself. Or maybe just 'discs' as shorthand?

xp to wk wow I totally disagree with that but I'll have to come back later w/a longer answer.

There seem to be lots of Motown sets

dylan just put out another of these -- 6LP set

LP1-Side A "Columbia Studios"
1. Eternal Circle-take 4 8-12-63
2.Percy's Song- take 1 10-23-63
3.That's alright,Mama/Sally free and easy - take 1 10-23-63
4.Hero Blues- take 3 8-12-63
5.East Laredo Blues-take 1 10-23-63
6.New Orleans Rag - take 2 10-24-63

Side B Gerde's Folk City 2-8-63 ("The Banjo Tape")
1.Lonesome River Edge
2.Back Door Blues
3.Bob Dylan's Dream
4.You can get her
5.Farewell
6.All over you
7. Masters of war
8.Instrumental/Jam
9.Keep your Hands off her
10.Honey babe
11.Goin' back to Rome
12.Stealin'

LP 2 Side C
1. Ballad of Holis Brown (Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. 3-3-63)
2.Girl from the North Country
3. Only a Hobo (both songs Oscar Brand Show/World of Music March 63)

Town Hall 4-12-63
4.Ramblin' down through the world
5.Bob Dylan's Dream
6. Talkin' New York
7. Hiding too long

Side D Town Hall 4-12-63
1.Ballad of Hollis Brown
2. Walls of red Wing
3. All over you
4. John Birch Paranoid Blues
5. Boots of Spanish Leather

LP 3- Side E (Town Hall cont.)
1.Hero Blues
2. John Brown
3.Hard Rain's gonna fall
4.Dusty old Fairgrounds
5.Who killed Davey Moore

Side F (Town Hall cont.)
1.Seven Curses
2. Highway 51
3.Pretty Peggy-O
4. Bob Dylan's New Orleans Rag
5. Don't think twice, it's alright
6.With God on our Side

LP 4 -Side G (Home of Eve and Marie McKenzie 4-18-63)
1.James Alley Blues
2.Long Time gone
3.Only a Hobo
4. Untitled Blues Jam
5. Hard Rain gonna fall

The Bear,Chicago 4-25-63
6.Honey, just allow me one more Chance
7. Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

Side H (The Bear 4-25-63)
1.Bob Dylan's Dream
2. Ballad of Hollis Brown
3.Talkin' World War 3 Blues
4. Hard Rain's gonna fall
5. With God on our Side

LP 5 - Side I
(WFMT Rdio Studio-Studs Terkel Wax Museum 4-26-63)
1.Farewell
2. Hard Rain's gonna fall
3.Bob Dylan's Dream
4. Boots of Spanish Leather
5. John Brown

Sde J
(Studs Terkel 4-26-63)
1.Who killed Davey Moore
2. Blowin in the Wind

Songs of Freedom-WNEW TV Studios 7-30-63
3. Blowin' in the Wind
4.Only a Pawn in their Game

LIncoln Memorial.March on Washington 8-28-63
5. When the Ship comes in (with Joan baez)
6. Only a Pawn in their Game

LP 6 - Side K
Carnegie Hall 10-26-63
1.Blowin' in the Wind
2.Percy's Song
3.Seven Curses
4.Walls of red Wing

Side L (Carnegie Hall 10-26-63)
1.Talkin' World war 3 Blues
2.Don't think twice, it's alright
3.Only a pawn in their Game
4.Masters of war
5.Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

I can't believe that there are people who still think copyright owners have too much power.

yea i'll be curious to hear what sleeve says. wk, at least in the US the whole point of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," and it's really supposed to cut both ways -- in favor of protecting someone's creation but also to allow opportunities for new uses of the creation by the public. copyright is not a property right, it's really supposed to be a balance between the rights of authors and the rights of the public who wish to use authors' works.

The alternative is a bunch of shoddy compilations of "Bob Dylan Live 1963", "Rare Beatles", "The Beach Boys Early Years" etc. that these artists would have no control over. I mean, many of the people involved are still living! They shouldn't have a right to control their own work? Books, movies, and everything else are the author's life + 70 years in both the US and UK. Why should sound recordings go public domain while the artist is still alive?

Or a better, simpler question is, why shouldn't sound recordings be afforded the same protection as every other creative work?

despite that stated purpose i mentioned there has been a gradual erosion of that balance in favor of copyright owners. unless you're like the RIAA or fuckin sonny bono and think that terms should last forever, i don't see how you could think copyright owners don't have enough power.

c&p from wikipedia, the terms just get longer and longer:

Since 1790, Congress has amended US Copyright law several times.
Major amendments include:

Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal

Copyright Act of 1831 – extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal

Copyright Act of 1909 – extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal

Copyright Act of 1976 – extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years

Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 – removed the requirement for renewal

Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 – extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years

Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 – criminalized some cases of copyright infringement

Or a better, simpler question is, why shouldn't sound recordings be afforded the same protection as every other creative work?

― wk, Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:26 PM (56 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yea on that point i agree with you. i'd be okay with capping terms at life of the author and that's that

Look out for hundreds of Lou Reed compilations!

unless you're like the RIAA or fuckin sonny bono and think that terms should last forever, i don't see how you could think copyright owners don't have enough power.

Well this is a case where the artists would lose control over their work in their own lifetime! What's extra strange about it is that for much of this stuff (unreleased outtakes, demos, etc) the only reason the public would be able to get ahold of it is because it was essentially stolen from the studio and bootlegged. So the situation here is that they must commercially release stuff they may have had no intentions of releasing or else people who illegally copied it would be allowed to release it for sale commercially.

yea on that point i agree with you. i'd be okay with capping terms at life of the author and that's that

― marcos, Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:28 AM (4 minutes ago)

uh oh I need to write something now... I agree with marcos here. anything more (e.g. life plus 70) seems a bit excessive to me.

The alternative is a bunch of shoddy compilations of "Bob Dylan Live 1963", "Rare Beatles", "The Beach Boys Early Years" etc. that these artists would have no control over.

this has already happened with pretty much every pre-1963 genre, cf. our Mr. Amazon Box Set thread. I think anybody can make a Bob Wills box set now, and sell it. so initially I thought your argument was that rock somehow deserved more protection than older genres, but now I see that you were referencing the difference in expiration between music and movies. I hadn't realized that the terms were different/not as long for music, anybody have some history on how that came to be?

and really, it seems like the horse has left the barn with this one. I don't see the supreme court or whoever extending copyright expirations because some labels have to sell cheap boxes of completist fodder.

xp to wk - that's how the bootleg situation has always worked, hence albums with titles like 'Beat The Boots'

as somebody who is generally pro-bootleg, my stance has always been that artists should just release the stuff themselves, e.g. Pearl Jam or Zappa.

this has already happened with pretty much every pre-1963 genre, cf. our Mr. Amazon Box Set thread.

I know, I hate that stuff. Traditionally, public domain doesn't mean that the public gets stuff for free, it just means they have to pay for cheap editions of books or records with bad cover art, and questionable quality. The internet changes that of course, but then it also has eroded copyright to a degree that basic access to out of print material is not as much of an issue anymore either.

And with increasing life expectancy, any copyright law that's a fixed number of years rather than based on the artist's lifespan is dumb imo. But tbh, I'm fine with the idea of endless copyright. Also I am in fact fuckin sonny bono.

Also that's not at all how bootlegs work. They're still illegal. The Beat the Boots concept is just to try to sell a better official product to make the bootlegs obsolete. But I'm not as concerned with live recordings of public performances as unreleased studio material. I don't know, it's just weird to me. Like if you were an assistant to a famous novelist and stole a rough draft of a novel they never finished or published and leaked it to the public, then were allowed to sell it commercially while the author is still living, simply because the author never published it.

Yeah, you'd have to top the author first.

Put it this way, Life plus 40 years protects the artist. From some heavy dudes, basically.

At this point isn't copyright going to keep getting extended everytime Mickey Mouse is about to become public domain?

good point mark

Gerald: y'all might want to read my initial point and see what's being discussed here. We're talking European law for one thing.

some pretty good discussion and info on all of this over here...
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beach-boys-brian-wilson-copyright-extension-release-announced-for-dec-17.337002/

i have a lot of conflicting opinions about copyright myself and i'm definitely not opposed to the artist retaining rights for at least their lifetime, but the sad reality of the music business is that we're mostly talking about protecting corporate interest here.

I don't quite understand the differences between different sorts of IP, but iirc pharmaceutical patents are only about 10 years - you can't really argue imo that 50 years is too short for recording artists by comparison.

Basically it is a trade-off between encouraging innovation and stifling it. With drugs the turnover is pretty fast for what I suppose are obvious reasons - you make big profits for a short time, on the understanding that you'd damn well better create something better soon if you want to keep making them.

There isn't really a policy equivalent for music though. It's be interesting if there was - would Paul McCartney have tried harder from the mid-70s if he didn't know that Abbey Road would always be there to keep him in unicorn-skin suits?

pharmaceutical patents are only about 10 years - you can't really argue imo that 50 years is too short for recording artists by comparison.

Sure I can because they're two entirely different things. Access to recordings is not a life or death situation. And anyway patents are 20 years, not 10. Music doesn't benefit from the same sorts of public funding and subsidies that technology does either. And again, if every other type of creative work is protected for the artist's life + 70 years, why should recordings be limited to 50 years?

Personally I don't think copyright discourages creativity and innovation. I was recently working on a video thing and I wanted to use some public domain footage from archive.org. But I couldn't find anything suitable so I ended up having to create something new myself. I even bought a couple of pieces of stock footage which allowed another artist to make a few bucks.

The reality is that major corporations would be the biggest benefactors of free content. If the Beatles recordings had all gone public domain in the '70s, maybe the Beatles would all have been slightly poorer and would have made better music to try to survive (I don't see how you can really argue that with a straight face though) but the biggest effect is that their songs would be used for free in every commercial. Recent anti-copyright sentiments are pretty much thanks to the efforts of of huge corporations like Google that want to exploit free content.

Would the world honestly be a better place, and would our culture be stronger and more innovative, if people were allowed to "remix" Steamboat Willie? Please.

yes

The big effect wouldn't be remixes of Steamboat Willie aiui, it would be that anyone could make Mickey Mouse stuff and Disney would have to create someone new. So very possibly yes.

nope, not true. mickey mouse is trademarked. you wouldn't be allowed to sell mickey mouse tshirts, it's only the early films themselves which would become public domain. the dumb side of your argument is that Disney barely does anything with Mickey these days and is creating new stuff all the time.

why is that dumb when Disney has demonstrated that they will, almost literally, stop at nothing to get those copyrights extended?

can't see how you can argue that the world is a better place because people can't make albums like Fear Of A Black Planet or Paul's Boutique any more

(and sell them, obv)

This has me thinking about recording artists who in 1963 were already at zenith, or one of their zeniths. Jazz, mostly. Are we gonna see similar copyright-saving quickies for Coltrane etc?

LOL at someone using Disney to DEFEND copyright law. Disney, who made their bones on public domain works like Cinderella, Snow White, etc.

this is a completist's dream, if nothing else

also very interesting points re: unreleased stuff needing to be guarded even more securely, the stakes just went up

another random thought I have is that life plus 50 really screws people like Cobain, Joplin, etc (and their estates) - I mean, it's almost been 30 years since Cobain died!

A completists' dream is not having to pay for bootlegs. And this little release is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of hours of leaked material.

I mean, it's almost been 30 years since Cobain died!

Er, check yr math.

why is that dumb when Disney has demonstrated that they will, almost literally, stop at nothing to get those copyrights extended?

Ismael said "Disney would have to create someone new." Which they do regularly. So where is the disincentive to create?

coincidentally, i am jamming angst in my pants and "mickey mouse" came on right as i opened this thread up again just now.

life plus 50 really screws people like Cobain, Joplin, etc (and their estates)

it's better than a flat 50 years!

haha whoops sorry Kurdt, how time flies (xps to j via c)

Almost 30 years since D Boon though

haha whoops sorry Kurdt, how time flies (xps to j via c)

i just had this brief flash of, "holy shit am i getting old!", followed quickly by, "waitaminute..."

i have a lot of conflicting opinions about copyright myself and i'm definitely not opposed to the artist retaining rights for at least their lifetime, but the sad reality of the music business is that we're mostly talking about protecting corporate interest here.

― moe handy, Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:24 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yea totally. what is the situation for most sound recordings? do the artists even own the copyright, or does the record company? or the song publisher? i took a copyright MOOC through harvard law and the lecture on copyright & music was absurdly complex. the professor created this flowchart that had arrows pointing everywhere with all sorts of conditionals

it depends on the deal, but iirc it is usually the record company that holds copyrights, resulting in things like Bowie doing that stock deal to buy his songs back, or the artists on Rough Trade having to go to a bankruptcy auction to bid on their own damn master recordings (I was telling Laurie that story last night cuz we were listening to Scrawl, who got totally fucked over by that)

ok, i found something similar to what the mooc professor showed us, this is not the same one though so it doesn't have the harvard berkman center approval

http://static.myce.com/images_posts/2010/08/Music-Licensing-Flowchart.jpg

I was always curious about Scrawl's situation. It was definitely frustrating not to be able to find those records, and sad because they really seemed to be on the verge of a higher profile.

xp

obv it varies from deal to deal but a lot of times when it comes to ancient contracts and artists who don't have a team of lawyers on retainer the deal doesn't even matter. the big three claim de facto ownership of almost everything ever released on any of the 1000s of label catalogs that they own. if you're an artist and you think otherwise, have fun getting their legal dept. to cough up any paperwork without a serious fight.

which isn't to say that they won't have to pay royalties to the artist based on whatever the contract stipulates but, again, good luck getting them to provide any kind of detailed accounting without a legal battle unless you're a big cheese.

i've worked in 3rd party reissue licensing for 10 years and i've never heard of any slightly obscure artist getting a check for anything other than songwriting royalties when their major label record is reissued. i'm sure they're still working off 40 year old advances/promo expenses/etc. that may or may not be bullshit.

and, of course, they may have sold off their songwriting for a, ahem, song back in the day anyways.

anyway, blah blah blah, same old story. obviously there are artists that are getting paid that are hurt by the old EU public domain laws, but imho this is way more about protecting the interests of the big 3 than anything else.

imho this is way more about protecting the interests of the big 3 than anything else.

ding ding ding

What's the story with Scrawl? I always liked that band.

Anyway, I am a person who makes a bunch of money from my parent's work (I own the rights, they're dead). I would probably be less lazy about doing my own stuff if I was "hungrier" or whatever.

re Scrawl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/typicalgirls/2006-February/000746.html

Galaxie 500 had to buy their tapes back as well

Oh, thanks, sleeve. That's interesting. That Rough Trade bankruptcy really screwed a lot of good bands over.

buying back your master for basically the same amount as your advance doesn't sound so terrible.

Advances used to be unreasonably large, though

THREE masters xp

which is an even better deal obv

not really bringing that up in an "evil label" way, just as a comment on artists frequently not owning their own copyrights.

Looking forward to the Beatles songs going public domain in the year 2100. Can't wait, it's gonna be awesome.

OK this is interesting as well, somebody mentioned Funkytown on the itunes/Billboard thread and I went wiki-ng:

In 1976, an amendment was made to the Copyright Act that permits authors to terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978. Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, artists may reclaim ownership of a work's copyright no earlier than 35 years after the grant was executed. However, artists may give notice of their intent to terminate as early as 25 years after the grant had been executed.[36] In 2006, Steven Greenberg became the first American songwriter to file "notice of termination" under this act, in regard to Funkytown and the album it is a part of.[37][38][39][40][41] Because the song was released in 1980, the earliest that Greenberg would actually have the copyright returned to him is in the year 2015. So far, Casablanca's successor (Universal Music Group) has had little to say on the matter. Their stance legally has been that the song was a "work for hire" which are not protected under the copyright amendment, with Greenberg playing the role of the employee. As the first major hit to be reviewed for termination, many artists across the country are eagerly awaiting the outcome.

Yeah, linked a thread for that near the top of this one.

The termination notices issue (w/r/t copyright, artist rights, etc. in the US)

ah, thanks, missed that

review of new Beatles release:

Beatles 'Bootleg' scraping bottom of barrel

Another end of the year, another set of these releases, covering 1964. Two today already from the Beach Boys vaults via iTunes:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/id942040096

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beach-boys-live-in-sacramento/id942017956

The first one is of more immediate interest being a collection of sessions and so forth.

Okay, Dylan is the next rumored one up:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/rare-dylan-recordings-set-for-release-in-copyright-extension-bid/

Key bits:

This year’s trawl is starting to shape up. Sony has told European retailers that it will release a nine-LP set of 1964 recordings by Mr. Dylan, possibly as early as next week. Only 1,000 copies will be available, but if past years are any guide, collectors who obtain copies are likely to make copies available online before the year is out.

A person close to the project, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, provided a track list that includes television performances at the CBC in Canada and on “The Steve Allen Show”; a tantalizing tape, accounting for nearly three LP sides, that Mr. Dylan recorded with the folksinger Eric Von Schmidt, at Von Schmidt’s home in Florida; and a disc of studio outtakes from the sessions for “Another Side of Bob Dylan,” with the first take of “It Ain’t Me Babe,” alternative versions of several other songs, and a 46-second pass at “Mr. Tambourine Man,” a song he would not complete until 1965.

Most of the set, however, is devoted to concert recordings, few of which have turned up on bootlegs in master quality versions. These include performances in London, Philadelphia, San Francisco and San Jose.

Meanwhile here's a random one just out -- a collection of 1964 cuts from a variety of British Invasion acts, but no American release:

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/1964/id947866192

ah, those Eden Kane bootleggers will have to waive the idea.

We've had the Pink Floyd EP, but what else is coming out this year?

Probably not much.

I feel that Dylan 18cd set was another variation on this theme, still expensive but at least you get something for yr big bucks.

There will be some 1966 goodies I'm sure.

Bouncing off the Dylan thread, because I am confused:

I'm not sure about those EU laws, but over at expectingrain.com they're calling it "the Live 1966 Copyright Extension Collection" and I really can't think of other good reasons for this timely change in approach to the bootleg series

Huh. So have there been quiet live/archive releases of 1964, 1965, upcoming 1966 stuff from other acts of prominence? Stones were active by then, the Who, Kinks, etc., not to mention other American acts. It doesn't follow that all this Dylan stuff is being released strictly to get around the change in copyright status.

There was the Pink Floyd EP I mentioned just upthread.

I mean, why not a deluge? If they're also including live stuff, as they are with Dylan and did with Beach Boys and Beatles, clearly there is more. Why was that stuff not released? No Beatles live in 1965, et al. That is, there is obviously live 1965 Pink Floyd material. A lot of that stuff is going to be in that massive boxed set, sure, but didn't it miss the copyright cutoff?

Looks like this is now a thing again:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/jan/03/mystery-of-rolling-stones-tracks-posted-briefly-on-youtube

Abkco did a similar thing a few years ago: it was mostly awful sounding mid-60s live stuff, plus a neat but hilarious Keef demo of "Dandelion" (he had the melody, but few words, so it's mostly him going "rarh rarh rarrrrrrrh rah rarrrrh" over and over).

Almost forgot that tis the season -- and looks like there's a new Beach Boys one en route:

o hai Generic Beach Boys 1970 Copyright Dump https://t.co/13Xo1osw5A cc @bourgwick

— Mike D's Leisure Suit from the "Hey Ladies" video (@scottythered) November 22, 2020

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/bob-dylan-george-harrison-sessions-1097129/

AOTY - Beach Boys, "1970 Release"

Apparently, Lou Reed "I'm So Free - the RCA Demos" is out now on iTunes

Interesting, not seeing in the US store.

Unless they’ve dropped it already.

(I mean, deleted it. These days, dropped means excitedly released something but)

Searching for information about this, I came across the contents of the Lou Reed collection of the New York Public Library:

Reed saved many letters from his parents, as well as greeting cards from his Velvet Underground bandmate, Moe Tucker, who always addressed him as "honey bun." There is also a personalized astrological chart created for Reed by Billy Name, and a signed 1997 letter from Paul McCartney which accompanied an advance copy of his album, Flaming Pie. [...] Additionally, there is a selection of records Reed received as gifts, including a copy of the Byrds' Eight Miles High/Why that was sent to him by Jimmy Page

The Macca one is v.strange I can only assume Laurie made him keep it...

Pink Floyd dropped a bunch of live bootleg-quality recordings the other day, as noted on the dedicated Floyd thread. King Crimson have dropped a ton of studio sessions from the Islands album.