Unreleased 1963 Beatles Tracks On Sale To Preserve Copyright

Taco Cowboy writes "Back in 1963, the Beatles did some performances for the BBC and other places. The songs were recorded, but never officially released. Now, 50 years later, Apple has packaged all 59 tracks together and put them up for sale on iTunes for $40. The reason? Copyright. The copyright for unreleased works expires 50 years after the works are recorded. By releasing the 59 tracks on iTunes before the end of December, the songs will be protected under copyright law for 20 more years."

Comments

All the more reason

[MitchDev]

to revoke Copyright law.

If the **AA's aren't going to play fair, we have to take their toys away...

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

Oh noes... they're protecting their material. They're stealing from the public...

...actually, no. They're working in compliance with a law that has been enacted to act against abuse of copyright terms. It's a law that says "release the material or release the copyright". This is one of the arguments that comes up from people on your side of the fence all the time: "they're not selling it, so it's of no value, so it should be free." Well, they've said "it is of value, so we are selling it, so it shouldn't be free."

It looks to me like the law is functioning as intended and achieving the intended goal.

Re:All the more reason

[jedidiah]

> so if your grandfather had invested in a building that rented out for his lifetime, it would be silly for you for continue to receive benefit from his idea and work?

Copyright is not property.

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

But this law does nothing to extend copyright. What it does do is stop labels sitting on works without making them available to the public.

Re:All the more reason

[mcgrew]

Yeah, your computer mouse is broken, so just throw out the whole new computer because obviously it's not needed since it's broken. Just like copyright.

The MAFIAA isn't the only entity who relies on copyright. Programmers, even GPL programmers, depend on copyright.

I depend on copyright. I just released a sci-fi novel, and since I don't have a kings ransom for marketing it isn't selling many copies. Without copyright I would sell none at all, because anyone with a publishing company could sell as many as they wanted, and they have the marketing muscle to completely bury me.

Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater", to use an old overused cliche. The system is broken, and was broken deliberately by monied interests. Copyright lengths are way too long and things that used to be copyrightable now aren't -- for an example, the JD Sallinger's heirs successfully sued a guy for writing a sequel to Catcher in teh Rye. That just simply should not be. George Harrison should not have been successfully sued for "My Sweet Lord" and ZZ Top should certainly not have been sued for "La Grange", that was the fucktardedest one of all; what was copied was "ah how how how".

The arts are like technology and science in that everything new springs from the old. Like Newton, Van Gogh and Mark Twain stood on the shoulders of giants. Imagine how technology would suffer if patents lasted as long as copyrights? Nothing written or painted before 1990 should still be covered. "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts", how are you going to convince Jimi Hendrix to write and sing any more songs?

But completely revoking it is childish madness. You are out of your mind for suggesting it. Get a clue, dude. I wrote that book so it would be read (I'm posting it on my web site for free, only physical copies cost) but if someone else is making money on work I did, I want my share.

Re:All the more reason

[camperdave]

Sorry folks. The four reasons post wasn't there when I started my reply. I retract my statement.

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

I have no intentions of respecting copyright on something over 50 years old

Forgive my suspicious nature, but I have this feeling that you have no intentions of respecting any copyright whatsoever. This smacks of post hoc rationalisation.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[tomhath]

two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two

That's why we have trademark laws. Oh wait...this is Slashdot (tm) after all.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.

When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...

Yes, and this clarification changes the ass-raping provided by (patented) USPTO policy lubricant exactly how?

To be absolutely clear, a turd by even the same name still smells like shit.

Classic patent law abuse. Don't worry kids, it'll soon be a felony to possess any music not specifically licensed to your DNA (must re-apply for licensing upon reaching age 18 to convert to adult rates). Welcome to your future, provided by your leader, Meh Phuckit. Hope the procrastination was worth it.

Re:yea right

[RDW]

The Beatles: "Money (That's What I Want)":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeqW3t6EnvU

Re:This is important

[Rob the Bold]

You joke, but it's really incentive for future artists more than former. When they see people working a few years in their youth and then earning royalties into retirement, that's quite the incentive to get into music.

Just ask any musician. They'll tell you they got in it for the money.

Re:Write a song, get sued

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're successful and change labels, you might just get sued for sounding too much like yourself. Ask John Fogerty about that one.

What really happens

[gnasher719]

1. As mentioned, it is "Apple Corps", the company owned by the Beatles, that put the music on the music store by "Apple Inc", which allows people to buy this music if they wish to, or not buy it if they don't wish to.

2. Apple Corps has 70 years copyright on all published music by the Beatles. As a quirk in British law, unpublished music only has 50 years copyright. That's different from US law, where the clock starts running when the music gets published, so the same songs according to US law would have infinite copyright protection, being not published at all.

3. So people here get all excited because Apple Corps made a tactical move to get the same copyright on this music as on all the other music, where in the USA they would actually have had much longer copyright.

4. Remember: With this move, you can actually get this music now, where before you couldn't. The only ones hurt by this is anybody who somehow had illegal copies of this music in their possession, and hoped to cash in when copyright runs out.

Re:Write a song, get sued

[rwise2112]

Or ask Neil Young about being sued because his new material sounds too different that his previous material. Face it, you're just going to get sued.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[Hatta]

it's not abuse. It's following the law.

As if they were mutually exclusive?