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

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't type half your post in the subject, it makes your post unreadable. Especially when using alternative browsing methods.

Re:All the more reason

[SJHillman]

He puts his hear to the ground and listens for the distant stampede of electrons running through Cat5. For more interactive browsing, he fires up a faulty power supply to make smoke signals.

Re:All the more reason

[ackthpt]

Please don't type half your post in the subject, it makes your post unreadable. Especially when using alternative browsing methods.

Indeed. As with modern media the subject should be a play on words or shameless pun.

The body of the post should be non sequitur by the paragraph, which leaves the reader baffled as to which medication you are on.

This media backed up by the cloud

Re:All the more reason

[omnichad]

the subject should be a play on words or shameless pun

Or just RE: whatever the last guy said, like both of us.

Re:All the more reason

[spacefight]

It's Cat7a, you insensitive clod!

Re:All the more reason

[torsmo]

Maybe we need to take all your technology away.

If critical thought isn't your strong point, maybe you shouldn't go around posting such drivel.

Re:All the more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Vision impaired browsing, for one, can be set up to read only certain content type (i.e. the comment text not the comment title).

Re:All the more reason

[dkleinsc]

Here's an example of the silliness of copyright law: Because my late grandfather collected and arranged a folk song in upstate New York in the 1950's that eventually became a skiffle hit in the UK, my family gets a check each year from sales of recordings we had basically nothing to do with creating, for work done about 60 years ago by someone who has been dead for over 30 years. Now, it's not a very large check these days, but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.

On the upside, it is also the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, so I'd at least have something to talk about if I ended up face to face with Paul McCartney for some reason.

Re:All the more reason

[TangoMargarine]

He's probably a tabletsexual. His lifestyle is just as legitimate as ours!!

Re:All the more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.

Then why not renounce copyright and release it to the public domain? You have that right.

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

[dkleinsc]

There are 4 reasons we don't:
1. If we release the copyright we have on the text of the song, all that really happens is that the company who owns the copyright to the recordings of the song (also mostly from the 1950's - a 1957 version by Lonnie Donnegan actually reached #1 on the charts at one point) simply gets to keep what they're currently paying us.

2. ASCAP is involved in the legal side of things. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but they're usually pretty vicious about hanging onto the songs they have a right to (and sometimes the songs they don't). Again, it might be that whatever we don't see simply goes to ASCAP.

3. We don't take any kind of steps to enforce it against small performances or individual recordings. So Paul McCartney might have to pay someone who pays someone who eventually pays us, but a high school chorus or a traveling folk singer is not going to run into a problem if they download it from somewhere.

4. My family gives away the money we get to a charitable organization in the region where my grandfather collected the song.

In short, renouncing the copyright only benefits some big corporations at the expense of charity.

Re:All the more reason

[MitchDev]

Copyright was supposed to be for the public benefit with a severely LIMITED term. Now Copyrights just get extended to eternity and nothing falls into the public domain, so piss off corporate shill....

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

And more to the point, the material would not have fallen into the public domain anyway -- the summary is wrong, following as it does the lead paragraph of the CNN article, which is wrong. If you look halfway down the article it says:

The British government, following the change in European copyright law, implemented a law last month providing "that if a record label is not commercially releasing a track that is over 50 years old, then the performers can request that the rights in the performance revert to them -- a 'use it or lose it' clause," the government's website said.

(my emphasis)

The public domain is not affected by this law in the slightest: it's between the Beatles and Apple Corp. Apple doesn't want the McCartney and the other 3's families getting hold of the material and then selling it themselves for a higher percentage, so they've rushed this out to hold onto their cut.

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

[wvmarle]

And the irony here, is that without this copyright issue, these tracks might not have been releases at all.

The purpose of copyright is to have people produce, and in extension release their work. In this case it's quite easy to argue that the copyright laws helped directly in getting this released. Had there not been this 20-year extension rule, most likely they'd have let the copyrights expire and possibly simply dump the tapes in the garbage bin, only to be lost forever.

Oh, and there is no **AA organisation involved. From the shortish terms you should've known that this is not US copyright. This is EU copyright.

By the way, I'm not trying to argue that this 50/70 year thing is good or bad. Just trying to show how stupid GP's comment really is - if the way it's written half in the subject half in the body didn't tip you off already.

Re:All the more reason

[hawkinspeter]

And if his grandfather had been involved in actually making the building, then he would have been paid for the work he performed (usually time based) and there would be no question of continuing to receive benefit from his idea and work.

Re:All the more reason

[unixisc]

Probably the RMS wget approach - downloading the site & reading it offline?

Re:All the more reason

[ConceptJunkie]

For 50 years minus one day. Big whoop.

Re:All the more reason

[Bing Tsher E]

Damnit, have some sympathy for those of us on 10Base2,

Re:All the more reason

[Bing Tsher E]

So, you're saying he is sort of 'dirty' for associating with copyright at all? Even though he responded with more details that explain why that would be a meaningless gesture?

What do you say to all the people who license their software under the GPL, where copyright law is a pivotal part of the license.

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]

Yes, I guess I am. He or His family is the copyright owner (otherwise he wouldn't be getting the royalties), so he/his family have the power to put the song into the public domain. Yet despite there being no good reason not to do so, he doesn't do it. Why? It can't be because the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, because that would still be the case copyright or no. So the only thing left is the money. He's living high on the hog on his Grand-pappy's Korean war era ditty and he likes it.

Re:All the more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, stop it. You're both pretty! (....big douchebags).

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

[s.petry]

I just got my vampire tap reseated, please repeat that!

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

It's a start, isn't it? The situation is better now than it was before, and a lot of people here complain about how copyright law only ever gets more restrictive, never more free. Well here's one minor victory. Can't we accept it as such?

Re:All the more reason

[EdIII]

Absolutely we can accept it as a victory.

Unlike 50 years ago, when Apple released all those tracks it was on the Internet. I have no intentions of respecting copyright on something over 50 years old, and now that the material is out in the open, we all have access to it.

The material has now been released to the world instead of decaying on a shelf. A good start indeed.

Re:All the more reason

[EdIII]

I quite agree.... with eliminating copyright entirely.

However, we can't actually do that until we find an alternate system that encourages you to write that sci-fi novel can we?

While I like a Utopian future without money as much as the next person, it's not going to work unless you have all those pieces in place. Most of that quite frankly is behavioral science, not conceptual ideas.

Until we evolve as a species I'm just fine with reasonable copyright laws that give you the ability to make money from your work.

Re:All the more reason

[Some_Llama]

too bad you didn't retract the derision inherent in your first post as well, for although you admit your mistake you still (very easily) judged and condemned him without knowing the facts needed to make such judgements and condemnation.

we aren't the ones who you owe an apology.

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:All the more reason

[russotto]

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.

With copyright, everything's broken but the right mouse button. And that only works 1/3rd of the time.

Re:All the more reason

[Jack Griffin]

Apple doesn't want the McCartney and the other 3's families

Ringo is still alive too.

Re:All the more reason

[dkleinsc]

I accept the retraction and don't worry too much about the judgment and condemnation. If I were in fact being hypocritical and happily living richly off of my grandfather's work, I'd expect someone to say what GP said and completely deserve it.

And for what it's worth, we're also not talking about all that much money: Last I checked, it was less than $100 a year. (I don't actually manage it, my aunt currently handles it.)

Re:All the more reason

[TapeCutter]

Copyright is not property.

LOL, tell that to the judge. Most of them have a good sense of humour, he will probably laugh so hard he will let you off.

Re:All the more reason

[mcgrew]

Oh, the novel would be written but nobody could read it because I wouldn't let it out if I thought some asshole would make tons of money from it and I'd get jack shit. Now, if you had a moneyless Star Trek utopia there would be no reason for copyrights or patents.

Re:All the more reason

[Pseudonym]

The good news is, it's only four years until we all finally get to hear Carnival of Light.

Re:All the more reason

[omfgnosis]

So it's okay to generate revenue from property but not from work? Or does work need to be "for hire"? How are creative people supposed to live? Or do you give a fuck? I honestly don't want to consume culture only in the form of branding. Do you?

Obviously copyright law needs a great deal of reform. Obviously it's deeply vulnerable to chicanery. But please don't let's forget that copyright law (like patent law) was originally conceived to protect workers who provide excessively exploitable value. It might be that the vast majority of the evolution of these laws should be gutted and their intent radically reimplemented. It's quite likely. But for fuck's sake, the idea that we should just throw creators and inventors to the wolves because their exploiters are exploitative is just wrongheaded.

It's worth noting that, in music in particular, experiments with less restrictive copyright enforcement (for example the "pay what you want" scheme) have proven to be a wash for the most popular artists—those who have enjoyed the benefit of years of massive corporate marketing exposure! Eliminating copyright entirely as a mechanism for generating revenue from reproduction would utterly destroy creative culture as anything more than a cultish communal phenomenon.

But wait, that's not all. Guess who would be the biggest winners! Corporate sponsors could perpetually hire creative talent as works for hire. By controlling the entire communications and distribution channel, they could reap even more of the profit than they already do. The creative work would command the tiniest fraction of a percent of the actual revenue generated. Without royalties, they would be free to reproduce and exploit a given creative work eternally. Is that better than absurdly long expiration periods in existing copyright law?

Those of us who care about these issues need to find a better way to communicate not just what we hate about the status quo, but what we expect to do that's better. Maybe we should instead start by placing severe restrictions on how copyright is granted and transferred, and eliminate extension? That would be a phenomenal first step. It would drastically reduce the disparity of power between corporations and creative workers immensely. It would preserve a revenue stream for creative workers. And it might actually be achievable.

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

Good news. He was always my favourite. Maybe we'll get more episodes of Thomas the Tank Engine now.

Re:All the more reason

[Half-pint HAL]

If it's a stand on principle, you should stick by your principle. Otherwise it just sounds like rationalisation.

Re:All the more reason

[cayenne8]

The public domain is not affected by this law in the slightest: it's between the Beatles and Apple Corp. Apple doesn't want the McCartney and the other 3's families getting hold of the material and then selling it themselves for a higher percentage, so they've rushed this out to hold onto their cut.

Err....don't the Beatles (and their families) own Apple Corps?

Re:All the more reason

[Grumbleduke]

This change to the law does extend (some) copyrights by 20 years, and in some cases, indefinitely (in the sense of for a currently undefined period, rather than for ever), and in a few cases, pulling works previously in the public domain back into copyright.

The Regulations in question do several things, and there is a lot of misinformation going around about this (including in the summary above; I haven't read the CNN article).

The new EU law extends the copyright and performance rights (which are different things that usually go to different people) in certain sound recordings by 20 years. But as a compromise, adds new reversion etc. powers for the performance rights only, for the last 20 years only. So if someone performs for a sound recording today, and waives their performance rights, in 50 (to 100) years they might be able to do something.

The recent release (probably) wasn't anything to do with the change in the law, but the way the existing law words. The copyright in the sound recordings lasts for 50 years (technically, as with all of these, 50 + the rest of that year). However, if the work is legally published or performed in public during that period, the copyright lasts an extra 70 (was 50) years. So had Apple Corp. released these sound recordings next month, the copyright (in the sound recordings, but not in the underlying songs; they last the full "life + 70") would have expired on 31 December 2013. But by releasing them this month, the copyright will last until 31 December 2083 (assuming no changes in the law).

It is hard to see the decision to publish in December 2013 (verses any other time in the last 50 years) as anything other than a way to maximise the copyright duration, and thus the book value of the copyright.

But yes, if the work wasn't published, "control" over the sound recordings would have resorted to whoever holds the copyright in the underlying songs - which may be some of the individual Beatles or might be Michael Jackson's estate, as I understand he owned some of the copyrights.

Re:All the more reason

[MitchDev]

It's only a start for the **IAs the get their lobbyists to buy some more law changes...

Re:All the more reason

[MitchDev]

It's less risky (penaltywise) to shoplift a CD/DVD/Software Package from a store than to "copy" it off the internet...

Re:All the more reason

[bbsalem]

This sounds to me like most blog posts! The message that loses the most context, and quote me on that!

Re:All the more reason

[bbsalem]

Oh, I get it, promiscuous mode!

Apple or Apple Corps

[cdrudge]

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...

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

[cdrudge]

Bite me. I haven't had my morning caffeine.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[SJHillman]

Maybe you should have it with an Apple strudel

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[cdrudge]

Is that produced by Apple Computer or Apple Corps?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[Thanshin]

That's like an Apple Corps strudel, but without the divisions right?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that produced by Apple Computer or Apple Corps?

Neither, it's produced by Apple Cores.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[cdrudge]

What does the USPTO or patent law have anything to do with this? It's a British COPYRIGHT law that was passed following a change to a European law. Patents and trademarks are not at play here. Nor is US copyright law.

Even if it was about US copyright law, it's not abuse. It's following the law. If Apple Corps lobbied to have the law change, then maybe it's abuse. But they didn't. They just applied the law and the protection it granted to their work. Which is their right under copyright law.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[ATMAvatar]

True, and originally, the trademark dispute between the two was settled with a pittance and an agreement by Apple, Inc. not to sell music. However, they managed to win over a judge when iTunes came out and then wrest control of the trademark away from Apple Corps (perhaps better known as Apple Records) shortly thereafter.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[csumpi]

But being accurate would attract much less clicks.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[rwise2112]

Is that produced by Apple Computer or Apple Corps?

Neither, it's produced by Apple Cores.

So... multicore. Who has a patent on that?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[Hatta]

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

As if they were mutually exclusive?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[tlhIngan]

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...

Not to mention the whole reason Apple Inc., was named that was because Jobs was a huge Beatles fan (well, Apple Computer, Inc. originally). And that Jobs and Woz couldn't come up with anything better.

True, and originally, the trademark dispute between the two was settled with a pittance and an agreement by Apple, Inc. not to sell music. However, they managed to win over a judge when iTunes came out and then wrest control of the trademark away from Apple Corps (perhaps better known as Apple Records) shortly thereafter.

Actually, the terms of the original agreement was to not do anything potentially related to music. So when Apple Computer released Macs with microphone support, they actually ran afoul of this. (Hence the old MacOS Classic sound "sosumi"). This was way back in 1991.

Of course, Apple managed to pull a Bill Gates and using one paragraph of the agreement, launch the iTunes store in 2003 - on the technicality that Apple (Inc.) can do it because it's a service, and not selling physical media under the Apple (Inc.) name (i.e., as long as iTunes didn't sell CDs, they were in the clear. Or that the CDs made (through iTunes burning) implied Apple sold them the CD). So Apple (Inc) won that lawsuit while Apple (corps) appealed (though the only thing they managed to do was reduce the damages from UKP2M to 1.5M).

Of course, in 2007 things basically wrapped up - Apple Corps., deciding that they really only had one asset, the lawsuits and everything really didn't do anything for Apple (Inc) and hurt Apple (Corps) financially. So they released the albums on iTunes - after all, they can still milk money off the albums still,

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[bitt3n]

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...

You mean two entities like the obscure music collaborative of common insects to which you refer, and celebrated rock band the Beatles?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[unixisc]

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...

From Wiki:

Apple Corps has had a long history of trademark disputes with Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.). The dispute was finally resolved in 2007, with Apple Corps transferring ownership of the "Apple" name and all associated trademarks to Apple Inc., and Apple Inc. exclusively licensing these back to the Beatles' company. In April 2007, Apple also settled a long running dispute with EMI and announced the retirement of chief executive Aspinall.[23][24] Aspinall was replaced by Jeff Jones.[25]

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[unixisc]

Apple Records is how they're better known, but that is a division of Apple Corps

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[unixisc]

Apple ;-)

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[Bing Tsher E]

This is entertainment.slashdot.org. If you want to virtually fellate Steve Jobs, you need to post in discussions hosted on apple.slashdot.org.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[Bing Tsher E]

Right now the beetles are out of season on Animal Crossing. Unless you time travel, of course.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps

[formfeed]

Not to mention the whole reason Apple Inc., was named that was because Jobs was a huge Beatles fan (well, Apple Computer, Inc. originally). And that Jobs and Woz couldn't come up with anything better.

That's not the true story of course:

Once upon a time, Steve Jobs was sitting under an apple tree to think, as he usually did, about how to make life better for all of humanity. When all of a sudden he got hit by an apple. Accelerated by gravity the apple hit quite hard. But, Steve Jobs wasn't hurt. He just rubbed his head and thought:
"Good thing, that thing had rounded corners."

Never again

[A10Mechanic]

I, for one, will not ever be giving another cent to Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney. If you find a way to give to just Ringo, I'm in.

Re:Never again

[wed128]

Well, there are the Ringo Starr solo albums...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringo_Starr_discography

Re:Never again

[TheGratefulNet]

bay has it, already. that was fast!

http://thepiratebay.gy/torrent/9360725/The_Beatles_-_Bootleg_Recordings_1963_(2013)_%5BiTunes%5D_M4AVBR_Beo

Re:Never again

[Charliemopps]

Not really... they usually have them BEFORE they are released to the general public.

Re:Never again

[aliquis]

Seem like they didn't got the track names right though? =P

Re:Never again

[aliquis]

Got me thinking ..

What if TPB was the only ones who had released (held a torrent/magnet link for) this?

Would that have meant copyright was extended 20 more years because now they had been released?

Mind blown.

Re:Never again

[Anonymous Coward]

The estate of Michael Jackson owns most of the Lennon/McCartney catalog, last time I looked...

Re:Never again

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Myself, I've long since moved past the originals and prefer to listen to Lennon/McCartney's work as performed by dogs.

Re:Never again

[cpt kangarooski]

Have you got one where it's Paul, Ringo, and dogs filling in for John and George? If it's halfway decent, they could get the band back together.

Re:Never again

[afidel]

Well, his estate owns half the publishing rights by virtue of including his share of the ATV joint venture with Sony. The Lennon estate and McCartney still own the songwriters rights.

Re:Never again

[xenobyte]

URL doesn't work... Isn't TPB on .pe these days anyway?

Re:Never again

[TheGratefulNet]

it did resolve when I posted it.

the merry-go-round of DNS that TPB is, gets annoying.

what suffix will they use next? only a net.search will tell us!

yea right

[Connie_Lingus]

" The reason? Money."

FTFY

Re:yea right

[Nyder]

" The reason? Money."

FTFY

No, that's a Pink Floyd song.

Re:yea right

[SJHillman]

Which, by my calculations, is still under copyright for another 30 years anyway (released 1973).

Re:yea right

[RDW]

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

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

Re:yea right

[fractoid]

Well yes, money is why companies do things. But wait, let me get this straight - because of copyright law, a company is releasing music to the public that otherwise may never have been released?

Isn't that the entire purpose of copyright law? To encourage the release of artwork? Is this not a perfect example of copyright working as intended?

Re:yea right

[TubeSteak]

Isn't that the entire purpose of copyright law? To encourage the release of artwork?

Not originally, no.
Copyright was originally meant as a means of censorship and was entirely focused on publishers, not authors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

"An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses."

The actual history of Anglo copyright goes back another 120ish years when the crown first decided that censorship was important and started limiting the right to publish.

/For the sake of brevity, I won't get into monks writing curses against copying in their manuscripts

Re:yea right

[fractoid]

Oh. Whelp, I've clearly been drinking the koolaid. Thanks.

(They get bonus points in the Licensing of the Press Act for conflating "unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets" with "seditious treasonable Bookes and Pamphlets." Still a staple for those trying to bundle legislation supporting their own interests in with legislation that "everybody should vote for.")

Re:yea right

[Archangel Michael]

Well, there is always Dire Straits "Money for nothing" which seems appropriate here.

Re:yea right

[robkill]

Since that song is a cover, originally a hit for Barrett Strong, songwriter royalties for it would go to Berry Gordy. Strong was initially listed as a songwriter, but was later removed. Gordy claimed Strong's inclusion as songwriter was a "clerical error."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_(That's_What_I_Want)

Re:yea right

[toshikodo]

Copyright would be fine if it benefited all those involved in the creative process, but it hasn't benefited those who have enabled the musicians to live for the rest of their life on the back of a few years work. I'm referring to the engineers & academics who designed the recording equipment and the means to then mass produce cheap copies of the musician's works. These engineers & academics will have gotten nothing more than a one time wage payment for their work, but without them, musicians would have to actually work for a living, just like everyone else.

Re:yea right

[Trogre]

Yes, just about 45 years too late.

Re:yea right

[Half-pint HAL]

The big publishers were in a nasty spot, though. Their business was being poached by smaller, regional presses. For years, they used support of state censorship to give themselves a monopoly and keep competition down. Abusive monopoly. This I will not deny.

Copyright as we know it only arrived when censorship ended. This I will also not deny.

But this does not mean that copyright is censorship, or that it is somehow evil or anti-competitive. Copyright protected them not merely from competition, but specifically from unfair competition -- someone taking something that the publisher had paid money for and reproducing it for free. It allowed investment in literature.

Re:yea right

[fractoid]

The engineers were working on a work-for-hire basis, and they knew it. What they get is no different to what an incidental musician or a member of a pub band would get: An hourly wage for their labour.

Musicians who write albums and then publish them, receiving ongoing income, are more analogous to an inventor or a startup company, who design a product and then market that product, making money off the ongoing sales.

The musicians that you refer to, who work for a few years and live the rest of their lives on the royalties from that music, are the equivalent of the guy who invented and popularized the Tetra Pak milk carton.

Copyright, Re-Copyright, and creative difference.

[cpuffer_hammer]

It would be nice to have an explanation of when a copy goes out of copyright and how that effects other copies and originals. When an original (A) goes out of copyright, which I think we mostly understand. Compared to when copy of A (B) goes out of copyright. How does this affect the copy right on A and B. Does B have to be creatively different, detectably different, and what if they cannot be told apart? What about copy C made from A after copy B, or copy D and from B before copy C, or copy E made from B after Copy D.
What about different legal systems, and different types of works (words, vs sound)?

This is important

[punker]

It's a good thing they did this. Otherwise, the Beatles would have no incentive to produce new songs.

Re:This is important

[omnichad]

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.

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:This is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask any musician. They'll tell you they got in it for the money.
Many may not get into it for the money. But many leave because of it.

Re:This is important

[Whorhay]

That is probably true to some extent but it isn't the kind of incentive that we'd really like as a society. We want artists to continue producing content not produce a few big hits and then stop and go live off the procedes for 75+ years. That's how we end up with things like Disney that specialize in using public domain stories to produce slightly new content and using the procedes to prevent that work from ever entering the public domain in turn.

Re:This is important

[Huge_UID]

Whats the difference between a pizza and a musician?
...
A pizza can feed a family of four.

Re:This is important

[Bing Tsher E]

Don't ask Marc Andreesen, Bezos or any of the other 'I was there first' fucks about how it works.

Re:This is important

[Jack Griffin]

Because most young musicians have the same amount of talent as Lennon/McCartney so can expect to earn a similar income...

Re:This is important

[omnichad]

I'm sure a lot of them probably think so. How hard can it be?

Re:This is important

[bjb]

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.

Appropriate Frank Zappa & the Mothers of Invention link: We're Only In It for the Money

Seems like a corner case

[Akratist]

Copyright laws are meant to protect an artist's ability to monetize their creations (I won't go into the ethics and morality of copyright). The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarly interest. Maybe it's time for some copyright holders to start recognizing that certain things should be made freely available, in the interests of culture and historical significance, as opposed to trying to make a buck off of what was a dud back in the day.

Re:Seems like a corner case

[TheloniousToady]

The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarly interest.

My cynical interpretation is that they found an excuse to release something that they know is of too-poor quality to really be worth releasing so that they can monetize it among the true hardcore fans who will buy anything. Otherwise, why are they charging $40 for it?

The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.

Even though I'm a hardcore Beatles fan, I never bought the last remastered box-set release. I might do that one day, though, when the price of used copies finally comes down on eBay. Gives me something to look forward to.

Maybe it's time for some copyright holders to start recognizing that certain things should be made freely available, in the interests of culture and historical significance, as opposed to trying to make a buck off of what was a dud back in the day.

Agreed. I guess they just don't think that way.

Re:Seems like a corner case

[Anonymous Coward]

The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.

The remastered box set released on vinyl last year is amazing and was well worth $300. It would be hard to find all of the albums in record stores in shitty condition for less than $300, so to get everything remastered and on 180 gram vinyl was great. Easily the best music purchase I made last year.

Re:Seems like a corner case

[justthinkit]

The recordings were of poor quality

So sharing them will net you double the financial penalty. Sneaky, very sneaky.

Re:Seems like a corner case

[Half-pint HAL]

Except that the summary is wrong. It is not about the public domain, because according to TFA, the copyright in the unreleased recordings reverts to the artists, it does not expire. The point is to protect the artist from abusive labels. If the label doesn't make the material available, it starves the artist of their earnings. If the label isn't making money for the artist, the artist should have the right to make money elsewhere. There have been cases where artists have recorded something and then the label has refused to release it because they don't want competition for another act.

50 years is too long, though, as the artist will have well and truly lost out. And "alternative takes" present a troubling conundrum... the record label releases the best, but has often incidentally made several versions. Do they have to release all of them now, just to prevent reversion of copyright?

Re:Seems like a corner case

[jedidiah]

> Copyright laws are meant to protect an artist's ability to monetize their creations

No. Copyright laws are meant to encourage the creation of new works. Such works are intended to be made available for future artists to build on.

Re:Seems like a corner case

[Bing Tsher E]

In my reading of the issue, they mainly did it to keep third parties from releasing shitty poorly done copies of the recordings as 'New Beatles Material' in the Beatle's name.

This is bootleg territory, and the material released on iTunes is presumably of better quality than what the bootleg hustlers would have been selling in places like the cheap bins at Walgreens and WalMart.

Re:Seems like a corner case

[TheloniousToady]

Could well be. I'm looking forward to finding out for myself one day (on CD, though - I don't have a decent turntable.) In my own case, they alienated me by producing both stereo and mono box sets. As a hardcore fan, I'd be willing to be taken for another $300 after having already purchased the full catalog previously on both vinyl and early-issue CDs (which reportedly sound lousy, though I'm used to them so I don't know any different by now). But since they've tried to take me for $300 twice more by issuing two box sets, I've opted out so far.

In the reviews I've read, the mono versions are supposed to be the real thing. Apparently, the mono versions are not just mono but have noticeable mixing differences with the stereo ones. But that seems like more of a novelty to me, so I'd really rather have stereo (such as Beatles stereo is). Anyway, after several years, I still haven't decided between the two so I haven't bought either one. Their loss.

Regarding the newly issued BBC material, if I really want to listen to some lousy Beatles recordings, I can always drag out my old LP of the Hamburg tapes. For free.

Re:Seems like a corner case

[sh00z]

The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.

Even though I'm a hardcore Beatles fan, I never bought the last remastered box-set release. I might do that one day, though, when the price of used copies finally comes down on eBay. Gives me something to look forward to.

Even with my tin ears, there was a LOT of music in the mono recordings that I had never "noticed" before. Highly recommended.

only 50 years

[Anonymous Coward]

"The copyright for unreleased works expires 50 years after the works are recorded"

Only 50 years? no wonder they never released them, who in their right mind would do anything creative if you only have a copyright for just 50 years. They probably didn't bother releasing it because it wasn't worth there time. i mean if you release the album when you 20 you would only be 70 by the time the copyright expires. You could still be alive even, what the hell are your poor grand children going to do if they don't have that sweet sweet copyright money from something they had nothing to do with creating.

Write a song, get sued

[tepples]

Even if I got a job as a self-employed singer-songwriter, I could still get sued for copyright infringement when a song that I write and record ends up accidentally too similar to an existing song.

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.

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:Write a song, get sued

[tepples]

So what steps should an indie singer-songwriter take to protect himself from being bankrupted by other copyright owners?

Re:Write a song, get sued

[suutar]

Win the lottery and get a good law firm on retainer.

Re:Write a song, get sued

[tepples]

a song that I write and record ends up accidentally too similar to an existing song

Don't rip off their material?

So before I publish a song, what should I do to know what I may have accidentally ripped off?

Re:Write a song, get sued

[rwise2112]

So before I publish a song, what should I do to know what I may have accidentally ripped off?

I don't know. Maybe ask Vanilla Ice? - oh 'accidentally' - I don't have an answer.

Re:Write a song, get sued

[TapeCutter]

oh 'accidentally' - I don't have an answer.

Men at work vs "Kookaburra in a gum tree"

Re:Write a song, get sued

[nickmalthus]

I love Neil Young's music. His albumn Trans, part of the lawsuit mentioned above, was way ahead of its time. I think in many ways this synth album is similar to Daft Punk's recent release which have been very successful this year. The lyrics for some of the songs on Trans are also particularly prescient.

Re:Write a song, get sued

[bbsalem]

Don't play it in E-major or minor.

Re:Write a song, get sued

[tepples]

That doesn't matter. The judge will have the melodies transposed to the same key before giving them to the jury.

Re:Write a song, get sued

[bbsalem]

Oh, I know. It was a weak joke about the number of facile pop songs for guitar in that key.

Even more Beatles music I won't be buying...

[Grey Geezer]

I like music. I like Rock, Jazz, Clasical, Ambient, Bluegrass, New Age, just about any genre. I really like artists who write their own music. Not so much singers who are little more than a pretty voice. But I never got on the Beatles (the group or their various solo works) bandwagon. With rare exception, if something made the "top ten", that meant it was played at least once an hour, every hour, 24/7, (on the radio, pretty much the only way to listen to music when I was a kid) until I quickly got tired of it. Rejecting the Beatles was my way of rebelling against the groupthink of the time. Also my impression was that people who listened to the same song, over and over, were rather simple. Not a fair assesment I know, but I've never outgrown that.

Re:Even more Beatles music I won't be buying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Younger people reading this should may not understand why the Beatles were considered so great 'back then'. I remember being a little kid in the 60s hearing the Beatles on WABC AM radio on the kitchen radio. Songs like "All You Need is Love", "She Loves You", etc. Positive, upbeat music, not a hint of anything negative. As a young adult I began to realize that the only time I ever heard the word 'love' in my (very dysfunctional) household was from the radio, today kids know hear 'love' all the time (as it should be). So it worked out that some of the best memories of my childhood were associated with AM music.

On topic, let Paul McCartney get a little bit more money, maybe he needs it. If you saw the recent video of him at a basketball game trying to catch a thrown tee-shirt...

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/paul-mccartney-tries-to-score-free-t-shirt-at-nba-game-20131217

Re:Even more Beatles music I won't be buying...

[macbeth66]

I dunno. My kids are in their early twenties and love the Beatles. I love looking through the music on their phones and seeing all the new stuff I hate and then catch sight of all the Beatles albums. I taught them something right.

Worse in USA

[tepples]

Recording copyrights last longer in Slashdot's home country. The current term is 95 years from publication, or 95 years from 1972 when sound recordings were added to U.S. copyright law, whichever is later.

Permission to enter your country

[tepples]

How hard is it to immigrate to your country?

Re:Permission to enter your country

[Bing Tsher E]

Probably easier than it is for a US citizen who wants to work for a living to legally immigrate to Mexico.

Sex, drugs and rock and roll

[Opportunist]

Laws concerning them are not rooted in reality or logic.

No, seriously. You can (to some degree) explain most other laws logically. They also tend to be quite consistent.

Not so in these areas. Why is some drug legal and another one with pretty much the same kind of "danger" attached to it is not? Why are some sex practices illegal in some places (not to mention the question who may fuck whom)? And if I start with copyright and its logical loopholes I guess I exceed the posting limit.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house

[kthreadd]

You think I am kidding?

http://healthshareadvocates.blogspot.com/2013/12/Medicaid.html

"You could call it a "death tax," if that term hadn't been taken. Next year, Americans who die with more than five million dollars in assets will pay 40% in taxes. Americans who die on Medicaid will pay 100% of their Medicaid expenses before their heirs get one penny.

Family farm? Gone. Mom and Pop shop? Gone. Nana's house, with her snow-white picket fence around her prize-winning garden? Gone, gone, gone. "

And you jerk off socialists supprt this tyranny? Pathetic.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

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:Copyright, Re-Copyright, and creative differenc

[gnasher719]

It would be nice to have an explanation of when a copy goes out of copyright and how that effects other copies and originals.

Copyright applies to the original and all the copies. If someone doesn't make a copy but creates a modified work, that new creator would have the copyright on their changes, but the unmodified parts would still be under the original copyright. If copyright for the original expires, then all unmodified copies are free, all copies where modifications are so small that they don't create new rights are free as well.

And, just because someone tried this, converting to a different audio format doesn't affect copyright (Some joker once tried to claim that he created .mp3 files that sounded the same but were actually totally different from the originals, so these .mp3 files were solely under _his_ copyright. I don't know if the judge thought it was a good joke or a bad joke).

Similar to Bob Dylan

[larry bagina]

100 copies of "Copyright Extension Collection Volume 1" (yeah, that's the name) were sold in Europe last year.

Misleading teaser

[lukpac]

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.

That makes it sound like this is the entirety of the (still existing) recorded material from 1963. It isn't. Quite a few more takes of There's A Place, I Saw Her Standing There, Do You Want To Know A Secret, A Taste of Honey, Misery, From Me To You, Thank You Girl, One After 909, and Hold Me Tight have already been bootlegged. In addition, some takes of Don't Bother Me have been bootlegged but none were released on this set. And several takes of I Want To Hold Your Hand and This Boy exist but have not been bootlegged (although some of This Boy was released on the Free As A Bird CD single).

For whatever reason, this set was only a sampling of what exists and has been bootlegged.

Re:Misleading teaser

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

Pretty much every note, every inch of tape that the Beatles ever produced has been bootlegged. Collectors like me already have all this stuff, though maybe the new releases might have better sound quality. The Beatles themselves would be first to admit that some of this was substandard work though, which is why it wasn't released back then in the first place

Re:Misleading teaser

[lukpac]

Pretty much every note, every inch of tape that the Beatles ever produced has been bootlegged. Collectors like me already have all this stuff, though maybe the new releases might have better sound quality. The Beatles themselves would be first to admit that some of this was substandard work though, which is why it wasn't released back then in the first place

This couldn't be further from the truth. Hundreds (thousands?) of hours of material has still not seen the light of day. That isn't to say it's all *great*, but what has been bootlegged already only scratches the surface of what remains (not to mention the material that no longer exists).

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house

[inode_buddha]

I did look it up and you're a lying trolling cunt.
  There is nothing in my medicaid paperwork or in the law which states this. Deal with it.

Already released?

[globalist]

I know this spans just the year 1963, but haven't the BBC songs already been released here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_at_the_BBC_(The_Beatles_album)

I can't wait!

[plopez]

To spend my hard earned money for recordings of McCartney burping between takes.

I agree with

[Anonymous Coward]

you 100%!

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

[TangoMargarine]

The Internet is a cold, unfeeling place, and does not exist to conform to our ideas of decency. Some of us have come to terms with this :)

So a building never dilapidates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buildings don't have land taxes on them?

Do you live in Somalia?

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house

[jedidiah]

> When on Medcaid your estate, after you die, becomes property of the state.

If you have an estate, this is not going to be a problem. People with something to protect have ample means to do so.

Re:Good morning!

[hawkinspeter]

They just Arrrrrr!

Stop using Apple products

[koan]

That is all.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house

[will_die]

Your googlefu really,really, really sucks my first search and I had info on it.
However that portion is not changed in obamacare that dates back a few decades ago, Medicaid is just a loan to be paid back when you no longer need your house and items.
What Obamacare does is lower requirements to get medicaid it then requires people to go on Medicaid if they qualify for it. If you qualify for Medicaid you now longer qualify for the subsidies that others get under obamacare.
In the past you basically had to have no assets to qualify so it there was no major chance people would loose much. Now if you have a house and have a basic retirement fund you may qualify. So with obamacare you meet the qualifications for medicaid you go to purchase the mandated insurance you find out instead of costing you $12000 and others qualify for a $9000 subsidy however since you qualify for medicaid you owe $12000 or you can take free medicaid. Then when you die the government takes $12000 for each year you were under the system; and there goes any house you may of had.
That is what has happened to a bunch of people who got to the web site and people have just been finding out about it the last few weeks.

Re:The real question is:

[Bing Tsher E]

Many young people go through a 'Beatles' phase. It's one of the possible paths of '(recordings of) music appreciation' that young people can go through. Another alternative artist to fixate on is Jim Morrison. Che t-shirts and other bric-a-brac from 'The Sixties' (which really happened in the early 70's) figure in this.

It's kind of a College Freshman phenomena. And a rite of passage for some people.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house

[Bing Tsher E]

So, if grandpa has $20,000, or a little cabin up at the lake that he'd like his grandchildren to enjoy, it gets taken away by the state. Whereas Algore has $20,000,000 so his descendants can spend $200,000 of that on lawyers to keep the rest.

What a nice fucking deal. I didn't realize you were a grand defender of rich fucks, jedidiah.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house

[Bing Tsher E]

You need to engage in further study of Chairman Mao's "On The Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People", comrade. Your approach in argument is brash and will alienate members of the masses who might become class-aware and join the people's struggle if proper tactics are taken. Please prepare your Self Cricitism for our next meeting.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house

[Bing Tsher E]

Single payer would have, in a single swoop, blown all the cards off the table. You're right that the 'compromise' that the Democrats singlehandedly rammed through is messier and more protracted.

If we'd just let you fucks do what you wanted we could all be standing in lines at the doctor's office now, instead of this turmoil and uncertainty.

It is a good example of abuse

[John Allsup]

The copyright system was originally intended to provide a good balance between the rights of the public and those of the producer.  The producers are the ones who make the money, and they've use this to lobby for the balance to shift in their favour.  This is what happens when lobbying and campaign contributions are allowed in a democratic system: fairness goes out the window.

Re:The real question is:

[John Allsup]

They're one of the best examples of good modern songwriting, so far as I am concerned. I don't listen casually, but when I want to explore what makes a good song, Beatles material is often what I look at first.

Re:The real question is:

[Jack Griffin]

That was a statement, not a question.

Isn't that part of why it's called "iTunes"?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... the trademark dispute between the two was settled with a pittance and an agreement by Apple, Inc. not to sell music. However, they managed to win over a judge when iTunes came out and then wrest control of the trademark away from Apple Corps ...

But isn't that also part of why the app and store is named "iTunes" - generalizing the iMac naming scheme into "iWhatever" - with no mention of the word "Apple"?

iTunes

[brunnegd]

Why are they ignoring a large part of the market by releasing only to iTunes?