Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unreleased 1963 Beatles Tracks On Sale To Preserve Copyright

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

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."

56 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. All the more reason by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to revoke Copyright law.

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

    1. Re:All the more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    2. Re:All the more reason by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:All the more reason by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:All the more reason by omnichad · · Score: 2

      the subject should be a play on words or shameless pun

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

    5. Re:All the more reason by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:All the more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    7. Re:All the more reason by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    8. Re:All the more reason by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:All the more reason by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:All the more reason by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:All the more reason by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    12. Re:All the more reason by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      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.

    13. Re:All the more reason by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    14. Re:All the more reason by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

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

    15. Re:All the more reason by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      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.

    16. Re:All the more reason by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    17. Re:All the more reason by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    18. Re:All the more reason by EdIII · · Score: 2

      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.

    19. Re:All the more reason by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    20. Re:All the more reason by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

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

      Ringo is still alive too.

    21. Re:All the more reason by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  2. Apple or Apple Corps by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Apple or Apple Corps by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Apple or Apple Corps by cdrudge · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:Apple or Apple Corps by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Apple or Apple Corps by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    5. Re:Apple or Apple Corps by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      As if they were mutually exclusive?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Apple or Apple Corps by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      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,

    7. Re:Apple or Apple Corps by formfeed · · Score: 2

      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."

  3. Never again by A10Mechanic · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Never again by wed128 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Never again by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Informative

      bay has it, already. that was fast!

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

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Never again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  4. Re:yea right by Nyder · · Score: 2, Funny

    " The reason? Money."

    FTFY

    No, that's a Pink Floyd song.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  5. Copyright, Re-Copyright, and creative difference. by cpuffer_hammer · · Score: 2

    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)?

  6. This is important by punker · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:This is important by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  7. Re:yea right by RDW · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

  8. Seems like a corner case by Akratist · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. Permission to enter your country by tepples · · Score: 2

    How hard is it to immigrate to your country?

  10. Sex, drugs and rock and roll by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:yea right by fractoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  12. Re:Write a song, get sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. What really happens by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Copyright, Re-Copyright, and creative differenc by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    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).

  15. Similar to Bob Dylan by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  16. Misleading teaser by lukpac · · Score: 2

    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.

  17. Re:Write a song, get sued by rwise2112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  18. I agree with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    you 100%!

  19. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously by TangoMargarine · · Score: 3, Funny

    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 :)

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  20. Re:yea right by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  21. Re:Obama Steals your mommas house by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    > 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.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  22. Re:yea right by robkill · · Score: 2

    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)

    --
    DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
  23. Re:Good morning! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Funny

    They just Arrrrrr!

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  24. Re:The real question is: by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    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.