Slashdot Mirror
The Beatles, Bob Dylan and the 50-Year Copyright Itch
HughPickens.com writes: Victoria Shannon reports in the NY Times that fifty years ago was a good year for music, with the Beatles appearing on Billboard's charts for the first time, the Rolling Stones releasing their first album, the Supremes with five No. 1 hits, and Simon and Garfunkel releasing their debut album. The 50-year milestone is significant, because music published within the first half-century of its recording gets another 20 years of copyright protection under changes in European law. So every year since 2012, studios go through their tape vaults to find unpublished music to get it on the market before the deadline.
The first year, Motown released a series of albums packed with outtakes by some of its major acts, and Sony released a limited-edition collection of 1962 outtakes by Bob Dylan, with the surprisingly frank title, "The Copyright Extension Collection, Vol. I." In 2013, Sony released a second Dylan set, devoted to previously unreleased 1963 recordings. Similar recordings by the Beatles and the Beach Boys followed. This year, Sony is releasing a limited-edition nine-LP set of 1964 recordings by Dylan, including a 46-second try at "Mr. Tambourine Man," which he would not complete until 1965. The Beach Boys released two copyright-extension sets of outtakes last week. And while there's no official word on a Beatles release, last year around this time, "The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963" turned up unannounced on iTunes.
The first year, Motown released a series of albums packed with outtakes by some of its major acts, and Sony released a limited-edition collection of 1962 outtakes by Bob Dylan, with the surprisingly frank title, "The Copyright Extension Collection, Vol. I." In 2013, Sony released a second Dylan set, devoted to previously unreleased 1963 recordings. Similar recordings by the Beatles and the Beach Boys followed. This year, Sony is releasing a limited-edition nine-LP set of 1964 recordings by Dylan, including a 46-second try at "Mr. Tambourine Man," which he would not complete until 1965. The Beach Boys released two copyright-extension sets of outtakes last week. And while there's no official word on a Beatles release, last year around this time, "The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963" turned up unannounced on iTunes.
If there is to be IP maximalism, for the added protection the marginal tax rates must be higher to implement income assistance for those born before 1970 without a college education.
After all, don't J.S. Bach's descendants get to make profit on something they never had anything to do with? Shouldn''t that be only fair?
Copyright was conceived to protect musicians rights, not their great great great great grandchildren's.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
...so they can disappear people like YOU, Randroid!
Copyright extension is stealing.
They might just have to do something else to make a living.
They probably don't know how to do anything else though.
Sums up the mickey mouse laws that Sony, Disney and their ilk have created in the industry. It has nothing to do with copyrights it has everything to do with control of content. If I want to include an RCMP officer in full dress uniform in a stage play even in the country where they come from then I have to get permission from Disney to use the image.
It is time for someone to challenge this nonsense and expose the practices of these charlatans for what they really are. Then perhaps the public will wake up to the real damage to freedom of expression in the entertainment industry that these corporate thieves and their myrmidons in government have foisted upon the audience.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Surprisingly frank? Sony is just not that good at covering things up these days....
---
...so they can disappear people like YOU, Randroid!
So you LIKE the NSA reading your emails and texts, drone assassinations, infinite copyright handed to megacorporations, corporate bailouts, selling the forced buying of health insurance as "healthcare reform"?
And you WANT to give that government more money and power?
Got the nads to really answer that?
The Beach Boys released two copyright-extension sets...
That's not true. "The Beach Boys" didn't release anything. The rights to their work were stolen in the 1960s by their manager and sold to A&M records:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
A&M is owned by UMG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
The largest Music publishing company in the world who's owned by Vivendi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
Who's worth nearly $50 billion, and has profits in the $3 billion/yr range...
and you wonder why copyright laws get changed in their favor... lol
When arguing about copyright law, always keep in mind... the people that "own" these copyrights are almost never the artists or their families. Business own then and the attempts to extend copyright into perpetuity has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the creator of the music. It has to do with extending what was usually a theft from an artist, into a theft from mankind as a whole.
Watch the following movie for more details on that side of the business:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
I don't like 30 seconds to mars, but that movie matches what many of the musicians/bands I've met have said about the industry.
And here's an article written by Courtney Love 15yrs ago... and it's also pretty much dead on:
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/1...
The real pirates are the music labels.
None of these things cost me any money anyway, so I don't give a fuck...
Dear Hackers:
Please have Sony remove all the copyrights on all of their music.
Thank you,
vortex2.71
Intellectual property is a perfect match for the currency. Inasmuch as money is borrowed into existence from nothing, intellectual property comes into existence the same way. Materialization of the immaterial in the realm of products matches the materialization of immaterial in the realm of currency. The former backs the latter. However, there are interest charges involved in money coming into existence. Since intellectual property is the main source of wealth in North America, there needs to be differentiation of IP income taxation from ordinary income just as there is differentiation between taxes ordinary income and capital gains.
The right to expatriate should not be absolute. For the individual who has the education and/or pedigree to live elsewhere in the world having not wealth amassed, let him do so. That is between him and whatever nation-state he chooses to reside. However, for the individual who has made much of himself by means of wealth amassed, that was achieved in the context of the worldwide presence of the US military and favorable market conditions made possible by US hegemony. It is not that "he didn't build that", rather it is that "he could only have built that here by means of unique position that the United States has achieved in global affairs". A reasonable individual would conclude that the tax code would be involved. The current tax code does not do justice to the proportions. It should be adjusted such that expatriation be discouraged. If the right to life were absolute, there could be no capital punishment and medical care would have to be provided at the expense of all. If the right to liberty were absolute, all would be above the law. This is the issue of the right to property having become absolute. Concentrating wealth reduces currency flows which impairs other human beings from achieving a standard of living which accords dignity rightfully belonging to members of the human species. There is also the fact that lawful substantial presence within the jurisdiction of the United States in the form or birth citizenship, naturalization or permanent residency is a franchise granted by Congress upon which it may lay and collect excises, fees, taxes and imposts.
The problem is that there has become a henopoly on violence. Government has become holden to wealthy interests as well as identity demagogues and those who are not wealthy or members of that identity are being crushed. This demographic appear unwilling to exert the wherewithal necessary to see that their interests not be harmed. It could be the Opiate of the media and entertainment sector (Brave New World) has made US docile.
Men and Women, The vile and repugnant record companies are fucking you in the asshole. Take a stand! Do something about it! Do not lay there and take it like good little boys and girls!
Seriously, if they're out-takes, they weren't considered good enough to release. Releasing them goes against both the original musicians' wishes and foists crap on the general public because "otherwise you don't have the complete set."
Consider the out-takes as crappy code you would never release. You release the cleaned-up code and build a reputation - which is tarnished when someone releases your crappy code. Or maybe there's a politically incorrect comment in the crappy version that was there to remind you to fix something ... like "Duh! This code is crap! I must be having a blonde day!"
Do you really want YOUR out-takes published for someone else's financial benefit?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
> If I want to include an RCMP officer in full dress uniform in a stage play even in the country where they come from then I have to get permission from Disney to use the image.
That was almost true for a few years, from 1995-2000. The RCMP had a merchandising contract wherein Disney Canada would manage whatever rights RCMP had to the mountie image. They figured Disney is pretty good at managing the branding of a character, so they contracted with Disney to manage the Mountie character.
Does the RCMP have the right to control whether or not you have an RCMP officer in a play? Probably not. The image wasn't a registered trademark, and you're allowed to use other people's trademarks in certain ways. Therefore, they couldn't have Disney manage that right for them.
To the extent they did have Disney managing their licensing for merchandising, that deal ended fourteen years ago.
... and corporations always screw you over.
Courtney Love?!?!?!?!?!?
someone with points: upvote parent comment.
the way I see it is the rich are going to screw me. While they're busy screwing me over something as trivial as this they might give some ground on something that actually matters, like health care. In the States we have a (by our standards) fairly liberal president who's managed to get a (very) few health care reforms though that will benefit me and mine. To pay for the campaigns to convince American's that health care is something they want we get crap like this. Is it a horrible and unpleasant compromise? Yeah. Is this the way the real world really works? Also yeah. I'm no longer so naive that I believe it's going to change...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts" [...] so copyright is constitutional to the extent (and only to the extent) it is designed to satisfy that goal.
The US Supreme Court has consistently deferred to Congress on the question of whether "it is designed to satisfy that goal."
Perhaps you need to be doxxed so that those who have trouble adapting will know how to carry out the die part.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (^_^)
Mickey Mouse is a trademark.
Perpetual exclusive rights in a trademark cannot be used to extend the theoretically limited term of any of the exclusive rights under a U.S. copyright. Dastar v. Fox.
Let it be.
The evils of copyright law are well documented and understood. It has destroyed whatever good intentions there may have been in the original concept. And now it is obvious what will always come of it, censorship and sanction. Why should anything contrary to the facts ever be modded up?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's equally obvious on certain forums that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by an unholy alliance of liberals and the clean energy industry. Why should anybody bother reading anything to the contrary? Garbage science - that's all you need to know.
As the bar gets set lower with each new compilation of previously not-good-enough-to-release music, we'll eventually get to enjoy the between takes fart recordings. I'm looking at you Sony.
Every animal affects its environment, and that has nothing to do with this, which is a man made environment to begin with. And it is being ruthlessly contaminated by powerful people. Unlike the climate this one is easy to fix.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
copyright was made so an artist might make enough to keep making works...it should stop when you stop making music...
Forget it - I'm waiting for the copyright extension set of previously unheard works by The Electric Prunes.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
The beAtlles / cant be touched. A given but dylan cant be approuched
What does "pubished" mean, as defined particularly for the purposes of this specific legislation. Not the general dictionary description of its common uses.
... if they would be distinguishable from "biological" species. I.e. what if they genetically engineer bodies as a housing (kinda "reverse cyborg") and push that to the limit -> in the end you'll end up with a self-programming biological body which has its roots in highly advanced robotics and noone would be any the wiser.
The evils of copyright law are well documented and understood. It has destroyed whatever good intentions there may have been in the original concept. And now it is obvious what will always come of it, censorship and sanction. Why should anything contrary to the facts ever be modded up?
The following are all self-evident facts to the slashdot hive mind: all software should be free as in beer as well as free in freedom; communism and socialism are evil; the US is the best place to live in the world; any form of space exploration is automatically a Good Thing, no matter the cost; NASA is evil; The Government is evil; Microsoft is evil; there is no such thing as racism in the US any longer; all Cops are psychopathic murderers; anyone in the Military is a hero; all Muslims are basically terrorists-in-waiting; abortion is a terrible thing; rape is almost entirely imaginary, except when it happens to heterosexual men, when it is appalling; women just aren't good at maths and computer science; anyone who isn't a well off Western computer programmer has only themselves to blame; cars lend themselves well to analogies; Europe is an homogenous socialist bloc; Uber is a great service; Sony Pictures deserve to die even though they're nothing to do with Sony who make the Playstation; everyone should be armed at all times; Africans are genetically inferior or else they wouldn't catch Ebola; libertarianism is a sensible political philosophy.
Anyone who disagrees with any of these is simply lying and/or a troll.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Nope, I am just saying copyright is censorship. The rent seekers can find another model to work with. They are the ones getting everything for free. And another thing, if intellect is going to be regarded as property, then I want to collect a tax on it, like real property.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Nerd alert!