The Beatles Bible - Topic: The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:06:05 +0000

I think the reaction of Sony and Dylan shows something different. They released an album of unreleased, and in several instances unbootlegged material to prevent it falling into public domain, knowing that they could not release it in a few years and get a copyright on it then because its recording date(s) would mean it was automatically public domain. They'd be able to copyright the mix, they'd be able to copyright the package, but they would not be able to copyright the actual recording. The Beatles find themselves in exactly the same situation. Sony and Dylan looked at the law, ...

meanmistermustard on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:22:49 +0000

So if i understand it right since they dont have any requirement to hand them over and Apple dont want us to hear any of the stuff in the vaults at this moment they wont be panicing over this law. Life goes on.

A number of Beatles outtakes, acetates, demos and live shows have been auctioned in the past that have never surfaced. Some have been bought by Apple and the like but hardcore collectors as well who have hidden them in metal boxes 6 ft under; they get more pleasure knowing they have something so rare than playing them.

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:26:24 +0000

No you don't. But I think 1 or 2 copies of the Dylan set will now be in the hands of those who bootleg. Those who want the fans to hear all there is. They're are lots of those out there. I wouldn't want any song just for myself, I would want as many others to hear it as possible to see whether they think it as good as me. If you had, for instance, Twist and Shout take 2, would you keep it to yourself? I know I wouldn't.

meanmistermustard on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:04:02 +0000

It depends who bought the copies. There are still a lot of collectors who keep things for their own used and only play them when 19ft underground and alone or just to a very select band of friends.

So if Dylan hadnt released the takes and they are under strict lock and key open to only Bob and the Universal executives who dont want to let them out how do the other cheapo record companies get access to the tapes? Thats the bit i dont get. Say i had take 10 of a song never released before and it was 50 ...

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:50:01 +0000

I think, if the Dylan is anything to go by, they have to make a release to give it copyright protection, but once it falls into public hands, is it really not going to be bootlegged. The example I would give is Dylan's Mixed Up Confusion. Four versions have been readily available for those into rare recordings, takes 5, 6, 11 & 14 (14 being the official release). The Dylan release contains takes 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 & 11. Of these seven takes I only have 5, 6 & 11, despite being a Dylan collector. Dylan has released ...

meanmistermustard on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:29:54 +0000

I guess that 'use or lose' rule is a good thing for fans as on the face of it ensures material is not just stuck in a cupboard somewhere but do record companies have to give access to the unreleased material? Can i phone up EMI quoting this new law and be granted free reign with Take 2 of Twist and Shout or will they hang up and charge me for wasting their time?

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:14:26 +0000

The EU is a confusing thing. They have been arguing about this for about a decade, seeing what was on the horizon, but only agreed to something during 2012. The change to copyright law was agreed at a governmental level, not a EU parliamentary level. Therefore, to become Europe-wide law, it has to be passed by the parliaments of each of the 27 member states. When the 30 to 50 year change was made, that you referred to earlier, that was done by the EU parliament to bring in a standard across the union. Rather than a standardisation, this is a ...

meanmistermustard on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 20:01:17 +0000

Oh ok thanks. Surely Universal, EMI and other labels will be looking to get these laws changed as both these artists music has been very tightly marketed over the years. Seems a long time to get the law signed as well, whats taking so long as it was approved last year.

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:51:42 +0000

The 2009 remaster has a completely new copyright because the 2009 remaster did not exist before 2009. So nobody can pull EMI/Apple's remaster straight off any record and release it. It is a new copyright. Someone can take the 1962 single, and the master it was made from, create their own remaster, and release that.

meanmistermustard on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:07:57 +0000

I dont get it. EMI own the distribution of the song but other companies can flog it freely? So whats the point of owning it? Surely Love Me Do 1962 is the same recording as Love Me Do 2009 so where is the difference between releasing one or the other? Cant there just be a law saying either you own this or you dont or is that what we have? Anyone got the time to explain this so a 1 year old can understand it preferably with lots of diagrams and wavy lines.

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:35:43 +0000

Guessing here, but I would say they are referring to two different things. One) They still retain protection over a track that has slipped into public domain as it appears in later packages. Two) The 2009 remasters of Love Me Do and PS I Love You cannot be said to be in public domain because they are copyright 2009, which is why it is said that Pristine Classical created their own new remaster, which they took from the 1962 single.

meanmistermustard on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 01:29:02 +0000

What does "However, Universal/EMI still fully owns distribution of the song as part of the Beatles' debut LP, Please Please Me and Greatest Hits, 1." mean (they are talking about Love Me Do)?

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:57:38 +0000

Music Week has commented on the copyright situation, should probably just do a link but I think it's too important to the position:

'New' Beatles and Bob Dylan releases appear as copyright term

debate descends into farce

The Beatles' classic recording of 1962 single Love Me Do has - debatably - slipped into the public domain in the EU.

That means any record label in the land could theoretically now reissue the track and original B-side P.S. I Love You as a 'new' release without paying performance royalties to the band.

Classical reissue specialist Pristine Classical has already taken ...

meanmistermustard on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:27:32 +0000

Wogblog has written in its latest post

There's apparently a hole in the copyright protection in Europe. It used to be 50 years, but will be extended to 70 years. But the extension will not be validated until November. Meanwhile, recordings from 1962 are out of copyright protection.
And first to seemingly capitalise on that fact is a company called Digital Remasterings, which has included ‘Love Me Do’ on a compilation of
very early Beatles recordings, mainly live recordings from their time working at Hamburg’s Star Club. Meanwhile a company called Pristine Classical, which specialises in releasing remastered ...

mja6758 on The Beatles and the 50 year copyright rule

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:02:16 +0000

You're right about European law being changed after a load of concerts and BBC recordings gained semi-legitimate release in the late-80s, early-90s.

I'm not suggesting we're about to see a full-scale release, but asking whether they could do something like Dylan's release of 100 copies, which he seems to have been told is enough to prevent the material included falling into public domain, and wondering how long before bootleggers and YouTube got their hands on things like the second take of Twist and Shout?

It seems to me that to count, the Dylan set had to be publicly available across Europe, which ...