1 May 2011
According to an article on the bbc the copyright of music performances should be extended from the current 50 years to 70 years very very soon. Good news for The Beatles as it means that that tracks like Love Me Do and P.S. I Love You that would have fallen into the public domain next year (2012) and be freely available to any record company for release will remain under the control of Apple and EMI. Therefore we wont have the otherwise guaranteed situation of a beatles song being freely available on every rubbish compilation album under the sun.
I personally dread the time when the music does move into the public domain. The thought of the album Please Please Me being regurgitated in 76 different forms from 2013, like what has happened to Buddy Holly's catalogue, is horrible. One thing Apple has done very well is manage the Beatles catalogue with dignity in that since 1983 we havent seen pointless compilations being released for the sake of it.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of self to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
1 December 2009
Hm, I don't see why that's so bad for anybody - except the would-be copyright-holders themselves, of course. Some people will still pay more for quality. And personally, I regard a 2-CD 1962-66 as a pretty pointless release - or, at least pointlessly bloated.
Someone said 'What were you gonna do when it's all finished,' and I said 'I don't know but it'd be good fun being a DJ.' And since then I've become a DJ, only by word of mouth, you know. SO any minute now you'll read, 'Ringo leaves to become a DJ' but it's not true. - Ringo Starr
12 December 2019
What else do you think has been the main motivation behind UMG offering all this rehashed product during this past decade (when the time lapse -under the old rules- was about to eclipse 50 years?): remastering the old material with a digital fingerprint to become, in essence, a "new" recording...so their legal department can (herein) nickel-and-dime every ounce of blood from the golden goose of all musical catalogs.
Now that it's known what extensive damage the 2008 Universal fire did to their own library of master recordings (encapsulating, for example, the back catalogs of the vintage labels: Decca, MCA, Brunswick, Dunhill, A&M, Impulse, Command, Westminster, Motown, Geffen, MGM; among others)...they, certainly, couldn't anymore proclaim some sort of prime and boutique treatment given-over to a future repackage of stuff they'd [once physically] controlled (because the public will have realized such a claim would be a total fraud; as, the "originals" most likely no longer exist).
There was a time actually, in the U.S., prior to 1972 regarding music-related copyright laws; when the situation was the totally opposite and -by current standards- so ridiculously lax that, it was considered: once a consumer purchased a sound recording, all the royalties issues of it were dealt with and paid for AND...the private consumer's "ownership" of the physical media containing the recording was seen in a separate legal context from thinking the consumer was somehow expected to bear "responsibility" for the usage of the recording's contents as well.
I will play the game Existence to the End ;)