
Rolling Stones tracks posted briefly on YouTube in attempt to extend copyright - augustocallejas
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/jan/03/mystery-of-rolling-stones-tracks-posted-briefly-on-youtube
======
Retric
“The rarest recordings – ie the ones not previously available on bootlegs –
have a dial-tone-like sound as loud as the music,”

An interesting ruling might be only the dial-tone version had it’s copyright
extended as the original had not been released.

~~~
crazygringo
I would love if that happened -- just deserts.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how a judge would ever justify that. Half of a book
is still under copyright of the whole thing. Original music in the background
of a movie is still copyrighted as part of the movie, even if a loud action
scene is taking place on top of it. So even with a dial tone sound overlaid,
that wouldn't change the fact that the music part of the recording has been
published.

:(

~~~
Vingdoloras
> Half of a book is still under copyright of the whole thing

But what was described isn't "half of a recording". Imagine the "publish to
extend copyright" applied to books too - would publishing the book with half
the text blacked out still extend the original book's copyright?

That's just my naive take on it (i know nothing about copyright law). Your
movie music argument might already be enough to show that I'm incorrect.

~~~
crazygringo
What I meant was, the recording is half dial tone and half music, because
they're overlaid with each other.

Subtract the dial tone and the music part is "half" the total copyrighted work
(which includes the dial tone).

But the music part is still 100% copyrighted. Same way that if you publish a
book with 200 pages, pages 1-100 are still 100% copyrighted even though they
make up only half of it.

------
DonHopkins
>Others, perhaps less eager to share early, unfinished versions of songs with
the world, have pushed what it means to “publish” tracks: a Bob Dylan
compilation, literally published as “The Copyright Extension Collection,
Volume 1”, was also released in 2013 in an edition of 100, and only sold in
Europe.

Reminds me of the candor of the title of "Monty Python's Contractual
Obligation Album"!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Contractual_O...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Contractual_Obligation_Album)

>Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album is the final studio album by
Monty Python, released in 1980. As the title suggests, the album was put
together to complete a contract with Charisma Records. Besides newly written
songs and sketches, the sessions saw re-recordings of material that dated back
to the 1960s pre-Python shows I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again, The Frost
Report, At Last The 1948 Show and How To Irritate People. One track, "Bells",
dates from the sessions for Monty Python's Previous Record, while further
material was adapted from Eric Idle's post-Python series Rutland Weekend
Television. The group also reworked material written but discarded from early
drafts of Life Of Brian, as well as the initial scripts for what would
eventually become The Meaning Of Life.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er52v69ru98&list=PL991B848D0...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er52v69ru98&list=PL991B848D05CAEFA9)

There's also a rare unreleased Monty Python Album called "The Hastily Cobble
Together for a Fast Buck Album":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hastily_Cobbled_Together_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hastily_Cobbled_Together_for_a_Fast_Buck_Album)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5dsItjL84](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5dsItjL84)

------
lowercased
There was a 'copyright extension' release in 2013 for many early Beatles
bootleg/outtakes, but none since. (I now see the article mentions it). They've
done larger "deluxe" remastering of later albums with bonus tracks that
probably would have gone in to 'copyright extension' releases otherwise. Still
would be nice to get some more outtakes/alternate versions and remasters of
pre-pepper albums.

The Beach Boys' organization has done at least one of these every December for
the last several years (this December there were only 3 tracks on it, which
was a bit disappointing). These are mostly 'streaming only' (apple, google,
Spotify, etc), and many hard core fans grumble for vinyl or at least CD
physical releases, but I think that's generally going to be a lost cause.

Didn't know about the Dylan "copyright extension" release...

ABCKO doing this - maybe too cheap to mount a real marketing/sales effort
around these? or just don't know what to do with them? or have something
larger planned coming up soon?

------
gruez
Why even bother extending the copyright? If they haven't released it in the
past 50 years, are they going to release it in the next 20? Why not release it
now? Do they expect that in 10 years, the increased sales (for whatever
reason) would offset the loss of 10 years of copyright?

~~~
TylerE
I suspect it's not so much THEY plan on ever releasing it, but to keep others
from doing so.

~~~
im3w1l
Because it would tarnish the brand if poor quality recordings came out?

~~~
8bitsrule
ABKCO distributed terrible-sounding RS CD's during that whole era. And yet
they kept selling, go figure.

------
shmerl
This should be disqualified as a "release".

~~~
andrewflnr
Damn straight. This is the record company thumbing its nose at the intent of
the law. In GDPR threads we hear about how the EU has enough discretion to
follow the intent over the letter of the law, so let's see it.

~~~
briandear
How does anyone except The Rolling Stones have a right to music recorded by
The Rolling Stones?

~~~
shmerl
How do they have a right to it in the first place? Copyright is only given on
condition of it becoming public domain later. And now they are trying to
undermine it becoming public domain. Which in turn, should mean they are
trying to undermine their own right to it. That's how it _should_ work, if the
original intent of copyright is followed.

~~~
echelon
Regulatory capture.

Do you think we'll see Mickey Mouse enter the public domain? (And even if it
does, Disney still owns the Trademark.)

I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can
show the value of copyright is nil. Older content is a very long tail, but the
vast majority of revenue is with new art. It's perennially refreshed and
relevant to new audiences.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
How will your company producing good copyright content be financed?

Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. I'd go for
much shorter terms 7+7 years (7 years automatic right, 7 years paid), and make
various other changes (deposit non-DRM copies or you don't get copyright at
all, things that can't enter the public domain can't be copyright protected;
also the copyright term is set at the start, and can't be retroactively
extended).

You might be able to create a "fair recompense" right or something (those
exploring works have to pay a fair amount to the original author) but it would
still be a form of copyright I think?

~~~
shmerl
_> Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid._

Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it?
Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and
profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that
point it's already completely parasitic.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Yes, but if the term is 0 then the main beneficiaries will also be the
publishers, only then the creators will get nothing. At least with a copyright
of some form they have chance to make a recompense rather than losing _all_
the financial value of their creations to the Capitalists.

~~~
echelon
It's a hard problem.

I think one negative trend is the focus on creating tentpole films that eat up
the competition at the box office. (As well as the consolidation of all major
brands and copyrights under one studio.)

Not only are these films watered down to appeal to a wide audience, but
they're safe rehashes of the same recurring themes.

By inflating the cost of films, you decrease the diversity. Fewer actors and
directors get a chance. Fewer ideas are used. All the screens show the same
thing.

I hope that better tooling will help democratize the market. Maybe films don't
need to cost so much.

And maybe you're right about copyright. I don't think I can presume to make
rules that fair without harming someone. Maybe it's not that copyright needs
to be revisited, but rather that the big elephants in the room need to be made
to play nice.

I still think more content creation is one answer. By having a greater
diversity and abundance of content, you average out the concentration of
interest (and value) across the board. This prevents singular entries from
soaking up all the benefits.

I don't like the status quo, though. And it's getting worse.

------
mathieuh
This happened with The Wheel of Time TV tights too; whichever company owned
them released a piece of shit single episode pilot and nothing else, solely to
keep the rights

~~~
TillE
Oh yeah I completely forgot about that. I see it's expired now anyway and
there's a new TV series in production, which is nice because there's a great
story to be drawn out of the bloated and messy book series.

------
l8rlump
How are people keeping so up-to-date on when works are going public domain? Is
there some resource I don't know about?

~~~
CharlesW
It seems to be a collective effort. Here's a living list of notable work that
will become public domain in 2021:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_public_domain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_public_domain)

------
AndriyKunitsyn
From the article:

>[The YouTube channel] offers no clues as to its identity – save a YouTube-
mandated email address

Does anyone know where can I see this “YouTube-mandated email address”? I
tried to contact another channel privately before, and I just didn’t know how
to do it.

~~~
imPndy
if you go to the channel, click on "Details" tab, you can view the "For
business enquiries" email

~~~
AndriyKunitsyn
Ah, thanks.

------
gus_massa
> _Under EU law, sound recordings are covered by copyright for the first 50
> calendar years after they were made – unless they have been “lawfully
> communicated to the public”, in which case the copyright term extends a
> further 20 years._

So it's not a trick to extend the copyright. You can imagine that the
copyright last 70 years, but you can loose it after 20 years before if they
don't do anything. So they do something to ensure the full length.

~~~
BEEdwards
...it is a trick though. They are not doing it in good faith, it is only to
keep the copy right which they have no intention of using, just keeping locked
up.

------
pvaldes
Not different than Disney releasing new versions of many of their old films in
CGI.

~~~
mstade
Is copyright the reason they are doing this? Never occurred to me, I thought
they were just running out of ideas.

