The Beatles - Bootleg Recordings 1964, "rumours" (Side 2)

I am still holding out hope for the second 1963 set that we heard so much about last year.

 

Bob Dylan once asked why he should bother releasing the Basement Tapes -- "Doesn't everyone have them already?" he said. That was 40 years ago, and he's still making money off them.

Yes, eventually all the REALLY valuable stuff -- the released masters -- will become Public Domain, as it should. Until then, there's plenty of money to be made -- why throw ANY of it away?

 

Yeah, remember we were told it was definitely coming out, that Apple would HAVE to protect it's interests, and anyone who said it wouldn't be coming out by December 31 2013 was an idiot.

 

I just think that in The Beatles case at least, they could generate more money from the approved masters than outtakes (I think it's a little different in Dylan's case, maybe).

And maybe Apple are going that route. After all, since the 2009 stereo and mono remasters, we've had Red, Blue & 1 reissues on CD, stereo vinyl, mono vinyl, the US Albums CD box, the Japan Albums CD box, analogue vinyl of Red & Blue, plus 1 on vinyl. Basically the same material (the 'proper stuff') sold and re-sold. And they still have another 20 years to milk those masters, surely their biggest cash cow.

 

In 20 years time anyone who hasn't got Beatles albums is still most likely to buy them via iTunes or equivalent or get second hand ones off Ebay or equivalent (all of ours will be there when we croak). So a few PD releases here and there will make no difference to Beatrice's investments.

 

Jeez.... it's the 21st Century... and, we STILL can't get a confirmation on THIS?!?!?!

 

We get to save $35

 

I think non confirmation of something that's not going to happen is a given. I can not confirm a lot of non stuff here and now for you.

 

Look at the definition of "communication to the public":

In other words "communicated to the public" means "made available on the internet"

At least, that's my initial interpretation. YMMV.

 

Actually, my opinion does vary.
Right in your definition it states "the broadcasting of the work". So what is the definition of broadcasting?
That typically has meant sending something out via the airwaves to a radio or television received. Cable transmission is generally not considered broadcasting, is it? For example, in the U.S. (since I am only familiar with the language interpretations in my country) certain words and actions are not allowed on broadcast television and radio and subject to fines by the Federal Communications Commission, but those same words and actions are perfectly fine when sent via cable on HBO, etc.

And I would say that communication to the public by electronic transmission would include broadcasting via radio and TV for two reasons:
1. Because it actually says so in the definition you just quoted, and
2. Because radio and TV signals ARE electronic communication.

The bigger question for me is whether the radio broadcasts are actually considered to be "recordings". Yes, the Beatles mostly pre-recorded their BBC performances so they existed on tape, but they were only for broadcast. And at least once, they performed live for transmission, so there was no initial recording at all. So are those considered "recordings" under the law? Were illegally recorded transmissions (fans recording BBC broadcasts or live concerts)
meant to be covered under the law?

I am certainly no lawyer, but I disagree with those who say the law is perfectly clear and doesn't need to go through a legal process.
Does anyone really think that somewhere there won't be a lawsuit regarding PD and that the courts won't further interpret and provide further clarity to the law?

 

I surmise you are not a lawyer

 

There's never clarity. That's how they make money.

 

I don't know why they don't release this stuff. Fans want it. Downloads make it easy. CDs are feasible. These releases won't tarnish their legacy and more likely add to it.

 

Well, there's also the definition of broadcasting which would include cable transmission (but excludes internet transmissions)

I take your point that "electronic transmission" could include over-the-airwaves.

In which case the law and definitions appear to be circular or mutually exclusive?
In which case the 50 years for broadcasts would trump the 70 years for (otherwise) communicating to the public which gets us to the same result?

 

And yet, Stormbird thinks the law is perfectly clear and needs no testing. Opinions certainly do vary.

 

Some minor labels will start releasing budget CD's containing low quality recordings of 1964 Beatles' outtakes and Apple will miss the chance to make a lot of money.
That's why I'm still optimistic about getting an official release before the end of the year. I just can't imagine Apple making these recordings available for anyone to take.

 

I wonder how much money they made on last year's release.

And how many people would buy music in the public domain that they could download legally for free?

 

Yeah, cos Apple have never missed the chance to make money, have they? I mean, I love my official Shea, Let it Be and '1' DVDs they released, don't you?

 

It's not about making money. It's about stopping other people from making money.

 

I love them too, but kind of hard to see....

 

After Apple protected a whole pile of recordings on December 17, 2013, it was perfectly reasonable to think that they would assess the reaction (overwhelmingly positive) and protect more tracks before the end of the year. Of course, Apple frequently decides against doing what is "perfectly reasonable" so there were no guarantees. Plenty of people speculated that "If Apple did 'A' then 'B' should logically follow" ... but I don't remember anyone guaranteeing that a second "Bootleg 1963" release would "definitely" happen, or anyone saying that the skeptics were "idiots." Of course, if you remember differently, I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting links to those insulting posts.

 

If Apple were only interested in protecting copyrights, why did they make the Bootleg 63 set a worldwide release? They could have done something like Dylan, or they could have released it as a download only on British iTunes alone.

Also I agree with nikh that branding is more important to the Beatles than profit. However, it seems to me that the best way to protect the brand would be to release this material as iTunes downloads only. Otherwise, the market will be flooded with physical pd releases which will do nothing but dilute the brand. I imagine Jeff Jones has raised all these points with the board.

If they don't release it, it could be another case of Paul saying "nobody's gonna tell me what to do" as we learned he's wont to do in 'Tune In.'

 

Just remember, if you heard it here first, then it can't possibly be true.

 

No! no! no! its perfectly clear . You are confusing broadcasts with sound recordings. They are two different things . A live broadcast (with no antecedent recording eg miming to backing tapes ) gets 50 years copyright - and no more. NB it is still classed as abroadcast even if a recording of it is made.
However a sound recording which is subsequently broadcast qualifies for 70 years (even if it remains unpublished which would normally only merit 50 years) the sound recording which is broadcast gets 70 years on the basis that it has been 'communicated to the public' as defined by the 1988 act . Publishing that sound recording at any timed uring the next 70 years extends the copyright period by a further 70 years. So 140 years which is why the big boys got the law changed.