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

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Hawkman, Dec 17, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    I don't 'think' its clear. I know its clear I've been working for TV companies and record labels for 30 years . The law isn't circular or contradictory. It's actually very simple. Live to air Broadcasts get 50 years. Sound recordings which are subsequently broadcast initially get 70 years - which can be extended by a further 70 years by publishing the sound recording.
    That's all there is to it really.
    So for example the Beatles tracks from the Saturday Club shows which went live to air in March 1963 are 'broadcasts ' and are now in the Public Domain. The sessions from March 1963 which were recorded in advance and then broadcast are 'sound recordings.' Thousands of people work with this act every day, it's all pretty straight forward really, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it but they'd love you to think otherwise!
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2014
  2. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    The root of the problem is the distinction between 'broadcasts' and 'sound recordings'. They are two different things. A sound recording can of course be broadcast which constitutes 'communication to the public'which extends the copyright term from 50 years to 70 years . However..... you can't transform a broadcast into a sound recording by er...recording it , it will always (in legal terms) be classed as a 'broadcast' for copyright purposes.
     
  3. brainwashed

    brainwashed Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    This can't be possibly be true. For EU purposes, a performance is the same as a live broadcast. The only difference would be if a record was played on the air (and this did happen from time to time). It doesn't matter if an artist performed the song live and it was broadcast live.... or if the song was performed live, taped and broadcast at a later time. This must be the law, because it's the reason Apple and Universal not only included a slew of BBC songs on the 1963 set, but officially released volume 2 of BBC material in 2013 (with little advance noise). Other acts, including Dylan and the Beach Boys have also released BBC material to control the copyright. Are the labels and artists all wrong about the law? Next year, more and more bands/artists (and their labels) will release BBC material if they haven't to date. Ron
     
  4. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    Honestly I'm not making it up. The BBC recorded the Beatles on many occaisons the tracks are 'sound recordings' for the purposes of copyright. When the Beatles performed live such as Saturday Club in march 1963 and the show was broadcast live to air it is defined as broadcast for copyright purposes and cannot be transformed into a sound recording even if it is recorded off air. The term of copyright for broadcasts is 50 years and can't be changed.
    However it's a different situation for sound recordings its 50 years for unpublished sound recordings and 70 years (from the date of first publication) for published sound recordings.
    The BBC recordings were included in the '63 Bootleg set for the money - no other reason!
    Hope this helps.
     
    DmitriKaramazov likes this.
  5. Kim Olesen

    Kim Olesen Gently weeping guitarist.

    Location:
    Odense Denmark.
    There should be some interesting Pink Floyd dumps ahead.
     
    DmitriKaramazov likes this.
  6. RobCooper

    RobCooper Cobwebs & Strange

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    Totally makes sense.

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Broadcast_copyright

    In the United Kingdom, there are two distinct classes of broadcast: those made before and those made after the commencement of the Copyright Act 1956. Under the Act of 1911, passed before the invention of radio or television broadcasting, no copyright existed in a broadcast, and this was not modified until the Act of 1956. Until the 1950s not even the Broadcaster had the technical means of recording or replaying a broadcast signal, so there had been no need to make provision for copyright protection.

    The 1956 Act is not retrospective in its effect, so a television or radio broadcast made before 1 July 1957 (the commencement date of the Act) has no broadcast copyright: Schedule 7 para 17, Copyright Act 1956.

    In the case of a broadcast made after the commencement of the 1956 Act, the copyright in a broadcast programme expires 50 years from the end of the year in which it is broadcast: section 14(2), Copyright Act 1956. Repeating such a broadcast does not extend the period of copyright, whether the repeat is during or after the 50 year copyright period: section 14(3), Copyright Act 1956.
     
  7. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    Thats a tad harsh ! I stand corrected slip of the keyboard it was '63 not '64 but the 70 year law applies to'63 recordings too The fact remains the Andy White version of Love me Do (the one with the tambourine) is in copyright until 2033 while the Ringo version published 1962 is in the Public Domain as the new law didn't come into force until 2013.
     
  8. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    Er..not quite the '56 act was repealed in 1988 when the new act came into force and this act now applies to recordings in copyright regardless of when they were recorded.
     
  9. dewey02

    dewey02 Forum Resident

    Location:
    The mid-South.
    I'm sure it is just my muddled brain, but the more you explain the more confused I get.
    I understand about Beatles performances that were aired live via the BBC. I believe that there were very few of these.
    But almost all of the BBC radio shows were broadcasts of tapes that were recorded prior to the air date, and these were either done in the BBC studios or they were recordings of live concerts.
    So your second sentence: The BBC recorded the Beatles on many occasions the tracks are 'sound recordings' for the purposes of copyright. would seem to apply to all of these "recordings"
    But then your second to last sentence The BBC recordings were included in the '63 Bootleg set for the money - no other reason! seems to contradict the point you were just making. In the instances of the BBC pre-recordings they would seem to be recordings, and broadcast but not published and subject to the 50 year rule. But putting them on iTunes in Dec. of 2013 means they were then "published" and would retain their copyright for additional time. So why would you say they were done ONLY for the purpose of making money?

    As you can see, I am confused and not following your logic, but that may well be a shortcoming on my part and not yours.
     
    Thelonious_Cube and Stormbird like this.
  10. brainwashed

    brainwashed Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Not just you... but practically every member here as well as artists and labels. Stormbird may well be right, but it seems the law has muddled nearly everyone else. Ron
     
  11. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    No problem, we're dealing with intelectual property so its all in the mind of the lawyers which is a pretty evil place to venture ...but here goes. How about this ?
    a) Live to air live performances qualify for a 50 year term. They are ' broadcasts' for copyright purposes. They are fixed to a 50 years term which cannot be changed by publishing the broadcast. Only sound recordings can qualify for an ammended term as aresult of publication not broadcasts !
    b) Sound recordings which are unpublished are also protected for 50 years they are 'sound recordings' for copyright purposes
    c) Broadcasting a sound recording from category b) during the 50 years extends the term of copyright in the 'sound recording' to 70 years
    d) publishing the sound recording ( either on Itunes or in physical form) extends the term of a sound recording (but not a broadcast) to 70 years from the date of first publication!
    How about that ? As I say it's not my idea blame the lawyers and lobbyists for all the confusion. The BBC are just after the money for using their tracks in the '63 set.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2014
  12. RobCooper

    RobCooper Cobwebs & Strange

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    But in the context of Beatles BBC broadcasts, the 1988 act would not apply. From the same article:
    The 1988 Act applies only to broadcasts made after it came into force on 1 August 1989: section 170 and Schedule 1 paragraph 5(1), Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. But it effects merely a continuation, in the main, of the pre-existing law on broadcast copyright established in the 1956 Act, while adding protection for the new technology of cable television.
     
    Stormbird likes this.
  13. brainwashed

    brainwashed Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Something seems amiss. When the Beatles performed I Forgot To Remember To Forget Her in 1964 it was a PUBLISHED song. It was recorded at the BBC for BBC broadcast. Let's assume for a minute that the song was never released on the Live at the BBC album and lay untouched since its original broadcast in 1964. IF the song was not released on a proposed 1964 Beat The Bootleg set it would go into the Public Domain on 1 January 2015. No different than PD labels that are legally allowed to release 1963 BBC performances that weren't part of the two official BBC albums and the 1963 B00t set. Ron
     
    Stormbird likes this.
  14. raphph

    raphph Taking a trip on an ocean liner…

    Location:
    London
    I hope the Beatles burn all their master tapes just to spite this thread.
     
    905, JohnnyH, Peter_R and 1 other person like this.
  15. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    There's a difference, as far as the law is concerned, between publishing (which essentially means selling) and broadcasting which is communicating to the public! If a sound recording is communicated to the public the copyright term extends to 70 years so had it not appeared on the album it would have gone into the Public Domain in 2035 as things stand it will be 70 years from the release of the Live at the BBC album! they certainly don't believe in making it easy!
     
  16. brainwashed

    brainwashed Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    So, what you're saying is Apple was wrong and there was NO legal reason (i.e Copyright Protection) to include ANY BBC performances on the 1963 Beat The Bootleg set. Is this your interpretation of the current EU law? And the same goes for Dylan and the Beach Boys 1964 sets? Just making sure that is your position on all this. Ron
     
  17. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    No, the act has transitional provisions which appear at the end after everything else, they apply to pre-1988 recordings.
     
  18. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    Hi Ron,
    I don't really have a position, it's up to the BBC how they make money, I was just pointing out that the inclusion of the BBC recordings wasn't nesessary for copyright reasons as all their stuff was broadcast(ie communicated to the public ) it enjoyed protection until 2034 in any event.Sticking it out in 2033 would extend copyright to 2103 but it looks like the BBC decided to take the money now so the trade-off is the fact that copyright will expire much earlier ...in...er... 2083!
     
  19. dewey02

    dewey02 Forum Resident

    Location:
    The mid-South.
    "It's all in the mind, you know!" and "Nothing is Real"
    [​IMG]
     
    Stormbird likes this.
  20. Stormbird

    Stormbird Active Member

    Location:
    UK
    Good night all !
     
  21. 5th-beatle

    5th-beatle Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brazil
    Nothing this year, apparently. How odd.
     
  22. DmitriKaramazov

    DmitriKaramazov Senior Member

    well, I'm enjoying the discussion!!!

    er... trying to follow it anyway!!! :wave:
     
  23. Mooserfan

    Mooserfan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Eastern PA
    What sources can people tap? What we need is some real investigative journalism...but then again, you can say that about society in general.
     
  24. revolution_vanderbilt

    revolution_vanderbilt Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    I could make some stuff up for you, if you want.
     
  25. HarvG

    HarvG Senior Member

    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    (With apologies to everyone everywhere)

    It was the week before Christmas and all through the Forum, not a member was sleeping, no one was snorin’.

    Anticipation ran high as we all remembered being filled with glee, due of course to Bootleg Recordings ’63.

    But it’s now been a year and we all wanted more…where the heck was Bootleg Recordings ’64?

    We kept checking the usual blog sites and of course this thread, as no one could get the Fabs out of their head.

    The closer it was to the end of the year, the more curious we got…would it ever get here?

    The end of this story is yet to be written, but regardless of how it turns out, with the Beatles we’ll always be smitten.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine