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

I disagree that BBR 1963 "didn't change a thing"; that release did exactly what it was supposed to do -- it shielded those 59 tracks from being legally released by PD labels. "Bootleg Recordings 1963" was never going to wipe every booted track off of YouTube or BitTorrent sites -- that's up to Apple's or Universal's lawyers, if they feel it's worth pursuing. But Apple protected their rights (for those tracks), and can now prevent anyone else from monetizing them for another 50 years. As I said in an earlier post, they might be cavalier (or indifferent) about muffed takes of "Don't Bother Me" and other early tracks slipping into PD, but I can't see them sitting around twiddling their thumbs as the clock ticks down in December 2016 and an entire CD's worth of "Strawberry Fields" outtakes (in fantastic quality) are poised to become free to everyone. This issue isn't going away, regardless of whether or not Apple releases anything in 2014.

EDIT: Sticks beat me to it. What he said.

 

Apart from it being legal what would have changed. I have seen illegal beatle cd lots of places. I can turn around from where i write this and look at Beatle bootlegs that were purchased from supermarkets in western europe. CD sales are in steep decline and speaking from a business point they wont matter soon. Soon supermarkets will stop having cd sections altogether. It's already happening here. So nothing changed except the legality, where you and Sticks are obviously right.

What i argue is that the legal aspect does not matter much. It didn't stop Swinging Pig or anyone else. It's not their core catalog and they MAY just think it's simply futile.

 

Apple was allegedly surprised, and happily, in the interest and money generated for basically an accounting trick. Seems even if they do it just for the copyright, why not get money from the hardcore fans who will buy it?

 

Because now they know that they can release it anytime and we'll all buy it despite it all being out there.

 

While your answer is correct, it seems to completely miss the point the others are trying to make.
There have been and will always be bootlegs out there. But the market for them is small, and if it gets to the point where it impacts legal sales, then Apple can and will put their legal machinery to going after it.
But by not issuing an end of year legal release to prevent songs from going PD, then anyone can legally sell these tunes.
I believe that any astute business person would seek to maintain ownership of what they currently own. Bob Dylan is certainly doing so. And Universal is certainly doing so with their Motown 64 and the other 64 Compilation.
Your "nothing has changed comment" is irrelevant. The PD issue isn't meant to address bootlegs (aka illegal issues). It is meant to address ownership rights and prevent legally issued songs/albums by companies other than Apple/Universal. And it makes no difference whether CD sales are dying out. Because a CD is not the only way that PD releases can be issued. (Downloads, listening services such as Spotify)

But I disagree with you that nothing has changed. We would have seen more PD releases of the very songs that were released on Bootleg Recordings 1963, had those not been officially issued on iTunes. So whatever money was made by Apple by issuing Bootleg Recordings 1963 on iTunes would have gone to PD companies instead and not into Apple's pockets.

 

Roger Stormo10 December 2013 at 22:37
It looks like Apple/Universal are not about to give us something new, all they want is to be the ones to capitalise on these tracks which already has been circulating on earlier bootlegs. But they will be upgrades compared to the boots. This may only be a 1-shot deal. Like Steve commented in his column at Examiner, much like the Dylan copyright extension sets, this "album is to counter the recent non-EMI releases in Europe that have included Beatles tracks."
Meaning that, since EU copyright law is changing next year, we probably won't be seeing a 1964 version. This probably also explains why Apple didn't include any 1962 (or earlier) material, since that stuff has already gone public domain.

This was written when the 1963 set came out on wogew.blogspot.com I wonder if Roger still feels this way but when I read this, it seems like this is the truth and that we won't see a 1964 set

 

I hope better sense prevails at Apple and they aren't waiting until late 2016 to think through such a release. The post 1965 material (when the boys started spending more and more time in the studio) deserves more than a sneaky December release that Apple won't even acknowledge outside of iTunes. It still isn't too late to think of either deluxe sets for those albums or a planned Dylan type Bootleg series that showcases this material as part of the Fab journey.

If the 64 set doesn't materialize, then I hope that at least at some point in the future Apple will give us a new stereo mix of Leave My Kitten Alone (the master take of that has been protected with the Anthology release but the mix desperately needs fixing).

 

What changed is that Apple protected their rights (to those 59 tracks). Stopping bootlegs is a separate issue. The release of "BBR 1963" couldn't stop bootlegs by its very existence, but if they hadn't released it they would have NO way to prevent the legal sale of those tracks. But you may be right -- perhaps Apple has decided that stopping unauthorized releases (legal and illegal) is a futile exercise, and they're just going to ignore that stuff and maximize sales of the core catalogue.

But again, this ISSUE -- of unreleased recordings losing their copyright after 50 year -- isn't going away, even if Apple washes their hands of it. It will be a factor as they plan any future releases -- for example, if they want to release a Super-Deluxe White Album box set, they'd better do it before 2018 when they will lose their rights to the unreleased Esher demos. Look at how Dylan is reacting to this situation -- not only by releasing "Copyright Extension" sets every year, but also by accelerating the release of "official" projects that will be affected by the copyright expiration date (like the Basement Tapes). A couple of years ago, his camp was saying, "We've kind of exhausted the '60s in the Bootleg Series" (paraphrase), and now we've got the Basement Tapes, and don't be surprised if the long-rumored "Complete Blonde on Blonde" set doesn't get released before 2016 is over.

None of this indicates my opinion about whether "Bootleg 1964" will happen or not. I have no idea AT ALL -- not even a guess. As I said earlier (somewhere), the most significant thing about a BBR '64 release wouldn't be the material included (is it THAT earth-shaking, unless they remix "Kitten" and a few others?); what would make BBR '64 important would be that it would be the SECOND copyright extension release for Apple, and would allow us to guess how they might proceed in the future. I see three scenarios, all equally possible:

1. Apple releases a "BBR 1964" set similar to the "1963" set: Only booted studio tracks, whatever is still unreleased from the BBC stuff, and a smattering of key live 1964 performances. Signal: Look for more of the same in 2015 and beyond.

2. Apple releases a "BBR 1964" set that expands the parameters of the "1963" set: Unbooted studio tracks, new mixes of things like "Kitten" (as the Beach Boys did with their 1964 set), lots of live stuff. Signal: Apple has decided to either plan ahead for expanded releases, or to give fans a really good product and never touch the stuff again.

3. Apple releases nothing in 2014, and all unreleased material from 1964 enters the Public Domain: Personally, I think this would be foolish, but it's not like I've never seen Apple do foolish things before. Signal: Apple thinks this stuff isn't important enough to protect -- but what of the more valuable unreleased tracks from 1966-1969? Time will tell...

 

Point 3.

 

I am strictly a layman when it comes to this Copyright Extension business, but I've seen absolutely no indication anywhere that the law is any different for 2014 and beyond than it was in 2013. Yes, it's true that all the 1962 recordings (released AND unreleased) went into the PD (as it was designed to), but from 2013 forward, the law is the same. And besides, if the law didn't apply (or was changed) for 2014, Dylan certainly wouldn't have released an expansive "1964" set, including unbooted stuff.

 

As I said, just as possible as the other two proposals -- but that only settles the issue for 2014. It will remain an annual problem for them for the next 6 years.

 

I never said the problem would go away. Just that they may think it's futile to do anything. Or they are in disagreement about what to do, which would result in the same thing. No release.

 

If they released a BBR 64 in 2015 wouldn't it still be a money maker for them? I'm happy to support legal releases of outtakes IF they would just offer them. They would certainly be an upgrade to what's already out.

I don't see why the copyright time limit is necessarily relevant to selling "new" Beatles product. Not everyone is downloading torrents and iTunes is evidently a big money maker right? I bought 3 current pop songs and some of the Beach Boys outtakes the other week.

 

Apple would certainly make money off a "BBR 1964" set released in 2015 -- however, they'd immediately be issuing all that material into the public domain, which means anyone else could make exact clones of those tracks and release them in Europe without their consent. (To be legal, they'd still have to pay publishing royalties.) They need to release this unreleased stuff BEFORE the 50 year deadline in order to protect their rights AND maximize their earnings.

 

We'll see. I have no prediction to make either way.

 

So now bootleggers are releasing this without paying publishing royalties. If they don't release a 64 set they would at least get those royalties ;-)

 

True -- for John and Paul! George's estate and Ringo wouldn't make out so well, however. Unless I'm completely wrong (always possible), the recording goes into public domain (so no performance royalties), but the writers still get paid.

 

Just how many PD labels will "remember" to pay publishing royalties? My guess is none. Which means that those releases will still be illegal and can be fought off by Apples lawyers.

 

I have no idea, but I'd guess that at least some of them pay the publishing. But sure, if they don't, Apple can sic the lawyers on 'em!

 

Apple COULD do just that.... but if they did the material wouldn't be protected and legal PD labels could release them in any manner they so choose. Maybe that's something that doesn't bother Apple in the least? They always have the marketing strategy/angle that THEIR release is the ONLY one that comes directly from the original EMI session tapes (even if PD labels use clones of the official Apple/Universal material). I simply can NOT imagine that Apple doesn't care. As Sean mentioned, nothing in the law has changed from 2013. NOTHING! So why the secrecy IF a set is forthcoming? And if no set is in the works... why can't a spokesperson simply say the Beatles aren't interested in releasing outtakes and sub par radio and live recordings. Would it be THAT difficult for Apple to be forthright? Ron

PS Why would Apple NOT release some of the very good quality 1964 live material (again, assuming a set is NOT happening)? Some excellent-sounding, professional material remains in the archives. If any of it is included in Ron Howard's forthcoming film, ALL the material would then be in the Public Domain because it will be a year too late. Ahhhhh!!!!

 

Sorry to interrupt, but are there at this moment in any indications a 1964 release will happen or are you just speculating?

 

So financially Apple has nothing to lose by not releasing a BBR 64 set. Why:
1 - bootleggers will have to be paying publishing royalties to have a legal release. (So either the release makes money for the writers or the release is illegal.
2 - if Apple should decide to release these songs later (as parts of deluxe sets or whatever) we will all still buy them. And Ringo and the Harrisons will make money from that.

It wont matter much (if at all) if they do release this set or not.

 

It's still all wishful speculation with zero evidence of anything coming out.

 

Speculation. Not even those that is well connected has heard a thing. Last year info leaked a week in advance. This year, where everyone is anticipating it, the silence is deafening. Which is the real reason i am speculating it wont happen. Well that and my analysis in my previous post.

 

Let's say Apple released a 1964 outtakes collection on iTunes in March 2015, in the best sound ever, for $35. The next day, anybody else could put a 100% identical set (i.e. copy Apple's release bit for bit) up for sale on iTunes for $19.95, or $9.95 - and there's absolutely nothing Apple could do to stop them. That's the problem they're facing. Or if they announce a higher-profile 'Best from the Vaults 1964' release a couple of months out, another company could copy their tracklist, compile the same set from bootleg sources, and release it before Apple does as a spoiler - and again, this would all be perfectly legal.