Sony uploads MONO version of Bob Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" to YouTube?!

So as you may know, for whatever reason, Bob Dylan's music isn't widely available to listen to on YouTube. Could be due to some Web Sheriff, but the fact remains that as of this writing, a lot of his music simply can't be listened to on the site.

But, last year in August, Sony uploaded "Like A Rolling Stone" to the official Bob Dylan YouTube account. This makes this one of the few songs of his that are widely available to listen to there. However, there's something peculiar about the version they uploaded...



It's in MONO!

Knowing the differences between the mono and stereo mixes of this song, I can already tell it is indeed the legitimate mono mix of this song and NOT a folddown, based on:

1. Running at a slightly-faster speed (like the rest of the mono album)
2. The fadeout matches the mono LP exactly

What I find significant is that not only did Sony choose to upload this version, but this is essentially the only version of the song that most people will come across now. Most of the time the stereo mixes of songs from this era are what is more widely known today.

While this probably won't displace the stereo mix's prominence, it's nice for Sony to give more exposure to the lesser-known mono mix (albeit by eliminating competing videos and not allowing anyone else to upload Dylan songs).

 

Possibly uploaded so they don't lose copyright in the EU under their "use it or lose it" after 50 years provision for sound recording copyright - the stereo is available on disc but the mono might only be available there?

 

That only applies to unreleased recordings. They still hold the copyright for recordings already published. (Besides which, this was released 1965, and uploaded last year 2017)

And I don't think the law really makes distinctions based on mixes, but rather on performances...

 

Is this mono cut on Bob Dylan's mono LP or CD box set?

 

Because mono mix rules and stereo sounds anemic

 

Very true: They tried to claim that because the 2cd Robert Johnson set were all remastered tracks, they could keep the copyright going. But they got told no, so the tracks all went public domain a little while later.

 

If someone uploads music to YouTube, the label will kill it because the label wants the ad and view revenues.

 

This is not an accurate statement of the law, see discussion at 2.3.3 here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604957/IPOL_STU(2018)604957_EN.pdf

As for differing mixes, there's some variations on the theme, but I'd generally assert that different mixes hold different copyrights provided they're sufficiently distinct. There's also protection in the multitracks which would likely encompass both, but since the multitracks aren't being made available themselves...

 

It's the exact same mono mix on both sets.

Perhaps I misspoke. My understanding is that the length of copyright was extended from 50 to 70 years for already-released material (which is why it was passed in 2011 before any of the Beatles' EMI recordings would've fallen into the public domain). However, the EU added a "use it or lose it" clause for unreleased recordings that let them fall into the public domain if they have not been issued within 50 years after their creation.

In any case, I don't see how "use it or lose it" would apply here, considering this exact recording was already published initially in 1965 (release of Highway 61 Revisited as well as the 45 release) and thus is still covered by 70-year EU copyright.

 

Hopefully this is the beginning of erasing the rewritten history of 60's music by using stereo mixes instead of the hot mono mixes they were given.

 

You mean the opposite.

 

Late afternoon bump for those who missed this.

 

If the mono version hasn't been in print since the 60s the use it or lose it would apply. Likewise, the use it or lose it clause applies for released recordings that are not commercially available (used doesn't count).

 

But there's a Mono Albums CD box set out there, released a few years back.

 

And a mono LP that Sundazed did too. In fact you can get the mono LARS on either the Highway 61 or Greatest Hits that they did.

 

The mono mix was released, so the copyright exists for 70 years: until 2035.

The "use it or lose it" clause is something different. If the recording was released, but the owner of the copyright (i.e., record company) does not have it available to the public, the artist can petition to have the copyright transfer to them 50 years after publication. That has nothing to do with falling into public domain. It is also unlikely a mono mix would be treated differently from a corresponding stereo mix.

And it's all irrelevant to this thread anyway, since the mono box - including Like A Rolling Stone - was released in 2010 and is still in print.

 

Fair, I'm not a Dylan expert. And I agree, the use it or lose it clause allows a clawback, not public domain. However, a mono mix would be treated differently, which is why copyright releases routinely include such alternate mixes.

 

Please point to any indication that it would in fact be treated differently.

 

We're reading far too much into the simple fact that the person uploading this video on behalf of Sony picked a file on their server and probably didn't even check if it was mono or stereo

 

A screw up in our favor; nothing more, nothing less.

 

Oops I can see how that was badly interpreted. Erasing the rewritten history that was using the stereo instead of mono for 60's music/

 

Even if it was a mistake, I'm just amused that the mono version is what most people searching on YouTube are going to encounter now simply because Sony/whoever else are copyright claiming all other uploads.

Does copyright law make any distinctions for "alternate mixes" anyways? I'm nearly certain it's all based on the performance itself, according to the Robert Johnson bit above (which I didn't even know happened).

 

Welcome to the forums! (You're 99% likely to be correct here)

 

I feel like I’m missing something here.

 

This may sound nuts, but:

Is it possible that a concerted decision was made that the mono version would be the better specimen for a YouTube release, given the higher probability of playback by the masses on less-than-optimal equipment -- i.e., smartphones, etc.?

You know -- kinda like an AM radio situation, where the mono actually represents the dynamics of the song in a better manner?

(I know. I'm probably giving them too much credit. Just a thought.)