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

The word "here" has magical transporting powers!

Edit: Tho my post was slower than Hawkman's.

 

And I thought the magic transporting word was "diagonally" (along with some flue powder)

 

Hey...let's start to speculate about what should be on the 1965 Bootleg Recordings that won't be released a year from now.

 

Wow! So this thread has inspired not one, but TWO Willy Wonka clips! Impressive. I'm still waiting for Augustus Gloop to make an appearance. I'd settle for an Oompa Loompa!

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-beatles-bootleg-recordings-1965-rumors.401531/

 

HA!

 

I'm not sure that there is any great need for the '64 set, well at least as far as the UK is concerned anyway.
All of the BBC shows were broadcasts which constitutes 'Communication to the public' under the 1988 Act so they automatically qualify for 70 years and will be in copyright until 2034 even if they are not released. To extend the term further they could be released in 2033 which ( assuming there are no further extensions) would constitute first publication and therefore extend copyright for another 70 years - in other words up to 2103!
In my humble opinion this potential term of 140 years is ridiculous and steals from the public domain i.e. all of us!

 

Just got back from the future.

Every possible Beatles waveform is to be made available uncollapsed on the upcoming Now That's What I Call Copyright Extension infinite quantum implant (they say the new PONO 'iQunt' might support gapless playback if they can figure out how to remove something that isn't there).

Release date: TBC

 

I love the comedic turn this thread has taken.

I'm still waiting for word, though, however unlikely.

 

...and as regards the outtakes I'm not sure the artists are comfortable with seeing their mess ups, mistakes, false starts and breakdowns exposed to the intense scrutiny of an official release. BUT there is money to be made so I expect to see some BBC radio ( not for copyright reasons as they are in till 2034 anyway- just to get cash) and the best of the outtakes.
That will still leave a lot of material so I expect to see a lot more of the 'Works In Progress ' style from Rock Melon or the forthcoming ' Broadcasting Live in the USA '64 ' from Coda.

 

If so, why were they released on the '63 iTunes release?

 

Sounds like a nice lyric.

"Oompa Loompa, Oompa Liimpa, Oompa Loompa-Louuuu! Funny, how this thread goes on."

 

The BBC radio tracks were purely there to make money. Despite what people think the tracks recorded for radio broadcast, by dint of their being communicated to the public , are all in copyright till 2033 - so as far as the BBC tracks it's not about extending copyright just an exercise in collecting loot!
The outtakes are a different matter, their release extends the term by 70 years from the date of publication , but there's a limit to what the artists will permit so a large number Of outtakes slipped into the public domain despite the '63 set.

 

YOU of all people looking for Appleco (TM) to do something that makes sense??!! Come on, Doug! I know you know better than that!

 

Because the law can be interpreted in different ways. Even the Intellectual property office themselves haven't been clear on this. Back in November 2013 they stated that the copyright on a broadcast was 50 years UNLESS released (at which point the release date becomes the new copyright date) or communicated to the public.

Last month I asked them what 'communicated to the public' meant and after 4 weeks of deliberation and lots of head scratching they now believe that that broadcasting IS communicating with the public and therefore protected for a further 20 years (see my earlier postings for direct quotes from correspondence). The problem is that until tested in court nobody is exactly 100% sure! It's almost deliberately ambiguous.

Last year nobody wanted to take a chance, perhaps now they do and maybe if they let the few unissued 1964 broadcasts slip out next year if gives them a chance to test it in court - Who knows. If even the UK government department responsible for copyright law don't understand it what hope have the rest of us got!

 

There is no confusion you just go to the 1988 copyright Act and Communication to the public is defined there.

 

Dear Richard Moore,
I think you may be looking in the wrong place. There's nothing to be tested in court everything is clearly defined by statute .
In this case its the 1988 copyright act as ammended on 1st November 2013.
Basically all recordings which were published up to the end of '62 are public domain.
The term of copyright protection for unpublished sound recordings is 50 years, so unpublished sound recordings from '64 will come into the public domain on 1st Jan 2015 unless they were broadcast , in which case they are considered to have been 'communicated to the public ' and are therefore in copyright until 2033!
The term of copyright is now 70 years from date of publication.
Confused? Blame the politicians who trust the lobbyists and lawyers who work for the big companies!

 

Richard, you seem to have the best grasp on the legal aspects of this, so please correct me if I'm totally wrong ... With regard to the 1963 BBC recordings -- even if they were legally "communicated to the public" when they originally aired, couldn't Universal/Apple have lost the copyright under the "use-it-or-lose-it" section of the revised law? ("Published" 50 years ago, but no longer being made available to the public, meaning one or more of the artists could petition to claim them?)

 

How do you subscribe to a thread without posting in it?

I know I just subscribed by writing this but how to watch without a pointless post from me?

Thanks!

Jeff, Quiet Until There's Real News Which Should Be at Any Moment, But Anticipates Having to Subscribe to "Side 3" First

 

On the top of the page you can push the "watch thread" link.

 

Even if the BBC broadcasts satisfied the communicated to the public aspect of the law, what about the other non-broadcast recordings? Wouldn't they need to be issued to escape becoming public domain?
Seems strange that Universal would be doing the Motown 64, the multi-artist 1964, the Beach Boys sets, and Sony would put out the 9 disc set of Dylan stuff if it wasn't something that they thought was important or required for them to maintain control. And yes, I know Apple has the say in what is issued, but they would be just as interested in maintaining their control over these recordings, no?

 

Oh yes, that is clear if nothing else. If completely unreleased it needs to be protected by releasing it before the end of the 50th year.

 

The way I look at it, if Dylan is doing annual "Copyright Dump" releases, then everyone who wants to protect their interests should be doing them. No way Bob would sign off on these unless they were necessary.

 

The BBC own the broadcast tapes not Universal but BBC contracts for the recordings are such that they have to work with the artists (and often the label the artist was contracted to at the time of the recording) to get permission to release the recordings. As far as I understand it the 'use it or lose it' clause concerns recordings already released as opposed to 'communicated to the public', but even if I'm wrong the artist has to make the complaint that the recordings aren't being made available and somehow I can't see the Beatles doing that considering that they have ultimate control anyway.