Pink Floyd '1965' double 7"

Piper era Floyd Immersion box may be finally a possibility!

Hoping for also a 1969-1972 Floyd Immersion box as well

 

I love the feeling of owning an original disc, that's genuinely rare as much as the next person, but what's with limited releases these days? Come on! I want this so much, but I will never see it for a regular price now... Especially here in Australia. This blows.

 

I love the feeling of owning an original disc, that's genuinely rare as much as the next person, but what's with limited releases these days? Come on! I want this so much, but I will never see it for a regular price now

 

lakeside ?

 

Sorry Basildon! Also phoned Southend and got the same story!

 

They're not releasing it because they want to, they're releasing it because they have to.

They put out enough copies to ensure copyright protection and no more. The implication: they would rather die hards find an illegal copy than have it available to mass-market casual listeners.

 

I will oblige them as soon as illegal copies become available

 

Releasing previously unissued recordings protects the material for another 50 years. It's a simple as that. It's possible down the road that EMI/Universal and/or Floyd will release these recordings on some future project. Ron

 

That's what it sounded like from what Andy Jackson wrote (though apparently EMI/Universal/Parlophone will not necessarily be part of it). Nick Mason was talking about doing a Syd-era compilation years ago. These tracks predate the EMI contract anyway. One of the cool things about this release is now, we definitively know which songs they did at those early sessions. I'd have to look it up, but I'm not even sure Random Precision listed all the specific titles. That they all exist and now have finally come out (in some manner, even if it's only because of a legal necessity in the UK) is awesome. Hopefully we'll all get to hear them some day.

I'm kind of liking that law. On one hand, if you created something, then the rights belong to you, and that seems right to me. But I also like how trademark laws work here in the US -- you want to keep the trademark, you have to use it or the rights expire. If our copyrights worked like that, it would help to keep stuff available and not buried to rot in some vault.

 

For another 70 years, in fact. And now we know that next year will see a similar release of the "San Francisco" version of Interstellar Overdrive, 2017 will bring Scream Thy Last Scream and Vegetable Man, and for 2019, Moonhead. On top of that there is the BBC stuff starting in 1967 plus various live dates.

 

I'm sure EMI/Universal/Parlophone would be happy to lease the rights if they determine it has commericial appeal AND the Floyd members and their estates OK such a release. It's all good if this comes out. Those of us interested will seek out a copy... and yea, if that proves elusive will procure the recordings elsewhere. Ron

 

I'm sure there will be counterfeits available to those of us who weren't lucky enough to find the real deal.

 

some 30 secs samples
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0gd1nbxhy6hoab3/AADn2JsjU6606o7-3V6r6YYca?dl=0

 

Needle drops of these will be up on YouTube soon.

 

Thanks for the samples..."I'm a King Bee" is really good.

 

Butterfly is nice!

 

A little bit off-topic but shouldn't this law mean that The Beatles' Carnival of Light would either have to be released in 2017 or else it would become public domain?

 

Then Paul can release it without anyone else's permission?

 

On balance I would say Syd was right to drop the American accent.

 

Yeah, I can't feel too bad about pursuing bootlegs in cases where the bands refuse to make the stuff available. I'm still not convinced that the Pink Floyd brand managers will acquiesce to a widespread official release of rare material from the late 60s.

 

Carnival of Light would become public domain after 2017 IF someone could sneak into the vault and steal it. Otherwise, it remains under lock and key.

HOWEVER, Apple Records seems to be taking a different approach to the copyright dilemma. They released a 1963 "Bootleg" compilation, but skipped 1964 and do not seem to be doing a 1965 one. So their lawyers are somehow viewing this differently.

 

The fidelity is quite good. The songs are not much more than a historical curiosity for me. Lucy Leave, one of the 2 songs previously booted, seems the best of the lot. Thanks for posting the samples.

 

Theoretically, yes.

Realistically, no.

 

Hmmm... In the U.S., there are generally two copyrights: one for the music and one for the sound recording. For a major label release, the sound recording copyright generally belongs to the label, while the artist usually retains their music copyright. I'm not sure what happens when the sound recording copyright expires, but I don't think the recording usually passes into the public domain, whereas once a music copyright expires, the composition typically does pass into the public domain. It's strange to think of anyone with access to a recording (a master, a copy, or an extant release) being able to duplicate, distribute, and sell with impunity something they did not create or license.

 

Even when a song falls into the public domain, the company issuing the recording still has to pay PUBLISHING royalties to the proper authorities. If not, then they would be in violation of the law.