I do understand the "don't dilute the Bootleg series branding of quality" idea. But I should think selling them (after this tiny physical run if that's legally required) as purely digital tracks with explanations on bobdylan.com would be a way to make a little money, make your core audience of fanatics happy. (That Bob personally is uncomfortable, so I've gathered, with that core aud of fanatics shouldn't interfere with this biz decision....)
It’s probably to do with investment and where the funding stream for this comes from. A short run of 1000 copies would be a lot cheaper to produce and distribute, especially via independent stores, than a mass-produced item. The first one of these sets was on cd-r and there were 100 of the sets. CD replication (from a glass-master) is more expensive but quicker and far more reliable. Usually its a minimum of 1000, so 3000 discs for a 3cd set, with the packaging and design costs, probably came in at around $4000 to produce these. Obviously there’s additional costs - time to master, wages, electric etc...but the actual items probably only cost them $4000.
Columbia didn't want to release this. They felt they had to to preserve the assets for the future. As a fan it's infuriating, but I understand the reasoning behind it. It's hard to get too upset, though. The bootleg series has been an amazing gift.
I totally missed this and am confused. The Badlands website says it'll be released on 4th Dec. 2020. Does this mean it will go on-sale that date? Or was there just a selling window that has passed and shipping will happen as of 4th Dec. 2020?
No. Although the Directive hasn’t had a test case, I’d think - depending on your legal advice - that this wouldn’t constitute “reasonable” communication as is the language used within the Directive, or at least create considerable risk that Copyright could be challenged. In other words, if the record company has a Lawyer who suggests sticking it on a music site for half an hour would be sufficient....it’s time to get another Lawyer.
But isn't that what The Rolling Stones have done in the past? For example, a number of unreleased 1969 recordings were uploaded to YouTube for a very limited time just before midnight last new years eve. And they considered that enough to extend the copyright.
I suppose it depends who they’re getting advice from. Interpretation of how to achieve this is going to be different. Also legally it’s a ‘Directive’ rather than a ‘Regulation’. The difference is that a Directive says effectively ‘we don't care how you achieve this, but this is what the end result must look like’, whereas a Regulation tells you exactly what must be done and how. I think with the Stones - they made it available for 24 hours on a very popular well-known, worldwide site (YouTube) so that’s probably enough to argue that they ‘reasonably’ communicated it. Where I think they had bad, or at best pointless, at worse damaging, advice was to put a test tone on it. If you were to challenge this, you could argue that the audio was significantly altered in a way that makes the copyright claim illegitimate. On the other hand, they could argue that the test tone was at a specific, identifiable frequency, and could be easily removed revealing the unaltered audio, so....really until there’s a test case this is all unproven. But certainly the concept of what constitutes ‘reasonable’ communication is going to differ depending on who they’re getting their legal advice from and the strategy of each performer or record company is going to be based on this.
If it ever came to it, it’s a lot easier to prove your case with a physical release than trying to prove a 11.59pm upload to YT for an hour is sufficient.
Yes, a few - mostly the 3rd and 5th March sessions appear different to what’s been documented before. Tons of it is unheard. Probably 95% apart from the 1st May Harrison session
It probably isn't, but the bigger issue there is I'm not sure anyone is going to call them out on it by trying to semi-legally release stuff.
It's been asked before, but I STILL don't understand the point of doing copyright dumps for material that isn't unofficially circulated. It makes sense for the stuff on boots...I just don't get it. Are they hedging their bets that maybe someone has the unreleased material and just hasn't circulated it yet?
That's too bad... Won't be long before it hits the internet or pirated copies start to circulate I guess. Still have the original 1969 collection unwrapped.
Why wouldn’t you buy two copies of an unbelievably limited release, if you can get them and afford it?
Well putting them out in this limited way at least stops the PD labels from putting out this stuff legally for a profit, whereas people are already illicitly trading his proper official albums for free and the record company have no power to stop that, but I'm sure they're glad that at least the PD labels aren't putting out clones of the official official albums for a profit. At least this release (for the stuff on this set that's already leaked/is in trading circles/has been bootlegged) ensures that no one can legally profit off the bootlegs (which technically wouldn't even be legally considered bootlegs anymore in the EU after 50 years from the date of recording - that is if they don't release this set by the end of the year). Plus putting it out in such limited numbers means its less likely to be ripped and shared for free online (unlike his official albums which I'm sure have all been ripped by several dozen people - at the very least - and subsequently been shared by several tens of thousands of people - at the very least - over the last two decades). Its even possible (though not likely) that NO-ONE who bought a copy of this (given the severely limited number of copies) will share it online.
Because once it falls out of copyright, they can NEVER get it back under any circumstances. If the business folds or the company that holds the masters has financial trouble, if there’s a transfer to a new format for archiving....really ANY circumstance that results in a copy being made or the opportunity for that to happen...then it could leak out...as soon as it’s out it perfectly legal for anyone to sell it or use it in whatever way they like. If they want to release it at any point in the future, they would hold no legal right for it not to be copied for compilations or small label releases and the licensing money that would generate.
Problem is, I think satan/ABKCO was uploading some stuff even the bootleggers don't have. Although I could be wrong about that.
Understood that anyone who gets a hold something not previously published after the 50 year mark can use it, but within reason, wouldn't material not in the hands of collectors be completely safe inside the Columbia vault?
Perhaps because doing so screws someone else out of their opportunity to purchase a copy? I'm actually very surprised they even allowed people to purchase more than one copy of this.
It is safe but what if they want to release it in 15 years time? Say they stream it - some other service can stream it as well, and undercut what they're charging for it. Or maybe some label puts out a box set that’s better than anything they can manage. Maybe cd singles become a big thing again - and suddenly you can get this track on that format. No need to licence it - the sound recording is owned by nobody. If they did that with a lot of material, they’re devaluing their assets. It’s just future-proofing and covering all the bases.
It's easy to imagine under what circumstances things could slip out after the public domain deadline elapses
Well, they’d probably be OK with one person buying all of the copies, given the nature of this type of release. As for screwing someone out of their opportunity to purchase a copy, sure, that’s a reason not to buy two. But if somebody wants two, given their own opportunity to purchase two, I don’t see a problem. It’s not like we’re talking about food or toilet paper here.
