Anyone can release any Rolling Stones recordings they have copies of without the Rolling Stones permission, and doing so is especially easy on YT. Pretty much everything musical anyone posts on YT unless it is their original composition infringes some copyright holder's rights. The copyright holder (in this case Jagger Richards) then have to decide whether to sue the poster over it. I expect with the "bigger fish to fry" between Stones and ABKCO there will not be a suit over these posts. But perhaps I underestimate how pissed M&K remain at the ABKCO entity even post ABK.
Highly unlikely. Considering how focused ABKCO are on the financial advertanges and the fact that exactly 17 studio songs were the ones released on Youtube, there is enough proof here to guess that those songs/versions were planned/considered for a probable bonus disc on the 50th Let It Bleed boxed set. I’m only guessing here, but why exactly those chosen songs/versions, a substantial portion of them never heard/bootlegged before? My guess is that these 17 songs were presented to The Stones, who then nixed a release of them. It is known Jagger/Richards were presented with Beggars Banquet outtakes for consideration of a release last year. Sadly, that didn’t came out either, except for a copyright dump on Youtube last year, exactly as has happend now.
They're able to establish that they own them with a limited release like this. They would probably receive an injunction if there was a full commercial release of outtakes without the band's permission That's not proof of anything. The 'use it or lose it' clause in EU law means the rights holder must prove they transmitted the recorded copyrighted work to the public during the fifty year period after its recording or else they lose the rights. If they never released those seventeen tracks, they'd lose the ability to profit from them later So whether or not ABKCO wanted to cut a deal with the Stones this year to make a commercial release out of these tracks, they still wanted to reserve the right to do so later Will it ever happen? Much depends on whether the suits want to play ball and make a favourable deal for everyone. Meantime we get lavish repackaging of stuff we've already got and shabby releases like this for the stuff we haven't got
That is unclear. They did sign off on the Ya-Ya’s and Charlie’s My Darling box sets during the past 10 years, so at the very least, relations thawed to some degree. There certainly may be ongoing issues and disputes with ABKCO over royalty rates, but the band has also been a bit inconsistent with its position on releasing archival outtakes — both bonus discs for Exile and Some Girls contain quite a bit of contemporary overdubbing suggesting Mick isn’t completely comfortable with the sound and presentation of outtake material (although he did leave the Sticky Fingers studio outtake material alone on that reissue). My guess is that Mick didn’t want to spend the time and effort overhauling and/or reviewing ABKCO era outtakes when there wasn’t enough of a financial incentive to do so, and possibly due to his ambivalence about issuing that kind of material. Jody Klein seems willing to work with the band, but who knows how healthy the relationship really is (and Keith and Mick may be more aggravated about past lucrative royalties they believe they were screwed out of rather than the possibilities of sharing in profits on a reissue with limited retail potential).
I sometimes wonder if the Stones limit what ABKCO can do with their catalogue in order to force them to sell the rights back to them!
That's an interesting question. Not an attorney, but my guess is that, on a streaming/non-downloadable service like YouTube, they'd need to be available for at least the duration of any given track, and possibly (if the uploads are being treated as a single body of work) for the combined duration of all tracks. If they were up for, say, one minute, I think a lawyer could make a case that it wouldn't really count as "publishing", since it'd literally be impossible to consume the artwork in the allotted time. Perhaps there's some author vs. corporation case law that establishes a minimum reasonable time to consider something "published". This is distinct from the Van Morrison situation with Boston 1968, since those were downloadable via iTunes, so you didn't need them to be available for the duration of the album. Still, those weren't available for just 2 minutes, either.
I couldn't get software loaded fast enough to grab it from YouTube. Anyone get it? It's sad when these things only are shared to a select few. Not unlike the recent Dylan 1969 fiasco.
{list snipped} There's also a SHF thread here about previous drops: The Rolling Stones - 1966 Copyright Preservation Releases And on page 5 of it, this post: The Rolling Stones - 1966 Copyright Preservation Releases details some of the tracks not in that IORR list which were actually put up for download sale by Tidal and Google Play.
I don't imagine they're too directly involved, it's all in the hands of management and labels. The catalogue releases/reissues are generally handled as big package deals in lucrative multi-year licensing agreements. ABKCO owns the rights to the outtakes, but that doesn't mean they can have carte blanche to issue whatever they want. The stickiness of all this stuff dates way back to the 70s with the tortured path to Metamorphosis... it has always been a delicate dance to make everyone happy before commercial releases can happen
CSNY is a bit disappointing. But I don't think there's much more in the Zep or Who vaults from 1969 than what we've already heard. They've both released live stuff from that year, and there's full demos of Tommy.
Obviously I'm pretty fascinated by this dump. I didn't manage to get any of the live tracks before they were deleted, alas, but I did get my hands on the most important studio outtakes (i.e. the ones that hadn't already previously circulated: the early "Love In Vain," the "Ruby Tuesday" alt, the "YCAGWYW" choral overdub sessions, etc.), and it's interesting how the most important stuff (i.e. the early "Sister Morphine," Keith on "Gimme Shelter," Mick on "You Got The Silver") had already circulated long ago. But the new stuff is great to have, and I'd give my eyeteeth for copies of the 1969 SBDs (especially because it requires only a very simple trick in Audacity to remove the 'hum' that ABKCO put on top of all the songs and 'rescue' them). Overall, the big takeaway I get from this is that the best outtakes from this era really have already found their way out there. BTW cheers all, long time no see.
BTW, for Stones fans reading this thread who might not be aware of its existence, behold: The Greatest Thread In The History Of The Hoffman Forums.
Abkco and the Stones have also worked together to release On Air the official release of the BBC sessions.
I'm actually fairly certain this is not true. For example, Robert Fripp has been releasing King Crimson bootleg recordings for years, both in physical copies (with the Collector's Club and on various boxed sets) and in digital form on DGMLive, without any legal hassle. The original bootlegger has no right to anything except his actual physical mastertape -- otherwise all rights reside with the artist and/or whoever has legally taken over those rights (in this case ABKCO, though the Stones have a veto due to the settlement negotiated by Rupert Loewenstein for them all those years ago, which is why Metamorphosis was the only Sixties-era Stones outtakes album released for so many years).
Correct. Owner of a physical tape pretty much only enjoys the right to play it privately or sell it. Publishing and public performance rights rule the day.
I mean it's GREAT, it's fascinating, it's interesting, don't get me wrong here -- but the orchestral version of "Wild Horses" is also really, really absurdly bad, at the same time! Maybe it's just me, but I felt like Keith must have felt, hearing the playback.....er, turn this off, and let's do it over again, a little less cheesy and less flowery this time! It just doesn't fit into the overall vibe with what Sticky Fingers ultimately became, at all.
I used to have a box set called Hot Stuff, one set was live material and the other was studio. As bad as these youtube dumps sound, they sound much better than that box set. Too bad they can't work things out and give us a set of outtakes and live material. Too bad the sound quality was bad on that release. Boots sound better.
When these copyright protection releases come out, who are they worried about? A real bootleg company doesn't care about legalities; if they can get their hands on a copy, they will release it. Whether it is under copyright protection or not would be irrelevant to a real bootlegger. Surely the original tapes are under lock and key. Are they afraid an employee is going to make copies and then someone like Universal will put it out? Surely that would constitute theft regardless of copyright? So it seems unlikely that any major label would touch it. So who is it that they are guarding it against?
"Wild Horses" has rather notoriously (for old-school Hoffman forumers, at least) been one of my least favorite Stones 'classics'. But I never imagined I would be presented with a version that was actually way, way worse than the sodden mess that ended up on Sticky Fingers. And yet who would have thought? Here we are! (There are two good Stones versions of "Wild Horses": the original mix done in 1969 as hear on Gimme Shelter and also accidentally released on initial versions of Hot Rocks/1964-1971, and the live version with Ronnie Wood bringing a Faces vibe to it on the L.A. Friday 1975 archival release.)
Yeah, for whatever reason they seem to come together over live material (live BBC performances, Charlie Is My Darling additional live material, Ya Ya's additional live material) but seem at an impasse on studio outtakes.
The Ruby Tuesday remake with NH smokes - would love to know the reason they went back to it. I did not get a chance to preview the MSG tracks. Confused about those. Were these undoctored Ya Yas tracks (like those on the Apple Acetate), or previously unheard performances from different shows during that engagement? Edit: Nevermind. Now I see - two complete MSG shows and part of another!
They are "out there" and cleaned up w/o the annoying hum. Will probably turn back up on YT sooner or later.
Legal, grey-market releases. Other bands have seen a few of these in recent years, though not as many as I'd expected, but you can find plenty of cheapo live compilations on Amazon and elsewhere. If the Stones do put these tracks out in the future, and they hadn't released them in some form within the 50-year window, any grey-market label could simply copy them from the official releases and put out their own copy, because the recordings would be public domain (though not the underlying compositions), at least in some jurisdictions.
