Rolling Stones tracks posted briefly on YouTube in attempt to extend copyright(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Rolling Stones tracks posted briefly on YouTube in attempt to extend copyright
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/jan/03/mystery-of-rolling-stones-tracks-posted-briefly-on-youtube
64 comments
How are people keeping so up-to-date on when works are going public domain? Is there some resource I don't know about?
It seems to be a collective effort. Here's a living list of notable work that will become public domain in 2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_public_domain
“The rarest recordings – ie the ones not previously available on bootlegs – have a dial-tone-like sound as loud as the music,”
An interesting ruling might be only the dial-tone version had it’s copyright extended as the original had not been released.
An interesting ruling might be only the dial-tone version had it’s copyright extended as the original had not been released.
I would love if that happened -- just deserts.
Unfortunately I'm not sure how a judge would ever justify that. Half of a book is still under copyright of the whole thing. Original music in the background of a movie is still copyrighted as part of the movie, even if a loud action scene is taking place on top of it. So even with a dial tone sound overlaid, that wouldn't change the fact that the music part of the recording has been published.
:(
Unfortunately I'm not sure how a judge would ever justify that. Half of a book is still under copyright of the whole thing. Original music in the background of a movie is still copyrighted as part of the movie, even if a loud action scene is taking place on top of it. So even with a dial tone sound overlaid, that wouldn't change the fact that the music part of the recording has been published.
:(
I was thinking this would qualify as a derivative work, while the original would enter the public domain.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombie..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin_(1992_Disney_film)
I don’t know if publishing 1/2 a book would protect the first half or not, but presumably the second half would have entered the public domain in your hypothetical example.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombie..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin_(1992_Disney_film)
I don’t know if publishing 1/2 a book would protect the first half or not, but presumably the second half would have entered the public domain in your hypothetical example.
> Half of a book is still under copyright of the whole thing
But what was described isn't "half of a recording". Imagine the "publish to extend copyright" applied to books too - would publishing the book with half the text blacked out still extend the original book's copyright?
That's just my naive take on it (i know nothing about copyright law). Your movie music argument might already be enough to show that I'm incorrect.
But what was described isn't "half of a recording". Imagine the "publish to extend copyright" applied to books too - would publishing the book with half the text blacked out still extend the original book's copyright?
That's just my naive take on it (i know nothing about copyright law). Your movie music argument might already be enough to show that I'm incorrect.
What I meant was, the recording is half dial tone and half music, because they're overlaid with each other.
Subtract the dial tone and the music part is "half" the total copyrighted work (which includes the dial tone).
But the music part is still 100% copyrighted. Same way that if you publish a book with 200 pages, pages 1-100 are still 100% copyrighted even though they make up only half of it.
Subtract the dial tone and the music part is "half" the total copyrighted work (which includes the dial tone).
But the music part is still 100% copyrighted. Same way that if you publish a book with 200 pages, pages 1-100 are still 100% copyrighted even though they make up only half of it.
That would mean you could mix a single instrument or sound out of an existing recording, and now you own the copyright?
I would think you instead would have copyright on the new bit that is mixed in, and because of that, the combined version as a whole still contains your copyright and therefore cannot be copied freely.
I don't think that would give you any new rights over the original work though.
I don't think that would give you any new rights over the original work though.
But perhaps crucially would give you effective financial control via online tools that look for a musical fingerprint?
If the public have the rights but can't exercise those unimpeded then the erstwhile rights holders get to retain the financial benefit and prevent full effective entry to the pubic domain.
Bastards.
If the public have the rights but can't exercise those unimpeded then the erstwhile rights holders get to retain the financial benefit and prevent full effective entry to the pubic domain.
Bastards.
I’ve heard stories of people uploading their old works to YouTube’s ContentID system so it will remove them from an old account they can’t access anymore.
So you could upload science and own the inverted wave version of a song?
[deleted]
I wonder if it would be possible to edit it to remove the tone.
It's easy enough to filter out specific frequencies - this should work to the extent that the dial tone track doesn't overlap in frequency with the rest of the sounds.
Even if it does overlap, as long as the amplitude is predicable one could still only partially remove the frequency.
There was a 'copyright extension' release in 2013 for many early Beatles bootleg/outtakes, but none since. (I now see the article mentions it). They've done larger "deluxe" remastering of later albums with bonus tracks that probably would have gone in to 'copyright extension' releases otherwise. Still would be nice to get some more outtakes/alternate versions and remasters of pre-pepper albums.
The Beach Boys' organization has done at least one of these every December for the last several years (this December there were only 3 tracks on it, which was a bit disappointing). These are mostly 'streaming only' (apple, google, Spotify, etc), and many hard core fans grumble for vinyl or at least CD physical releases, but I think that's generally going to be a lost cause.
Didn't know about the Dylan "copyright extension" release...
ABCKO doing this - maybe too cheap to mount a real marketing/sales effort around these? or just don't know what to do with them? or have something larger planned coming up soon?
The Beach Boys' organization has done at least one of these every December for the last several years (this December there were only 3 tracks on it, which was a bit disappointing). These are mostly 'streaming only' (apple, google, Spotify, etc), and many hard core fans grumble for vinyl or at least CD physical releases, but I think that's generally going to be a lost cause.
Didn't know about the Dylan "copyright extension" release...
ABCKO doing this - maybe too cheap to mount a real marketing/sales effort around these? or just don't know what to do with them? or have something larger planned coming up soon?
This should be disqualified as a "release".
Damn straight. This is the record company thumbing its nose at the intent of the law. In GDPR threads we hear about how the EU has enough discretion to follow the intent over the letter of the law, so let's see it.
How does anyone except The Rolling Stones have a right to music recorded by The Rolling Stones?
How do they have a right to it in the first place? Copyright is only given on condition of it becoming public domain later. And now they are trying to undermine it becoming public domain. Which in turn, should mean they are trying to undermine their own right to it. That's how it should work, if the original intent of copyright is followed.
Regulatory capture.
Do you think we'll see Mickey Mouse enter the public domain? (And even if it does, Disney still owns the Trademark.)
I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil. Older content is a very long tail, but the vast majority of revenue is with new art. It's perennially refreshed and relevant to new audiences.
Do you think we'll see Mickey Mouse enter the public domain? (And even if it does, Disney still owns the Trademark.)
I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil. Older content is a very long tail, but the vast majority of revenue is with new art. It's perennially refreshed and relevant to new audiences.
How will your company producing good copyright content be financed?
Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. I'd go for much shorter terms 7+7 years (7 years automatic right, 7 years paid), and make various other changes (deposit non-DRM copies or you don't get copyright at all, things that can't enter the public domain can't be copyright protected; also the copyright term is set at the start, and can't be retroactively extended).
You might be able to create a "fair recompense" right or something (those exploring works have to pay a fair amount to the original author) but it would still be a form of copyright I think?
Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. I'd go for much shorter terms 7+7 years (7 years automatic right, 7 years paid), and make various other changes (deposit non-DRM copies or you don't get copyright at all, things that can't enter the public domain can't be copyright protected; also the copyright term is set at the start, and can't be retroactively extended).
You might be able to create a "fair recompense" right or something (those exploring works have to pay a fair amount to the original author) but it would still be a form of copyright I think?
> Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid.
Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it? Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that point it's already completely parasitic.
Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it? Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that point it's already completely parasitic.
Yes, but if the term is 0 then the main beneficiaries will also be the publishers, only then the creators will get nothing. At least with a copyright of some form they have chance to make a recompense rather than losing _all_ the financial value of their creations to the Capitalists.
It's a hard problem.
I think one negative trend is the focus on creating tentpole films that eat up the competition at the box office. (As well as the consolidation of all major brands and copyrights under one studio.)
Not only are these films watered down to appeal to a wide audience, but they're safe rehashes of the same recurring themes.
By inflating the cost of films, you decrease the diversity. Fewer actors and directors get a chance. Fewer ideas are used. All the screens show the same thing.
I hope that better tooling will help democratize the market. Maybe films don't need to cost so much.
And maybe you're right about copyright. I don't think I can presume to make rules that fair without harming someone. Maybe it's not that copyright needs to be revisited, but rather that the big elephants in the room need to be made to play nice.
I still think more content creation is one answer. By having a greater diversity and abundance of content, you average out the concentration of interest (and value) across the board. This prevents singular entries from soaking up all the benefits.
I don't like the status quo, though. And it's getting worse.
I think one negative trend is the focus on creating tentpole films that eat up the competition at the box office. (As well as the consolidation of all major brands and copyrights under one studio.)
Not only are these films watered down to appeal to a wide audience, but they're safe rehashes of the same recurring themes.
By inflating the cost of films, you decrease the diversity. Fewer actors and directors get a chance. Fewer ideas are used. All the screens show the same thing.
I hope that better tooling will help democratize the market. Maybe films don't need to cost so much.
And maybe you're right about copyright. I don't think I can presume to make rules that fair without harming someone. Maybe it's not that copyright needs to be revisited, but rather that the big elephants in the room need to be made to play nice.
I still think more content creation is one answer. By having a greater diversity and abundance of content, you average out the concentration of interest (and value) across the board. This prevents singular entries from soaking up all the benefits.
I don't like the status quo, though. And it's getting worse.
> I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil.
Lessig argues that it's worse than nil - that copyright stifles innovation
Lessig argues that it's worse than nil - that copyright stifles innovation
I’d argue that copyright does have its uses, but it’s been extended too many times that it stifles innovation now. I know I’d be scared of demoing my product to a company if they could just copy it with no repercussions.
They still can, copyright doesn't protect the idea behind products.
I meant to say intellectual property, not copyright
For the most part, no form of intellectual property protects ideas that companies and products are formed on.
But the value of copyright isn't nil. I think there is enough evidence to support it isn't.
Copyright on unpublished works is typically more extensive than on published ones, because it overlaps with a sort of privacy right. In the U.S., many unpublished works are copyrighted up to 120 years after creation. The E.U. doesn't have that, but they have something called editio princeps rights, where a first publication of an unpublished work gets 20 years or so of copyright protection. Not out of line with what's happening here, so I'm not sure that there's much to complain about.
The fact that putting it up and pulling is not publishing, it's cheating.
The are no "rights" but what the law/constitution/etc gives people.
Not even some "right to life" - a person can be executed, lawfully too, in many countries including the US, if a court says so.
So there's no reason for the Rolling Stones to have a right to music recorded by them, other than special provisions in the law (which we call copyright law).
Well, the same law says that works also go into public domain if you don't release them in X years. This gives everyone a right to any such music released by the RS.
Not even some "right to life" - a person can be executed, lawfully too, in many countries including the US, if a court says so.
So there's no reason for the Rolling Stones to have a right to music recorded by them, other than special provisions in the law (which we call copyright law).
Well, the same law says that works also go into public domain if you don't release them in X years. This gives everyone a right to any such music released by the RS.
> "The are no "rights" but what the law/constitution/etc gives people."
you have this exactly backwards, at least as it relates to the US constitution.
human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us.
the bill of rights simply enumerates our inalienable rights as a way of reminding us and governments not to even think about trampling on them. they exist regardless of the enumeration.
you have this exactly backwards, at least as it relates to the US constitution.
human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us.
the bill of rights simply enumerates our inalienable rights as a way of reminding us and governments not to even think about trampling on them. they exist regardless of the enumeration.
>you have this exactly backwards, at least as it relates to the US constitution. human rights are intrinsic and inalienable.
Not really. Those are mere words, the premises of the philosophy of those writing the constitution.
There are no "intrinsic and inalienable" human rights in nature (of course: nature doesn't care one way or another) and not even in human cultures by default (empirically obvious).
American US-constitution rights, whatever the constitution says they are based on, are only emerging and based on the constitution itself, and the power the government/police/army etc have to enforce it.
In other words, the constitution says that these "rights are inartistic and unalienable" in the same way (mere philosophy/belief) that another constitution in some other country would say "rights are given from God" or "rights are based on the wisdom of Huhumu the Great, our founder and first leader" -- and of course the rights don't even have to be the same. What a constitution says rights come from doesn't make it so. A racist regime would also have constitution and also declares some reasoning and some foundation for the rights it describes in it.
So what any Constitution says about how rights came to be or why they are chosen, is orthogonal to how rights appear, emerge, and are enforced in the real world.
>the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us.
Well, "intentionally and cooperatively" is a misleading too. It's the notion of the social contract, but nobody actually allowed the people to vote for the Constitution they want (not to mention that blacks, women, and the poor, couldn't vote at all at the time, and had no say at all, and for close to 2 centuries later).
[1] (to the degree they are - those "intrinsic and inalienable" rights wouldn't apply to southern blacks until the Civil War, and to blacks generally and fully, not until the 70s)
Not really. Those are mere words, the premises of the philosophy of those writing the constitution.
There are no "intrinsic and inalienable" human rights in nature (of course: nature doesn't care one way or another) and not even in human cultures by default (empirically obvious).
American US-constitution rights, whatever the constitution says they are based on, are only emerging and based on the constitution itself, and the power the government/police/army etc have to enforce it.
In other words, the constitution says that these "rights are inartistic and unalienable" in the same way (mere philosophy/belief) that another constitution in some other country would say "rights are given from God" or "rights are based on the wisdom of Huhumu the Great, our founder and first leader" -- and of course the rights don't even have to be the same. What a constitution says rights come from doesn't make it so. A racist regime would also have constitution and also declares some reasoning and some foundation for the rights it describes in it.
So what any Constitution says about how rights came to be or why they are chosen, is orthogonal to how rights appear, emerge, and are enforced in the real world.
>the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us.
Well, "intentionally and cooperatively" is a misleading too. It's the notion of the social contract, but nobody actually allowed the people to vote for the Constitution they want (not to mention that blacks, women, and the poor, couldn't vote at all at the time, and had no say at all, and for close to 2 centuries later).
[1] (to the degree they are - those "intrinsic and inalienable" rights wouldn't apply to southern blacks until the Civil War, and to blacks generally and fully, not until the 70s)
If this is a genuine question: one can sign over the rights to their work. Generally, small bands will sign with a record label who, in the contract, says they own all your music you release under their label. The Rolling Stones weren’t a big band originally; they had to start somewhere.
Why even bother extending the copyright? If they haven't released it in the past 50 years, are they going to release it in the next 20? Why not release it now? Do they expect that in 10 years, the increased sales (for whatever reason) would offset the loss of 10 years of copyright?
They probably expect to release them in drips over many years. The most enthusiastic fans will want to own every single "lost recording". To get the max profit they might release a new "collectors item" boxed set with a lot of known material and just a few of the "lost recordings", and the fans will buy it.
They are probably waiting for the opportune moment, which is when the band members die, since this will create renewed buzz around the band, and "lost recordings" are more interesting when the band is dead.
They are probably waiting for the opportune moment, which is when the band members die, since this will create renewed buzz around the band, and "lost recordings" are more interesting when the band is dead.
>"Why even bother extending the copyright? If they haven't released it in the past 50 years, are they going to release it in the next 20?"
Yes I think for exactly that reason. The "they" being ABCKO. The ABCKO mentioned in the article stands for Allen and Betty Klein. ABCKO owns all the publishing to the Stones catalog before 1971. Allen Klein has been a thorn in Rolling Stones side since he fleeced them in the 60s. There's some details on their lawsuit against him 50 years ago here:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-rolling-st...
And the settlement(which incidentally concerned unreleased tracks) a few year later here:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/stones-settle-...
Yes I think for exactly that reason. The "they" being ABCKO. The ABCKO mentioned in the article stands for Allen and Betty Klein. ABCKO owns all the publishing to the Stones catalog before 1971. Allen Klein has been a thorn in Rolling Stones side since he fleeced them in the 60s. There's some details on their lawsuit against him 50 years ago here:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-rolling-st...
And the settlement(which incidentally concerned unreleased tracks) a few year later here:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/stones-settle-...
I suspect it's not so much THEY plan on ever releasing it, but to keep others from doing so.
How would “others” have the right to release music they didn’t make?
Everyone has the right. Copyright law adds limits to that. It puts a temporary restriction on the inherently transformative nature of culture so people can afford to make things.
Copyright law even recognizes the essentialness of not needing to ask permission by providing compulsory licensing[1] with set rates so you don't have to get permission from the copyright holder. Though it's usually cheaper to get a formal license. That probably wouldn't be the case without a legally established no-negotiation baseline.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#Berne_Conve...
Copyright law even recognizes the essentialness of not needing to ask permission by providing compulsory licensing[1] with set rates so you don't have to get permission from the copyright holder. Though it's usually cheaper to get a formal license. That probably wouldn't be the case without a legally established no-negotiation baseline.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#Berne_Conve...
Copyright expires and now it's an advert soundtrack for worm pills or sanitary pads.
Maybe they are waiting for the band members to die? The price for certain Art works usually raises when the artist dies...
Create a cell culture line of the band members alive in a lab in perpetuity, copyright would never expire.
Pretty sure this is Keith Richards.
Exactly what I was going to say. Mick and Keith are 76. Charlie is 78. They could all live to 100, but the odds probably suggest they'll die within the next 20 years. At which point some publisher stands to make some serious cashing-in money from 'unreleased (or at least only released on YouTube for 24 hours with a dial tone) Rolling Stones songs'.
Also the artists can't protest having the tracks' release.
cynically, someone is waiting on deaths to make the recordings more valuable and timely in their release
>Others, perhaps less eager to share early, unfinished versions of songs with the world, have pushed what it means to “publish” tracks: a Bob Dylan compilation, literally published as “The Copyright Extension Collection, Volume 1”, was also released in 2013 in an edition of 100, and only sold in Europe.
Reminds me of the candor of the title of "Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Contractual_O...
>Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album is the final studio album by Monty Python, released in 1980. As the title suggests, the album was put together to complete a contract with Charisma Records. Besides newly written songs and sketches, the sessions saw re-recordings of material that dated back to the 1960s pre-Python shows I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again, The Frost Report, At Last The 1948 Show and How To Irritate People. One track, "Bells", dates from the sessions for Monty Python's Previous Record, while further material was adapted from Eric Idle's post-Python series Rutland Weekend Television. The group also reworked material written but discarded from early drafts of Life Of Brian, as well as the initial scripts for what would eventually become The Meaning Of Life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er52v69ru98&list=PL991B848D0...
There's also a rare unreleased Monty Python Album called "The Hastily Cobble Together for a Fast Buck Album":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hastily_Cobbled_Together_f...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5dsItjL84
Reminds me of the candor of the title of "Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Contractual_O...
>Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album is the final studio album by Monty Python, released in 1980. As the title suggests, the album was put together to complete a contract with Charisma Records. Besides newly written songs and sketches, the sessions saw re-recordings of material that dated back to the 1960s pre-Python shows I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again, The Frost Report, At Last The 1948 Show and How To Irritate People. One track, "Bells", dates from the sessions for Monty Python's Previous Record, while further material was adapted from Eric Idle's post-Python series Rutland Weekend Television. The group also reworked material written but discarded from early drafts of Life Of Brian, as well as the initial scripts for what would eventually become The Meaning Of Life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er52v69ru98&list=PL991B848D0...
There's also a rare unreleased Monty Python Album called "The Hastily Cobble Together for a Fast Buck Album":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hastily_Cobbled_Together_f...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5dsItjL84
This happened with The Wheel of Time TV tights too; whichever company owned them released a piece of shit single episode pilot and nothing else, solely to keep the rights
Oh yeah I completely forgot about that. I see it's expired now anyway and there's a new TV series in production, which is nice because there's a great story to be drawn out of the bloated and messy book series.
From the article:
>[The YouTube channel] offers no clues as to its identity – save a YouTube-mandated email address
Does anyone know where can I see this “YouTube-mandated email address”? I tried to contact another channel privately before, and I just didn’t know how to do it.
>[The YouTube channel] offers no clues as to its identity – save a YouTube-mandated email address
Does anyone know where can I see this “YouTube-mandated email address”? I tried to contact another channel privately before, and I just didn’t know how to do it.
if you go to the channel, click on "Details" tab, you can view the "For business enquiries" email
Ah, thanks.
> Under EU law, sound recordings are covered by copyright for the first 50 calendar years after they were made – unless they have been “lawfully communicated to the public”, in which case the copyright term extends a further 20 years.
So it's not a trick to extend the copyright. You can imagine that the copyright last 70 years, but you can loose it after 20 years before if they don't do anything. So they do something to ensure the full length.
So it's not a trick to extend the copyright. You can imagine that the copyright last 70 years, but you can loose it after 20 years before if they don't do anything. So they do something to ensure the full length.
...it is a trick though. They are not doing it in good faith, it is only to keep the copy right which they have no intention of using, just keeping locked up.