Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Mon November 20th, 2017, 18:55 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue October 31st, 2017, 16:15 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 31st, 2010, 12:18 GMT
Posts: 573
Location: Where The Neon Madmen Climb
Winter Lude wrote:
Winter Lude wrote:
In my mind, BOB was '66, Basement tapes was '67 and JWH was '68.

So I did some reading and found a couple claims that JWH actually came out in the first days of January 1968. I don't know the law but if the ticker starts when the product is available in stores, then maybe they have another year to protect this stuff.


Disregard my post. I wasn't thinking straight. This has nothing to do with the release date of an album full of different recordings. We're talking about out takes from the sessions, not an anniversary of the official release.


Yes, I was also thinking in a muddled way. It has nothing to do with the release of JWH; it is the recording dates of the sessions that is important, so 1967 is the year and 31 December 2017 is the deadline date for the outtakes to be released to protect the copyright in Europe.

Thanks to those who put me straight. I'll go back to sleep now.... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 00:06 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21177
Sean Murdock wrote:
Yes, it is very curious, and has been a matter of intense speculation among Beatles fans ever since they bailed on the "Copyright Extension" bandwagon in 2014.


Well, that’s because there wasn’t anything worth saving left.
After the Beatles Anthology Series was exhausted, George saying something like:
“If we release anything else after this it’ll be titled ‘ Scraping the Barrel.’


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 10:44 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 3rd, 2016, 14:33 GMT
Posts: 19
Still Go Barefoot wrote:
Sean Murdock wrote:
Yes, it is very curious, and has been a matter of intense speculation among Beatles fans ever since they bailed on the "Copyright Extension" bandwagon in 2014.


Well, that’s because there wasn’t anything worth saving left.
After the Beatles Anthology Series was exhausted, George saying something like:
“If we release anything else after this it’ll be titled ‘ Scraping the Barrel.’

Anyone who thinks there is nothing worth releasing in the Beatles' vault isn't familiar with what is still in that barrel. They managed to come up with 2 CDs worth of scrapings for the Sgt. Pepper box, and they were quite good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 11:19 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21177
Wait. When was that released?
I thought you said they got off the copyright bandwagon?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 11:35 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 31st, 2010, 12:18 GMT
Posts: 573
Location: Where The Neon Madmen Climb
http://wogew.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/sgt ... l?spref=tw

It's not a copyright protection release as we know them in Bobland, chucking everything in that sticks, but it was a 50th Anniversary Edition.

I won't eat my hat if they don't come up with a similar (but larger) box for the 50th Anniversary of the so-called White Album next year but there's plenty of material available to put an interesting package together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 11:58 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue April 4th, 2006, 16:17 GMT
Posts: 2265
Location: Glasgow, on the banks of the clyde
ugh, what a boring release that was. Give me the cutting egde over that any day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 15:46 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat December 10th, 2011, 15:23 GMT
Posts: 237
pol2jem wrote:
Yes, I was also thinking in a muddled way. It has nothing to do with the release of JWH; it is the recording dates of the sessions that is important, so 1967 is the year and 31 December 2017 is the deadline date for the outtakes to be released to protect the copyright in Europe.

Thanks to those who put me straight. I'll go back to sleep now.... :)


But then again... Perhaps the date it was intended to appear in stores was used as an official date for the whole project as far as legalities. A form was submitted covering the sessions start to finish and it's rubber stamped Jan 2, 1968.

Let's stick to that until proven wrong. We still have over a year :P .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 15:47 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 3rd, 2016, 14:33 GMT
Posts: 19
Still Go Barefoot wrote:
Wait. When was that released?
I thought you said they got off the copyright bandwagon?

They got off the end-of-year copyright dump bandwagon, releasing hodge-podge collections like "Beatles Bootleg 1963" solely to extend the copyright on vaulted recordings. However, the Pepper box (consciously or not) acted as a Copyright release, as it was the first public issue of several studio outtakes from 1967.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 16:24 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 31st, 2010, 12:18 GMT
Posts: 573
Location: Where The Neon Madmen Climb
escapeedrifter wrote:
ugh, what a boring release that was. Give me the cutting egde over that any day.


Well, to be fair (and it's only my opinion, obviously), The Cutting Edge, either Big Blue or Medium Blue, but particularly Big Blue, knocks spots off pretty much everything that's ever been released as an archival box set in the world we label as, what?, rock and pop music. Especially if you are armed with Roger Ford's accompanying essays that appeared in Isis magazine over six consecutive issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed November 1st, 2017, 16:30 GMT 

Joined: Sun April 17th, 2016, 14:09 GMT
Posts: 1727
Location: Austria
Sean Murdock wrote:
However, the Pepper box (consciously or not) acted as a Copyright release, as it was the first public issue of several studio outtakes from 1967.


Wasn´t there material from 1967 released on the Anthology Set ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 14:34 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 3rd, 2016, 14:33 GMT
Posts: 19
115th wrote:
Sean Murdock wrote:
However, the Pepper box (consciously or not) acted as a Copyright release, as it was the first public issue of several studio outtakes from 1967.


Wasn´t there material from 1967 released on the Anthology Set ???

Yes, some -- so those tracks were already under copyright. What I should have said was that the stuff on the Pepper box was the first public issue of THOSE tracks. (not ANY tracks)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 16:46 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21177
115th wrote:
Sean Murdock wrote:
However, the Pepper box (consciously or not) acted as a Copyright release, as it was the first public issue of several studio outtakes from 1967.


Wasn´t there material from 1967 released on the Anthology Set ???

Sean Murdock wrote:
Yes, some -- so those tracks were already under copyright. What I should have said was that the stuff on the Pepper box was the first public issue of THOSE tracks. (not ANY tracks)


So the Beatles got it covered would be the point then.
Not off the “copyright bandwagon.”
Similar to how Bob has some Rolling Thunder & Gospel stuff covered ahead of each respective “deadline” year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 17:40 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon June 30th, 2014, 16:37 GMT
Posts: 352
Since we're talking about Beatles material, they just announced a Christmas box set with most material now past the copyright deadline... So who knows about what Apple Corps thinks about copyright. Maybe they know something Sony doesn't?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HtBDK0y9-k


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 18:00 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed December 5th, 2012, 18:52 GMT
Posts: 4880
Location: In a hole in the ground there lived a....
112 posts, now 113, about a thing that doesn't exist. "1967 copyright protection" - no such thing. This was specifically addressed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 18:45 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 3rd, 2016, 14:33 GMT
Posts: 19
kuddukan wrote:
112 posts, now 113, about a thing that doesn't exist. "1967 copyright protection" - no such thing. This was specifically addressed.

Doesn't mean they can't change their minds.

114.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 18:47 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 3rd, 2016, 14:33 GMT
Posts: 19
BobDylan66 wrote:
Since we're talking about Beatles material, they just announced a Christmas box set with most material now past the copyright deadline... So who knows about what Apple Corps thinks about copyright. Maybe they know something Sony doesn't?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HtBDK0y9-k

None of the Christmas messages were unreleased -- they had all been "made public" via the Fan Club. So the 50 year "use it or lose it" rule doesn't apply. That said, Apple definitely has let a ton of studio outtakes from 1964-1966 go unprotected, so they undeniably have a different legal strategy than Dylan's team.

115.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 20:26 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon June 30th, 2014, 16:37 GMT
Posts: 352
However, those releases weren't made available to the general public (which is the condition in the "take it or lose it" clause in the EU directive), so I'm kind of uncertain about the whole thing.
I agree with you on the rest of your message. For me it still makes no sense that Apple Corps let all this material slide. On the other hand, I don't see the floodgates opening in terms of public domain releases or youtube videos. Maybe they consider they still have ground for the copyrights of the lyrics and compositions. Also, many outtakes sound very similar to the official releases (very different than Bob) so most copyright systems will detect those tracks and delete them in no time...

And regarding the impossible release of the material (according to searching for a gem and isis), until it's December 31st, I won't believe it. For me it will be a very stupid move from Sony. You don't have any guarantee that the superfans and collectors won't release it. But again, a music label making stupid things isn't new. Let's not forget they allowed Bob to record KOL / DITG and a Christmas album :mrgreen:

116


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 20:33 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21177
Love the Beatles, don't get me wrong.
In comparison, the retakes and outtakes just aren't as interesting as Bob's.
Nor is the depth and quantity of hidden gems available...Beatles are pretty sifted through.
Just chaff left. So not really much, if anything, to protect.

Therefore a major difference in legal strategy regarding copyrights.

Meanwhile, the Dylan well just keeps on flowing with amazing outtakes & unknown nuggets.

If that's not true, then your "Making a Liar Out of Me!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 21:59 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue August 23rd, 2011, 14:43 GMT
Posts: 1475
Location: Singapore
Still Go Barefoot wrote:
Love the Beatles, don't get me wrong.
In comparison, the retakes and outtakes just aren't as interesting as Bob's.
Nor is the depth and quantity of hidden gems available...


I dont love The Beatles at all and I'm sure you're right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu November 2nd, 2017, 23:45 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat December 10th, 2011, 15:23 GMT
Posts: 237
Enough Beatles talk. Go start a thread in the other seciton if you want to talk Beatles.

I keep clicking on this thread hoping for good news about JWH out takes and these guys wanna talk Beatles. :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri November 3rd, 2017, 14:03 GMT 

Joined: Wed April 13th, 2005, 14:09 GMT
Posts: 4025
Location: the mountains I got lost in
120


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri November 3rd, 2017, 15:46 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 3rd, 2016, 14:33 GMT
Posts: 19
BobDylan66 wrote:
However, those releases weren't made available to the general public (which is the condition in the "take it or lose it" clause in the EU directive), so I'm kind of uncertain about the whole thing.

Well, the requirements for making the music "public" are pretty minimal, right? For example, far more Beatles Fan Club members received the Christmas flexis than were given the opportunity to purchase Bob's "Copyright Extension 1962" collection. What was that -- 50 copies scattered around Europe? Over at the SH forums, we had a long, LONG discussion a few years ago about whether Apple considered "Carnival of Light" (their 1967 freakout tape done for and played at a "happening") "made public" because it was played for and heard by dozens or hundreds of people. We have no idea, although for a bunch of non-copyright lawyers, we made a pretty good go at it.
BobDylan66 wrote:
I agree with you on the rest of your message. For me it still makes no sense that Apple Corps let all this material slide. On the other hand, I don't see the floodgates opening in terms of public domain releases or youtube videos. Maybe they consider they still have ground for the copyrights of the lyrics and compositions. Also, many outtakes sound very similar to the official releases (very different than Bob) so most copyright systems will detect those tracks and delete them in no time...

It seems like a relatively simple requirement when you read the directive, but it's clearly not when you have two large, powerful, well-lawyered companies (Apple and Sony) taking such starkly different stances. (Apple isn't "large" per se, but they are powerful due to the music they control.) Sony and Dylan Inc. clearly have seen the requirement as serious enough that they have taken a "better safe than sorry" path and have released (and copyrighted for the next 70 years) virtually every scrap they had in the vaults. Apple, from things I've been told by people close to those who know, are prepared to stare down anyone who dares to release gray-market CDs of their stuff. But the directive clearly says that any recording not made available to the public within 50 years of its recording date enters the public domain the following year. One theory is that by denying a gray market label the mechanical licenses (which they must apply for, apparently), they can stop such releases. Another theory is that Apple is the elephant and gray market labels are the flies buzzing around it, and anything the issue down the road (whether they are public domain recordings or not) will dwarf what the flies can issue.

Oh, and to Still Go Barefoot, while the Beatles DO still have plenty of worthy material to release (just wait until next year's hoped-for White Album box set), I would NEVER compare them -- or anyone -- to Bob. Bob's vault stands alone, and supreme -- and yes, "Making A Liar Out Of Me" is a great example. A song we had a title for, but no one had heard, and out of nowhere, because of the Bootleg Series, it's a goddamn classic. Bob never ceases to amaze.
BobDylan66 wrote:
And regarding the impossible release of the material (according to searching for a gem and isis), until it's December 31st, I won't believe it. For me it will be a very stupid move from Sony. You don't have any guarantee that the superfans and collectors won't release it. But again, a music label making stupid things isn't new. Let's not forget they allowed Bob to record KOL / DITG and a Christmas album :mrgreen:

The strongest evidence we have that the Dylan "source" was being misleading when he told Rolling Stone that there would be no release of JWH outtakes is that it goes against a lengthy and specific strategy that Sony has adhered to for five years now. Copyright 1962, Copyright 1963, Copyright 1964, Bootleg Series 11, Bootleg Series 12 (the Big Blue version), Copyright 1965, and Live 1966 -- ALL of these were released with the EU Copyright Directive in mind. They have a "dead" year they don't have to protect in 1968, and there's not much but scraps for 1969-1972 -- the best of it having been released on Bootleg Series 10. So why -- WHY?! -- would they interrupt a clear strategy NOW, when they have the outtakes from another classic Dylan album (JWH) staring them in the face, ready to go into the Public Domain? It can't just be that they feel the outtakes haven't leaked and will never be released -- probably 90% of Big Blue had never leaked either, and would never have leaked, but they spent the (massive) time and money to release it all. The JWH tapes would be a breeze in comparison; even if they did an "every second recorded" set, what would it fill -- 3 or 4 discs at most? It just doesn't make sense for them to ignore it.
BobDylan66 wrote:
116

121


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat November 4th, 2017, 00:28 GMT 

Joined: Sat November 4th, 2017, 00:26 GMT
Posts: 12
It wouldn't make much sense, but could Sony email a download link of the JWH sessions to everyone who purchased the new bootleg series from BD.com?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat November 4th, 2017, 07:25 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed December 16th, 2009, 12:57 GMT
Posts: 714
Señor Silvio wrote:
It wouldn't make much sense, but could Sony email a download link of the JWH sessions to everyone who purchased the new bootleg series from BD.com?

No to downloads, yes to vinyl!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon November 6th, 2017, 08:16 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 43259
Location: Beneath the Southern X
50th birthday of All Along The Watchtower today.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group