15 ms·
Rolling Stones tracks posted briefly on YouTube in attempt to extend copyright
- Retric 7y ago“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.
- crazygringo 7y agoI 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. :(
- Vingdoloras 7y ago> 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.
- crazygringo 7y agoWhat 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.
- Retric 7y agoI was thinking this would qualify as a derivative work, while the original would enter the public domain. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombie..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin_(1992_Disney_film) 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.
- Buge 7y agoI wonder if it would be possible to edit it to remove the tone.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y agoIt'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.
- jdmichal 7y agoEven if it does overlap, as long as the amplitude is predicable one could still only partially remove the frequency.
- goto11 7y agoThat would mean you could mix a single instrument or sound out of an existing recording, and now you own the copyright?
- thethirdone 7y agoI 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.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoBut 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.
- colejohnson66 7y agoI’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.
- minikomi 7y agoSo you could upload science and own the inverted wave version of a song?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lowercased 7y agoThere 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?
- shmerl 7y agoThis should be disqualified as a "release".
- andrewflnr 7y agoDamn 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.
- briandear 7y agoHow does anyone except The Rolling Stones have a right to music recorded by The Rolling Stones?
- shmerl 7y agoHow 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.
- echelon 7y agoRegulatory 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.
- chrismcb 7y agoBut the value of copyright isn't nil. I think there is enough evidence to support it isn't.
- gruez 7y agoWhy 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?
- TylerE 7y agoI suspect it's not so much THEY plan on ever releasing it, but to keep others from doing so.
- im3w1l 7y agoBecause it would tarnish the brand if poor quality recordings came out?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 8bitsrule 7y agoABKCO distributed terrible-sounding RS CD's during that whole era. And yet they kept selling, go figure.
- briandear 7y agoHow would “others” have the right to release music they didn’t make?
- harry8 7y agoCopyright expires and now it's an advert soundtrack for worm pills or sanitary pads.
- Kye 7y agoEveryone 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_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#Berne_Conve...
- DonHopkins 7y ago>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_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=PL991B848D05CAEFA9 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_for_a_Fast_Buck_Album https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hastily_Cobbled_Together_f... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5dsItjL84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5dsItjL84
- mathieuh 7y agoThis 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
- TillE 7y agoOh 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.
- AndriyKunitsyn 7y agoFrom 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.
- imPndy 7y agoif you go to the channel, click on "Details" tab, you can view the "For business enquiries" email
- AndriyKunitsyn 7y agoAh, thanks.
- pvaldes 7y agoNot different than Disney releasing new versions of many of their old films in CGI.
- mstade 7y agoIs copyright the reason they are doing this? Never occurred to me, I thought they were just running out of ideas.
- gus_massa 7y ago> 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.
- BEEdwards 7y ago...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.
- l8rlump 7y agoHow are people keeping so up-to-date on when works are going public domain? Is there some resource I don't know about?
- CharlesW 7y agoIt 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_public_domain