There is also a Bob Dylan CD Bob Dylan - It Ain't Me Babe confirmed but I have yet to see it. Supposedly there is a Rolling Stones one also, so that accounts for 5 out of 9 given catalogue numbers ranging from STR0001 to STR0009
Amy
Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points
They'll be ripping their hair out at Capitol's headquarters, 20 Manchester Road, London UK(EMI's world HQ) over those Beatles and Beach Boys albums going PD.
Maybe the copyright laws need amendments, zum beispiel(that's "for example" in German, folks), each time an album or single is re-issued after its initial release, the copyright period starts again for that LP or single, or EP for that matter, and holds good for 50 years from the date of issue. So, if an album like Abbey Road(Beatles), first issued in 1969, the initial copyright would expire in 2019, but EMI re-issues it on 30th June, 1995, the copyright on that issue(obviously on CD, though could be vinyl as well as vinyl is still being pressed everywhere else but Australia/NZ) would hold until 30th June, 2045. Get the idea? Keep the copyright alive by reissuing the product!
Why do people want to keep material copyrighted? Haven't the execs and shareholders at Capitol made enough bucks out of Brian Wilson's talents? Fair enough, the artists should continue to be entitled to royalties from other label re-releases, but businessmen with investment portfolios?
No picture 'cos I'm not into 45rpm :( Member since Jan 2013 3479 Points Moderator
Unfortunately the 50 year recording copyright no longer applies in European Union countries, and we're stuck at 1962.. 1963 recordings won't be PD until 2034 thanks to the record execs getting to the EU politicians, who issued a mandatory EU directive. The British government had previously rejected this when it was raised as a bill in Parliment..
Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points
It may well be that greedy executives might want to continue making money on releases. But by the same token, the remaining members of a deceased performer's family could benefit from continued royalty cheques for sales of his/her albums, EPs and singles in reissue. And it would keep the recordings where they belong, with the company that first issued them.
That's what I said. Performers should get royalties on any official release, and opening them up legally could actually promote that as it minimises opportunity for black market bootleggers. It's only the big labels who would be undermined if they lost their monopolies on the recordings. Stuff they currently withhold might become more freely available too, which has to be better for everyone else.
John Lennon made a point forcefully when the NEMS sale was going through in 1969. He complained that if he picked up his guitar and wrote a song, instantly somebody else owned it. That's not right.
No picture 'cos I'm not into 45rpm :( Member since Jan 2013 3479 Points Moderator
Neil & TP,
You have a rosily naive view of the music industry when you assume that performers/writers or their families benefit from re-releases. In many cases any rights have been signed away, or those rights are managed by the music industry equivalents of FIFA. See here for a more realistic view.
Neil & TP,
You have a rosily naive view of the music industry when you assume that performers/writers or their families benefit from re-releases. In many cases any rights have been signed away, or those rights are managed by the music industry equivalents of FIFA. See here for a more realistic view.
It's rosily naive to say artists should get royalties? Isn't that the point of what you are also saying?
Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points
Is it really so naiive of TopPopper and myself to expect a bit of fair-play in the music industry amongst all the conniving that currently abounds? If rights were signed away, it's likely because a lawyer for the recording company had the signatory's arm figuratively held up behind his/her back, forcing him/her to sign the document.
No picture 'cos I'm not into 45rpm :( Member since Jan 2013 3479 Points Moderator
You can expect it - as do I too - but it rarely if ever exists, and music buyers like us need to be more aware of how the music industry works. In the UK re-releases of PD (pre-1963) recordings cannot be copyright, the only thing copyrightable on a re-release is the artwork.
But does the fact that a recording is public domain mean that there are no performer's rights? So EMI aren't paying McCartney a jot for "Love Me Do" any more?
Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points
If I decided to rake together all my Beatles tracks, vintage 1962 to 1965(processing any to MP3 that haven't already been processed), stick them on a CD and title it: "Beatles' Earliest Successes", make a limited number, say 150 copies, do all my own artwork for it and flog it at flea market stalls(making especially sure I have some flea powder handy to avoid the itching and scratching), I'm pretty sure I'd have EMI, APRA(Australian Performing Rights Association), AMCO(Australian Mechanical Copyright Organisation) and the police descend on me like a swarm of locusts. Damn sure I would not get away with issuing any sort of CD like that which I just suggested. Though it's all hypothetical, really.
Do these laws apply the same to movies in Canada and EU?
Many movies weren't even copyrighted in Canada, like Hammers.
Neil are you serious?
Uncertain of Canada, generally( UK/USA ) Movies are copyright of the producer and last until 70 years after their death OR First Release whatever is later (includes all soundtracks too )