Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unreleased 1963 Beatles Tracks On Sale To Preserve Copyright

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

Music 230

Taco Cowboy writes "Back in 1963, the Beatles did some performances for the BBC and other places. The songs were recorded, but never officially released. Now, 50 years later, Apple has packaged all 59 tracks together and put them up for sale on iTunes for $40. The reason? Copyright. The copyright for unreleased works expires 50 years after the works are recorded. By releasing the 59 tracks on iTunes before the end of December, the songs will be protected under copyright law for 20 more years."

cancel ×

230 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All the more reason (5, Insightful)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 7 months ago | (#45724945)

to revoke Copyright law.

If the **AA's aren't going to play fair, we have to take their toys away...

Re:All the more reason (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725027)

Please don't type half your post in the subject, it makes your post unreadable. Especially when using alternative browsing methods.

Re:All the more reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725095)

I'm curious, what is an "alternative browsing method"?

Re:All the more reason (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#45725121)

He puts his hear to the ground and listens for the distant stampede of electrons running through Cat5. For more interactive browsing, he fires up a faulty power supply to make smoke signals.

Re:All the more reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725153)

He puts his hear to the ground and listens for the distant stampede of electrons running through Cat5. For more interactive browsing, he fires up a faulty power supply to make smoke signals.

Maybe it would be less work to show up in class so he'd be prepared to take the exam?

Re:All the more reason (1)

spacefight (577141) | about 7 months ago | (#45725607)

It's Cat7a, you insensitive clod!

Re:All the more reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725157)

I'm curious, what is an "alternative browsing method"?

Telnet.

Re:All the more reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725437)

I'm curious, what is an "alternative browsing method"?

Free WiFi in a gay bar? Would've thought that stigma behind us, but perhaps not for the GP.

Re:All the more reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725915)

Vision impaired browsing, for one, can be set up to read only certain content type (i.e. the comment text not the comment title).

Re:All the more reason (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 7 months ago | (#45726079)

He's probably a tabletsexual. His lifestyle is just as legitimate as ours!!

Re:All the more reason (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#45725303)

Please don't type half your post in the subject, it makes your post unreadable. Especially when using alternative browsing methods.

Indeed. As with modern media the subject should be a play on words or shameless pun.

The body of the post should be non sequitur by the paragraph, which leaves the reader baffled as to which medication you are on.

This media backed up by the cloud

Re:All the more reason (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#45725325)

the subject should be a play on words or shameless pun

Or just RE: whatever the last guy said, like both of us.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously (3, Funny)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 7 months ago | (#45726093)

The Internet is a cold, unfeeling place, and does not exist to conform to our ideas of decency. Some of us have come to terms with this :)

I agree with (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726017)

you 100%!

Re:All the more reason (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725031)

And people pirating is playing fair? Maybe we need to take all your technology away.

Turn about is fair game, right?

Re:All the more reason (1)

torsmo (1301691) | about 7 months ago | (#45725695)

Maybe we need to take all your technology away.

If critical thought isn't your strong point, maybe you shouldn't go around posting such drivel.

Re:All the more reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725971)

Maybe you can make an actual point instead of just being snide.

Re:All the more reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726225)

maybe you can kill yourself for us so we can stop reading your "thoughts"

Re:All the more reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725101)

to revoke Copyright law.

If the **AA's aren't going to play fair, we have to take their toys away...

Maybe you could.... get a job so you could move into an apartment?

Write a song, get sued (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45725355)

Even if I got a job as a self-employed singer-songwriter, I could still get sued for copyright infringement when a song that I write and record ends up accidentally too similar to an existing song.

Re:Write a song, get sued (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725595)

And if you're successful and change labels, you might just get sued for sounding too much like yourself. Ask John Fogerty about that one.

Re:Write a song, get sued (3, Insightful)

rwise2112 (648849) | about 7 months ago | (#45725943)

Or ask Neil Young [lateralaction.com] about being sued because his new material sounds too different that his previous material. Face it, you're just going to get sued.

Re:All the more reason (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 7 months ago | (#45725969)

Here's an example of the silliness of copyright law: Because my late grandfather collected and arranged a folk song in upstate New York in the 1950's that eventually became a skiffle hit in the UK, my family gets a check each year from sales of recordings we had basically nothing to do with creating, for work done about 60 years ago by someone who has been dead for over 30 years. Now, it's not a very large check these days, but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.

On the upside, it is also the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, so I'd at least have something to talk about if I ended up face to face with Paul McCartney for some reason.

Re:All the more reason (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726081)

so if your grandfather had invested in a building that rented out for his lifetime, it would be silly for you for continue to receive benefit from his idea and work?

Re:All the more reason (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 7 months ago | (#45726111)

but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.

Then why not renounce copyright and release it to the public domain? You have that right.

Re:All the more reason (4, Insightful)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 7 months ago | (#45726243)

Oh noes... they're protecting their material. They're stealing from the public...

...actually, no. They're working in compliance with a law that has been enacted to act against abuse of copyright terms. It's a law that says "release the material or release the copyright". This is one of the arguments that comes up from people on your side of the fence all the time: "they're not selling it, so it's of no value, so it should be free." Well, they've said "it is of value, so we are selling it, so it shouldn't be free."

It looks to me like the law is functioning as intended and achieving the intended goal.

Good morning! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45724947)

Tell me again how it's the PIRATES who are scumbags...

I love a good joke.

Re:Good morning! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725191)

Tell me again how it's the PIRATES who are scumbags...

Well, they attack ships at sea ...

whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45724959)

Just in the nick of time. They were cutting it pretty close!

Apple or Apple Corps (5, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | about 7 months ago | (#45724965)

No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.

When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (3, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 7 months ago | (#45725017)

two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two

That's why we have trademark laws. Oh wait...this is Slashdot (tm) after all.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (4, Informative)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 7 months ago | (#45725247)

True, and originally, the trademark dispute between the two was settled with a pittance and an agreement by Apple, Inc. not to sell music [wikipedia.org] . However, they managed to win over a judge when iTunes came out and then wrest control of the trademark away from Apple Corps (perhaps better known as Apple Records) shortly thereafter.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (0, Flamebait)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 7 months ago | (#45725073)

the Beetles

it makes a different

But this is Slashdot after all...

Yes, pleese, teach us how to writet correctly...

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (2)

cdrudge (68377) | about 7 months ago | (#45725085)

Bite me. I haven't had my morning caffeine.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#45725141)

Maybe you should have it with an Apple strudel

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 7 months ago | (#45725155)

Is that produced by Apple Computer or Apple Corps?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725199)

Is that produced by Apple Computer or Apple Corps?

Neither, it's produced by Apple Cores.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725453)

ROFLMAO as the rain falls on the newly fallen snow. Oh joy!

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about 7 months ago | (#45725989)

Is that produced by Apple Computer or Apple Corps?

Neither, it's produced by Apple Cores.

So... multicore. Who has a patent on that?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 7 months ago | (#45725163)

That's like an Apple Corps strudel, but without the divisions right?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725165)

No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.

When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...

Yes, and this clarification changes the ass-raping provided by (patented) USPTO policy lubricant exactly how?

To be absolutely clear, a turd by even the same name still smells like shit.

Classic patent law abuse. Don't worry kids, it'll soon be a felony to possess any music not specifically licensed to your DNA (must re-apply for licensing upon reaching age 18 to convert to adult rates). Welcome to your future, provided by your leader, Meh Phuckit. Hope the procrastination was worth it.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (4, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | about 7 months ago | (#45725235)

What does the USPTO or patent law have anything to do with this? It's a British COPYRIGHT law that was passed following a change to a European law. Patents and trademarks are not at play here. Nor is US copyright law.

Even if it was about US copyright law, it's not abuse. It's following the law. If Apple Corps lobbied to have the law change, then maybe it's abuse. But they didn't. They just applied the law and the protection it granted to their work. Which is their right under copyright law.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 7 months ago | (#45726107)

it's not abuse. It's following the law.

As if they were mutually exclusive?

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about 7 months ago | (#45725823)

But being accurate would attract much less clicks.

Re:Apple or Apple Corps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726003)

But but but... This is slashdot... We have to make Apple look bad!

Could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45724997)

At the time they wanted to extend it to forever. That would have violated the constitution so they tried to get forever, minus one day...

Never again (4, Funny)

A10Mechanic (1056868) | about 7 months ago | (#45725023)

I, for one, will not ever be giving another cent to Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney. If you find a way to give to just Ringo, I'm in.

Re:Never again (2, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 7 months ago | (#45725137)

Re:Never again (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#45725209)

Not really... they usually have them BEFORE they are released to the general public.

Re:Never again (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 months ago | (#45725255)

Seem like they didn't got the track names right though? =P

Re:Never again (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 months ago | (#45725267)

Got me thinking ..

What if TPB was the only ones who had released (held a torrent/magnet link for) this?

Would that have meant copyright was extended 20 more years because now they had been released?

Mind blown.

Re:Never again (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725619)

The estate of Michael Jackson owns most of the Lennon/McCartney catalog, last time I looked...

yea right (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 7 months ago | (#45725025)

" The reason? Money."

FTFY

Re:yea right (2, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | about 7 months ago | (#45725093)

" The reason? Money."

FTFY

No, that's a Pink Floyd song.

Re:yea right (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#45725127)

Which, by my calculations, is still under copyright for another 30 years anyway (released 1973).

Re:yea right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725205)

Your calculations suck, try that again :)

Re:yea right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725313)

As a released song the copyright expires after 70 years - so his maths is spot on. 1973 + 70 - 2013 = 30

Worse in USA (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45725405)

Recording copyrights last longer in Slashdot's home country. The current term is 95 years from publication, or 95 years from 1972 when sound recordings were added to U.S. copyright law, whichever is later.

Re:Worse in USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726099)

That term will undoubtedly get bumped up before the 55 years are up.

Copyright in the US is basically forever.

Re:yea right (4, Interesting)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 months ago | (#45725571)

Well yes, money is why companies do things. But wait, let me get this straight - because of copyright law, a company is releasing music to the public that otherwise may never have been released?

Isn't that the entire purpose of copyright law? To encourage the release of artwork? Is this not a perfect example of copyright working as intended?

Re:yea right (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 7 months ago | (#45726231)

Isn't that the entire purpose of copyright law? To encourage the release of artwork?

Not originally, no.
Copyright was originally meant as a means of censorship and was entirely focused on publishers, not authors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 [wikipedia.org]

"An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses."

The actual history of Anglo copyright goes back another 120ish years when the crown first decided that censorship was important and started limiting the right to publish.

/For the sake of brevity, I won't get into monks writing curses against copying in their manuscripts

Re:yea right (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 months ago | (#45726277)

Oh. Whelp, I've clearly been drinking the koolaid. Thanks.

(They get bonus points in the Licensing of the Press Act for conflating "unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets" with "seditious treasonable Bookes and Pamphlets." Still a staple for those trying to bundle legislation supporting their own interests in with legislation that "everybody should vote for.")

Obama Steals your mommas house (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725107)

You think I am kidding?

http://healthshareadvocates.blogspot.com/2013/12/Medicaid.html

"You could call it a "death tax," if that term hadn't been taken. Next year, Americans who die with more than five million dollars in assets will pay 40% in taxes. Americans who die on Medicaid will pay 100% of their Medicaid expenses before their heirs get one penny.

Family farm? Gone. Mom and Pop shop? Gone. Nana's house, with her snow-white picket fence around her prize-winning garden? Gone, gone, gone. "

And you jerk off socialists supprt this tyranny? Pathetic.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725147)

I thought you right-wing types supported people getting off their arses and earning stuff for themselves. In which case, stop complaining that you didn't inherit wealth. Boo hoo hoo.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725181)

You ignore the point. The state is effectively forcing many onto Medicaid by cancelling their insurance and forcing them onto the exchange where the majority of them are bieng forcibly and irreversibly enrolled in Medicaid, usually unexpectedly - you don't believe me? Look it up.

When on Medcaid your estate, after you die, becomes property of the state.

You think this is by chance and not design?

Fucking pathetic statist theives, and nothing more.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725187)

I don't have to look it up. I live in a civilized country.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725265)

So you are saying confiscation of private property is just fine with you, is that about right?

Theft is theft no matter who does it, the state or a street thug. Theft is not civlization no matter how many times you say it is.

Permission to enter your country (2)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45725441)

How hard is it to immigrate to your country?

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725261)

When on Medcaid your estate, after you die, becomes property of the state.

No, dumbass, you just need to pay the bills that you've accrued but not yet paid.

You do realize that death doesn't discharge all your debts, right? It's the same with any private party that you owe money to. They get to take it out of your estate before your heirs inherit.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725277)

Again, not the point. People are being FORCED onto Medicaid without their knoweledge or choice.

Are you all really this dense?

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725517)

I just love how you statists lash out with names and general calls for confiscation of wealth, but when challenged with facts and reason you just disappear.

Kind of how all dissent is typically silenced and shut down on forums like this one and others.

Face it statist, your position of tyranny and theft is wrong and cannot be justified by a reasonable thinking man. You are petty criminals and nothing more.

Add to that the fact that you are cowards and cannot back up your arguments and positions with logic and reason.

How does it feel statist?

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 7 months ago | (#45725863)

I did look it up and you're a lying trolling cunt.
  There is nothing in my medicaid paperwork or in the law which states this. Deal with it.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 7 months ago | (#45725625)

You think I am kidding?

http://healthshareadvocates.blogspot.com/2013/12/Medicaid.html

"You could call it a "death tax," if that term hadn't been taken. Next year, Americans who die with more than five million dollars in assets will pay 40% in taxes. Americans who die on Medicaid will pay 100% of their Medicaid expenses before their heirs get one penny.

Family farm? Gone. Mom and Pop shop? Gone. Nana's house, with her snow-white picket fence around her prize-winning garden? Gone, gone, gone. "

And you jerk off socialists supprt this tyranny? Pathetic.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Re:Obama Steals your mommas house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726011)

We supported single payer.
It was the Republicans who forced the nation down this path.

Copyright, Re-Copyright, and creative difference. (2)

cpuffer_hammer (31542) | about 7 months ago | (#45725201)

It would be nice to have an explanation of when a copy goes out of copyright and how that effects other copies and originals. When an original (A) goes out of copyright, which I think we mostly understand. Compared to when copy of A (B) goes out of copyright. How does this affect the copy right on A and B. Does B have to be creatively different, detectably different, and what if they cannot be told apart? What about copy C made from A after copy B, or copy D and from B before copy C, or copy E made from B after Copy D.
What about different legal systems, and different types of works (words, vs sound)?

Re:Copyright, Re-Copyright, and creative differenc (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 7 months ago | (#45725699)

It would be nice to have an explanation of when a copy goes out of copyright and how that effects other copies and originals.

Copyright applies to the original and all the copies. If someone doesn't make a copy but creates a modified work, that new creator would have the copyright on their changes, but the unmodified parts would still be under the original copyright. If copyright for the original expires, then all unmodified copies are free, all copies where modifications are so small that they don't create new rights are free as well.

And, just because someone tried this, converting to a different audio format doesn't affect copyright (Some joker once tried to claim that he created .mp3 files that sounded the same but were actually totally different from the originals, so these .mp3 files were solely under _his_ copyright. I don't know if the judge thought it was a good joke or a bad joke).

This is important (5, Funny)

punker (320575) | about 7 months ago | (#45725207)

It's a good thing they did this. Otherwise, the Beatles would have no incentive to produce new songs.

Re:This is important (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#45725391)

You joke, but it's really incentive for future artists more than former. When they see people working a few years in their youth and then earning royalties into retirement, that's quite the incentive to get into music.

Re:This is important (4, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 7 months ago | (#45725475)

You joke, but it's really incentive for future artists more than former. When they see people working a few years in their youth and then earning royalties into retirement, that's quite the incentive to get into music.

Just ask any musician. They'll tell you they got in it for the money.

Re:This is important (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725709)

Just ask any musician. They'll tell you they got in it for the money.
Many may not get into it for the money. But many leave because of it.

Re:This is important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725509)

You must be trolling: to me the Beatles' recent songs are rather plain.

As John would say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725263)

You're lovin' gives me a thrill
But you're lovin' don't pay my bills
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Money don't get everything it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Re:As John would say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726157)

For the sake of completeness:

The Beatles covered that one. The song was written by Berry Gordy, of Motown fame.

Seems like a corner case (2)

Akratist (1080775) | about 7 months ago | (#45725285)

Copyright laws are meant to protect an artist's ability to monetize their creations (I won't go into the ethics and morality of copyright). The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarly interest. Maybe it's time for some copyright holders to start recognizing that certain things should be made freely available, in the interests of culture and historical significance, as opposed to trying to make a buck off of what was a dud back in the day.

Re:Seems like a corner case (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 7 months ago | (#45725397)

The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarly interest.

My cynical interpretation is that they found an excuse to release something that they know is of too-poor quality to really be worth releasing so that they can monetize it among the true hardcore fans who will buy anything. Otherwise, why are they charging $40 for it?

The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.

Even though I'm a hardcore Beatles fan, I never bought the last remastered box-set release. I might do that one day, though, when the price of used copies finally comes down on eBay. Gives me something to look forward to.

Maybe it's time for some copyright holders to start recognizing that certain things should be made freely available, in the interests of culture and historical significance, as opposed to trying to make a buck off of what was a dud back in the day.

Agreed. I guess they just don't think that way.

Re:Seems like a corner case (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725705)

The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.

The remastered box set released on vinyl last year is amazing and was well worth $300. It would be hard to find all of the albums in record stores in shitty condition for less than $300, so to get everything remastered and on 180 gram vinyl was great. Easily the best music purchase I made last year.

Re:Seems like a corner case (0)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#45725409)

There are those who will listen to 64Kbps MP3's all day and say that the quality is just fine. There are also Beatles fans. Somewhere, there's an intersection between these two groups and some company would certainly come along and exploit it.

Just look at all the $1 DVD's at places like Wal-Mart. Absolutely no care in restoration on some releases of older/out of copyright movies, poor transfer - probably from VHS and not the original film. But they still sell.

only 50 years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725309)

"The copyright for unreleased works expires 50 years after the works are recorded"

Only 50 years? no wonder they never released them, who in their right mind would do anything creative if you only have a copyright for just 50 years. They probably didn't bother releasing it because it wasn't worth there time. i mean if you release the album when you 20 you would only be 70 by the time the copyright expires. You could still be alive even, what the hell are your poor grand children going to do if they don't have that sweet sweet copyright money from something they had nothing to do with creating.

Even more Beatles music I won't be buying... (1)

Grey Geezer (2699315) | about 7 months ago | (#45725395)

I like music. I like Rock, Jazz, Clasical, Ambient, Bluegrass, New Age, just about any genre. I really like artists who write their own music. Not so much singers who are little more than a pretty voice. But I never got on the Beatles (the group or their various solo works) bandwagon. With rare exception, if something made the "top ten", that meant it was played at least once an hour, every hour, 24/7, (on the radio, pretty much the only way to listen to music when I was a kid) until I quickly got tired of it. Rejecting the Beatles was my way of rebelling against the groupthink of the time. Also my impression was that people who listened to the same song, over and over, were rather simple. Not a fair assesment I know, but I've never outgrown that.

Re:Even more Beatles music I won't be buying... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725787)

Younger people reading this should may not understand why the Beatles were considered so great 'back then'. I remember being a little kid in the 60s hearing the Beatles on WABC AM radio on the kitchen radio. Songs like "All You Need is Love", "She Loves You", etc. Positive, upbeat music, not a hint of anything negative. As a young adult I began to realize that the only time I ever heard the word 'love' in my (very dysfunctional) household was from the radio, today kids know hear 'love' all the time (as it should be). So it worked out that some of the best memories of my childhood were associated with AM music.

On topic, let Paul McCartney get a little bit more money, maybe he needs it. If you saw the recent video of him at a basketball game trying to catch a thrown tee-shirt...

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/paul-mccartney-tries-to-score-free-t-shirt-at-nba-game-20131217

Sex, drugs and rock and roll (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#45725541)

Laws concerning them are not rooted in reality or logic.

No, seriously. You can (to some degree) explain most other laws logically. They also tend to be quite consistent.

Not so in these areas. Why is some drug legal and another one with pretty much the same kind of "danger" attached to it is not? Why are some sex practices illegal in some places (not to mention the question who may fuck whom)? And if I start with copyright and its logical loopholes I guess I exceed the posting limit.

What really happens (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 7 months ago | (#45725645)

1. As mentioned, it is "Apple Corps", the company owned by the Beatles, that put the music on the music store by "Apple Inc", which allows people to buy this music if they wish to, or not buy it if they don't wish to.

2. Apple Corps has 70 years copyright on all published music by the Beatles. As a quirk in British law, unpublished music only has 50 years copyright. That's different from US law, where the clock starts running when the music gets published, so the same songs according to US law would have infinite copyright protection, being not published at all.

3. So people here get all excited because Apple Corps made a tactical move to get the same copyright on this music as on all the other music, where in the USA they would actually have had much longer copyright.

4. Remember: With this move, you can actually get this music now, where before you couldn't. The only ones hurt by this is anybody who somehow had illegal copies of this music in their possession, and hoped to cash in when copyright runs out.

Similar to Bob Dylan (4, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 months ago | (#45725723)

100 copies of "Copyright Extension Collection Volume 1" (yeah, that's the name) were sold in Europe last year.

The real question is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45725735)

Who still listens to the Beatles today ? Seriously..

Misleading teaser (2)

lukpac (66596) | about 7 months ago | (#45725751)

Back in 1963, the Beatles did some performances for the BBC and other places. The songs were recorded, but never officially released. Now, 50 years later, Apple has packaged all 59 tracks together and put them up for sale on iTunes for $40.

That makes it sound like this is the entirety of the (still existing) recorded material from 1963. It isn't. Quite a few more takes of There's A Place, I Saw Her Standing There, Do You Want To Know A Secret, A Taste of Honey, Misery, From Me To You, Thank You Girl, One After 909, and Hold Me Tight have already been bootlegged. In addition, some takes of Don't Bother Me have been bootlegged but none were released on this set. And several takes of I Want To Hold Your Hand and This Boy exist but have not been bootlegged (although some of This Boy was released on the Free As A Bird CD single).

For whatever reason, this set was only a sampling of what exists and has been bootlegged.

I can't wait! (1)

plopez (54068) | about 7 months ago | (#45726013)

To spend my hard earned money for recordings of McCartney burping between takes.

So, what did they do in 62? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45726245)

Maybe they locked the barn door after some of the horses got out.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>