Sign in / up

back to article Bob Dylan's new album is 'Copyright Extension Collection'

Europe's decision to extend copyright on music recordings from 50 to 70 years has just produced a curiosity: a four-disk compilation of Bob Dylan tunes that publisher Sony Music has come right out and called “The Copyright Extension Collection”. The new laws were introduced in September 2011 and became known as “Cliff's Law”, …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: A massive 1962 revival?

      Maybe not massive, but music has changed less in the fifty years since 1962 than it did in the previous 50. You can be sure that some 1960s music would be reworked by modern composers if it were freely available and quite a lot more would be incorporated into the live repertoire of modern performers.

      History is no guide here, since we are only now entering the period where decent-quality sound recordings are available to pinch. No pop radio station in the 1980s could have played tracks from the 1930s even if they'd wanted to. (Well, OK, perhaps on AM wavebands no-one would have noticed... :)

      2 1
      1. Fibbles
        Reply Icon
        Facepalm

        Re: A massive 1962 revival?

        The royalties paid on 50 year old music when it is performed live or remixed are tiny. If people aren't doing it already it's because no one is interested, not because the costs are prohibitive.

        0 0
  2. Anonymous Coward 101
    Headmaster

    Remember..

    Dylan would not have written these songs decades ago if he didn't think the copyright period would be extended by 20 years in 2013.

    Incentives matter.

    (that was sarcasm)

    20 0
    1. zb
      Reply Icon

      Re: Remember..

      IP law is not my strongest suit but there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread. Dylan and his heirs will have the US copyright to the songs he has written for his lifetime plus 70 years. This is not to be confused with protecting the rights of the artist recording a song (regardless of who wrote it).

      To my knowledge Clff Richard never wrote a song in his life; his campaign was to prolong the royalties he received on his recordings. It seems pretty clear to me that the Dylan re-releases are all about performance and not performing rights.

      Not that it changes my opinion that the whole can of copyright worms stinks.

      2 0
  3. g e
    Devil

    In other news

    Following on from the success of the first Hobbit movie, MGM announce that it will now be extended to span five films.

    2 1
  4. Vimes

    I wonder what Andrew Orlowski's take on the apparent abuse of the copyright system would be?

    5 0
  5. Ben Rosenthal
    Pirate

    I don't really like his stuff, but I think I'll steal it and pass on a few copies for the sake of it now.

    3 3
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't understand this

    Seriously, this makes no sense to me today (maybe not enough coffee yet)

    "As we reported in September 2011, the 20-year extension is only available to works published before the expiration of the 50-year copyright term.

    Sony's name for the new release is therefore an accurate description of the reason for its existence: had the company not emitted the collection it would have lost the rights to cash in on it for another 20 years."

    Can someone explain this to me? The works were published back in the 60s. So reissuing the same recordings doesn't extend their copyright term from 50 to 70 years at all - does it? They were already published before the 50 year term expired, in the 60s ....

    3 0
    1. El Presidente
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Up

      Re: I don't understand this

      It hasn't been explained well in this article and there's no link to the article which did better explain the rules.

      2 0
    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: I don't understand this

      I share your confusion, but perhaps the law is phrased such that the 20-year extension starts running from the date of last re-issue. Therefore, expect to see stuff re-issued 49 years or so after first publication.

      1 1
    3. Tom_
      Reply Icon

      Re: I don't understand this

      Isn't the point that they're releasing recordings that hadn't been released during the initial fifty year period? OK, they're the same songs, but this one has a bit where Bob cleared his throat and that one had a bit where a spider farted in the corner of the recording studio, etc.

      5 0
      1. Mr Tumnus
        Reply Icon

        Re: I don't understand this

        Hi Tom,

        Don't think that is it, no ...

        0 1

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Mr Tumnus
          Reply Icon

          Re: I don't understand this

          Actually, I'm wrong, looks like Tom's right;

          "Only about 100 copies of the four-CD set were produced, with sparse packaging and an insert listing the details of the set’s 86 tracks, all previously unreleased studio outtakes and live recordings from 1962 and 1963. "

          From the NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/arts/music/sony-issues-bob-dylan-recordings-to-keep-european-copyright.html?_r=0

          1 0
          1. Michael Strorm Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Somewhere between a "good faith" release and an ashcan copy?

            "Only about 100 copies of the four-CD set were produced, with sparse packaging and an insert listing the details of the set’s 86 tracks, all previously unreleased studio outtakes and live recordings from 1962 and 1963. "

            100 copies is still very low, even for a grossly overpriced Dylan-obsessive-fanboy-milking release (there are plenty of them out there).

            FWIW, I wonder if each of the copies has (somehow) been given its own watermark so that they can identify where any leaked illegal copies might have come from? Whether it would be practical to trace ownership and assign blame of even 100 copies though, is questionable.

            (Reason I ask is that if they produced and sold few enough, it might theoretically be possible to stop the recordings getting anywhere near the "general public" even if they had- legally- "released" them. Especially if they'd (say) agreed to buy them back from the pre-arranged buyers, i.e. de facto record company employees).

            So, while this gives the impression of being something akin to an "ashcan release" (*), one wonders that since they had to sell it anyway- and decided to sell 100- why they didn't just manufacture and sell even more of them and get the money anyway, even if that wasn't the reason for releasing it.

            (*) i.e. Something released solely to fulfil a legal obligation to avoid losing rights, and not a "good faith" attempt to genuinely sell it. The definition might not apply precisely here, but the general principle is along the same lines:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy

            0 1
          2. Pristine Audio
            Reply Icon
            FAIL

            Re: I don't understand this

            NYT: "And there’s a catch, a “use it or lose it” provision: recordings cannot benefit from the 20-year extension unless they were published before the 50-year term expired."

            This clause was dropped before the bill was passed through the European Parliament. Someone at Sony, it would appear, missed this small but vital detail. The release of this material in this way is therefore pointless unless the use-it-or-lose-it clause is reinstated as per the original draft bill.

            NYT: "The change is not yet in effect but will be by 2014."

            It's projected to come into effect in November 2013, thereby protecting all recordings from 1963. Recordings issued ("published" to be precise) in 1962 went into the public domain last week.

            It strikes me this is a "belt-and-braces" approach from Sony based on a misinterpretation of the law passed and requiring ratification by each of the 27 member states of the EU by November. They could just as easily have made a proper release of the Dylan material, but chose to be bloody-minded about it instead, effectively encouraging piracy among those who just have to have it. Says a lot about the Sony mindset, doesn't it?

            3 0
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: I don't understand this

              "Says a lot about the Sony mindset, doesn't it?"

              Not really. At most it says they misunderstood an EU law and erred on the side of "let's protect our commercial interests for the next 20 years". If that's the mindset, not sure that's a bad thing in business, is it?

              0 1
              1. Goat Jam
                Reply Icon
                Pirate

                Re: I don't understand this

                The "mindset" here is along the lines of "we couldn't be bothered with properly releasing this stuff so the Bob Dylan fans could expand on their collections but we need to release a handful of copies to ensure nobody else is allowed to satiate the Bob Dylan fans desires"

                If they think the recordings have commercial value then they should bloody well offer them to the market so they can legally purchase them. By failing to do that whilst taking steps to ensure nobody else can fill the gap they are proving themselves to be the anti-consumer asshats that we already knew they are.

                Torrents ahoy!

                0 0
  7. Patrick R
    IT Angle

    concept of being paid for -good- work.

    So how does this help the concept of artists needing/deserving to be paid/making a living, incentive to creation and all that stuff ? All we see is old and rich celebrities getting all the money, attention, bizz buzz for things they are not doing anymore (creating) since decades. Who's in the spotlight today ? Crap artists from today and old rockers from the eighties (you know, those filling the Mega Arena in your town in 2012 and 2013). Where are the good artists from today ? Why can't they make a decent living ? Because nobody cares? Because people are fighting for old folks to get richer? Is it easier than find and promote new artists? Probably.

    4 1
    1. Gav
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      Re: concept of being paid for -good- work.

      Congratulations Patrick, you have passed the threshold into being an old fart who complains about modern music, how no-one writes a decent tune any more, and its all just noise.

      Don't feel bad about it. You join a long established company of fellow old farts, established around 1911. Thousands join it everyday, usually when they have forgetten how 20 years ago they used to laugh at old farts who complained about modern music.

      BTW, there are plenty of good artists from today in the spotlight and appearing mega-arenas in your town. You just haven't heard of them because... well, see above for my previous point.

      1 3
    2. Robert Helpmann??
      Reply Icon
      Childcatcher

      Re: concept of being paid for -good- work.

      All we see is old and rich celebrities getting all the money, attention, bizz buzz for things they are not doing anymore (creating) since decades.

      No, this is Bob Dylan we are talking about here. He just won't shut up. To quote Wikipedia (with apologies), "On September 11, 2012, Dylan released his 35th studio album, Tempest." I've heard excerpts. He hasn't changed much since he started, but he is still pumping it out. He also released a variety of older work recently, too. People buy it, so it seems the concept of "all the market can bear" is in play.

      0 0
  8. Old Tom
    Stop

    'expiration'

    Please never use this abomination of a word again. El Reg is not a Toys'R'Us receipt.

    1 6
    1. Graham Marsden
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      @Old Tom Re: 'expiration'

      Expiration: [...] 5. The coming to an end; termination, close. 1562 - Shorter OED.

      2 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 'expiration'

      Err... It's used in backup and archive quite a lot, actually...

      0 0
  9. Wombling_Free
    Mushroom

    only 100 copies?

    Well, it IS Bob Dylan, there must only be about 100 people left who care about the aging whiner.

    3 2
  10. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    FAIL

    I have a current problem with copyrights....

    Everyone needs a hobby! One of mine is making wooden model boats. A little while ago, I became interested in documenting models of old kits from the 1960s, a period of great technical change in the hobby, and hence historically interesting.

    These kits were made by small companies - often one-man set-ups. When they went closed down the company assets (which included the plans copyrights) would usually not have been sold - they obviously had no commercial value! So they will have devolved to the company owner's heirs. Because of the huge increase in copyright length, I have been having to obtain the rights to get these forgotten parts of our history published on a web site.

    What actually happens is that the people I contact do not realise that they may have inherited these rights. When I explain to them that I believe that they may have them, the first thing they think about is whether they have value, and whether they can sell them. Then, the next thing that they realise is that they can do nothing without consulting a lawyer, because they need to prove ownership. And inheritance and IP lawyers do not come cheap. So they refuse to go any further.

    They are not going to spend any money on determining the status of some long-lost great-grandfather's document, which I believe to be of only historical value. They are not going to give me permission to publish, because I might be a scam artist come to trick them out of a fortune. So the data cannot be published or distributed, and will soon be forgotten completely.

    Thank you, Mr Disney....

    17 1
    1. Weeble
      Reply Icon

      Re: I have a current problem with copyrights....

      Ah, but...

      If no-one knows (or can prove) who owns them then that presumably makes them "orphans".

      So, within a year or two, you should be able to do whatever you want to do with them?

      0 1
      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Unhappy

        Re: I have a current problem with copyrights....

        "...If no-one knows (or can prove) who owns them then that presumably makes them "orphans"..."

        I have tried that - I am following the EU Memorandum of Agreement on Orphan works. The problem with that is that the 'orphans' concept might work for an object of completely unknown provenance, but if there is a known creator then by definition all assets must be passed on as inheritance. So, if a 'Bill Smith' designs a plan and then dies, you MUST assume that the copyright is passed on to his heirs and assignees. That's what the MOA says. The fact that the heirs and assignees never knew this and have no obvious way of proving it is irrelevant.

        The only way you can actually come to any conclusion on this is to undertake major research work (which I do, as an unpaid hobby) and then pass the results through a court for a decision. Which would be prohibitively expensive.

        The fundamental problem is that copyright has now been extended from its original term of a small number of years to two lifetimes. One lifetime is probably not that damaging to historians, because we are still close enough to, say, Patrick Moore, for people to be able to assess his contribution to TV astronomy quite well. The minute you go to two lifetimes you are effectively preventing the free distribution of documentation by anyone who was alive during the time you are interested in.

        From one lifetime ago there is still a rich set of documentation. Many readers here will have mementos of their grandparents - medals, stories, paperwork of some kind. Putting that under copyright means that it cannot be easily aggregated into databases which would preserve the information. It has to wait until a second generation dies. And by then it is much more likely that old papers will be thrown out in the rubbish rather than preserved - if, indeed, the paper has lasted that long...

        7 0
        1. Weeble
          Reply Icon

          Re: I have a current problem with copyrights....

          " ... but if there is a known creator then by definition all assets must be passed on as inheritance ..."

          Thank you for that observation.

          Most of what I've read about orphans claims that "if you couldn't find the author (or estate) with reasonable diligence - you could help yourself", which implies the author is already known - but, based on the MOA, nothing with a name on it can ever be an "orphan" while it's less than a couple of lifetimes old (and at current rates of extension will never become available).

          I have similar, those less highly developed, concerns to your own (the archiving and making available of material of historical interest) so I can sympathise with your position and am more than a little disturbed by the conclusions.

          Perhaps the archivists perennial problem of digital archive longevity will become irrelevant once there is nothing to put in them.

          1 0
          1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
            Reply Icon
            Coat

            Re: I have a current problem with copyrights....

            So long as a company was bought up by another bigger one, the problem is not so bad. Amerang own the Keil Kraft name in the UK and were happy to provide permission for me to publish, and the vast Hobbico Inc of the US have also been most helpful.

            It's the small one-man operations (which were probably never even considered in commercial copyright terms) which have really been hit by this. As usual, it was a 'big business and government' move with no consideration of the little guys.

            Incidentally, Amerang are going to bring out a selection of the old Keil Kraft aeroplane kits this year, if anyone wants to return to their childhood...

            0 0
    2. Red Bren
      Reply Icon

      Re: I have a current problem with copyrights....

      Did Walt himself return from the dead to downvote you?

      2 0
      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Meh

        Re: I have a current problem with copyrights....

        ...Did Walt himself return from the dead to downvote you?...

        I suspect that it's someone who was frightened by a model boat when they were a little child...

        0 0
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm...

    It's amazing how many hippies turn out to be ruthless capitalist businessmen once they've got a taste for cold hard filthy cash, consider:

    Bob Dylan

    Ben and Gerry

    Google

    Apple

    Starbucks

    Amazon

    3 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmm...

      "It's amazing how many hippies turn out to be ruthless capitalist businessmen once they've got a taste for cold hard filthy cash"

      Alternately, it's amazing how many ruthless capitalist businessmen managed to get rich by masquerading as hippies. :-)

      In truth, this somewhat cynical view applies more to some than others (e.g. Richard Branson was *always* a businessman from a somewhat privileged background, even if he half-believed he was a hippie). And to play Devil's advocate, if I was Dylan, I'd probably want to make money from my records if anyone was.

      That said, he's still a hypocrite who enjoyed a curmudgeonly rant about the sound quality of digital music, then took Apple's money to advertise iTunes anyway:-

      http://www.chefelf.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5638

      1 0
  12. Graham Marsden

    "Sony has been unashamedly cynical"

    But at least honest...

    1 1
    1. Abot13
      Reply Icon

      Re: "Sony has been unashamedly cynical"

      Sony being honest, did the medication finaly kick in or did they pull a muscle doing that?

      1 0
  13. Unicornpiss
    WTF?

    A curiosity only worthwhile to Sony and collectors

    For those that actually listen to music, it's likely that they already own or "own" these tracks. I fail to understand why anyone except maybe the most die-hard audiophile or collector still buys music in this format. I can download a non-DRM-encumbered high quality digital copy of pretty much any song I want, from several places, and pick and choose just the songs I like, then play them on any device I choose. Or get a whole album, including some tracks that might be dogs, still cheaper than buying a disc. To say nothing of the wastefulness of actually manufacturing a disc in this day and age.

    As I side note, I resolved a while ago to never own another Sony product. Sony=great hardware, but at a premium price and with no consideration of consumer rights or convenience these days.

    0 0
    1. Tim Parker
      Reply Icon

      Re: A curiosity only worthwhile to Sony and collectors

      "For those that actually listen to music, it's likely that they already own or "own" these tracks."

      Given the amount of previously unreleased material, I doubt it (at least prior to being published).

      "I fail to understand why anyone except maybe the most die-hard audiophile or collector still buys music in this format. "

      ..perhaps you have a very limited imagination ? Who knows.... *shrug*

      0 0
  14. b166er

    The mugs that are buying this are letting the rest of us down.

    1 0
  15. hi_robb
    Big Brother

    Hmmm

    How many copyright changes must a man talk down

    Before they become law to a man.

    0 0
  16. Poor Coco
    Trollface

    Been watching US news…

    Is this what they mean by “the fiscal Cliff”?

    1 0
  17. disgruntled yank

    Flashback

    Anyone remember Monty Python's "Contractual Obligations" album?

    0 0
  18. mark l 2 Silver badge

    I saw a program over Christmas about the songs that have made the most money all over the world and Happy birthday was at the top position. The original writers died years ago but yet because the big music companies lobby the governments its still in copyright meaning technically if you sing it at a birthday then publish a video online of the party you should pay royalties for doing that.

    0 0
    1. Andrew Norton
      Reply Icon

      Actually, the original writers died before it was even copyrighted.

      IIRc, the tune was written by one sister in 1896, for a tune called 'good morning to you'. Then another sister came up with the birthday words a bit later.

      In/around 1930, a THIRD sister copyrighted the song, after the other two were dead. It's her grandson that gets a significant portion of those royalties.

      Of course, other evidence points to the copyright claims these days not being valid, so who knows.... noone wants to test it in court.

      0 0
  19. Comments are attributed to your handle

    Weird Al's Bob Dylan spoof is good enough (and accurate enough) for me.

    1 0
  20. fung0
    Mushroom

    Kudos, Sony!

    I think it's really clever of Sony to issue this unique pro-copyright album in such tiny quantities... ensuring that the only way 99.9% of Dylan fans will ever hear it is to pirate it. Brilliant!! Sony, you've certainly struck a blow for copyright... right to the back of your own cranium.

    0 0
  21. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Happy

    I'm pleased to say this doesn't affect me at all. I've found I quite legally have access to an incredibly wide range of excellent quality music that is both original, and enjoyable. Thank you CC musicians.

    P.S. Now that the expensive season is over I must make a few donations again.

    0 0
  22. MrRtd
    WTF?

    Madness

    Wasn't copyright intended to benefit the artist / creator?

    Nowadays it's purely for the benefit of corporations, a terrible perversion of the original intention.

    0 0
  23. Anonymous Coward
    Gimp

    Frank Zappa

    "Wana buy some mandies* Bob?"

    Horney Jewish Princess (me thinks).

    *(short for Mandrax)

    The Gimp Suit - Pony boy loves slavery to the system.

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like