Tell Me :
Talk
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
The UK was still subject to EU regulations throughout 2020 even though we officially left on 31/1/20. The issue is releasing the material in the EU to renew the copyright (whether the UK is part of it or not) - which Sony did with Dylan's 1970 recordings.
It's strange that ABKCO havent bothered putting out something this time around, considering there are quite a few live shows and studio recordings from 1970. Also strange as it would be there last chance to do this as the Stones were no longer on the label from 1971.
Copyright is only one aspect. Even with copyright out of the way, there's still the contractual obligations between artist and record company, leading to the strange result that while everybody else could release public domain recordings, the artists and their record companies could not do it because of the original contract that requires agreements to release previously unreleased material!
well, if the Stones wanted to release stuff from 1970 they are surely able to find someone who lends his or her name…
my point was not where the stuff is being released, but when – The UK is in GMT time zone, most of Europe is another time zone (GMT+1). Thus in the EU the year 2021 began an hour earlier then in the UK.
Simply put: if Abkco released stuff at 11.30 pm GMT it would have been half an hour too late to save the copyright.
For the purpose of copyright extension for unreleased material, ABKCO needs the authorization and cooperation of the band. Without specific agreement from the Stones, ABKCO is not allowed = can't legally release any previously unreleased studio or live material. No legal release = no copyright extension.
So, obviously the Stones did not cooperate with ABKCO this time (did they ever on previous ABKCO copyright dumps? I have my doubts, but that's another story!).
Also, the Stones would have to deliver any tapes that physically are not in ABKCO's archives and were obviously not willing to do so, leading to the question what 1970 material (studio or live) is actually in the Stones' own archives or private collections of band members?
Sure, out of all idiots in the music business who would proudly boast working with the Stones they must find someone who is loyal to the bone, trustworthy and able to keep his mouth shut... Hey, why not me?
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
A lawyer might argue that releasing it on YouTube does constitute a commercial release since YouTube has commercials and the ABKCO was very likely taking advantage of the partner program and! Next to no one notices or is paying attention anyway.
And that's exactly the point imo. No matter if ABKCO were right or wrong, their sheer financial power to entangle you in lawsuits would drag any smaller company down and destroy any fun in the potential profit you could make out of a few hundred or thousand copies sold...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-01-01 18:51 by retired_dog.
A truly serious case of "Feed Your Enemy"-moves.
The EU copyright law does not ask for the material to be used commercially in order to secure the copyright, but states the material needs to be "lawfully published or lawfully communicated" to the public (source: Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011). Publication on YouTube would count as "lawful communication", I guess.
Here is one definition of publish:
prepare and issue (a book, journal, piece of music, etc.) for public sale, distribution, or readership
YouTube is distribution.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
ABKCO dump
Posted by:
Kingbeebuzz
()
Date: January 1, 2021 01:38
Less than 30 minutes to go.
Hope someone catches it.............if we get one.
Hope someone catches it.............if we get one.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
Cristiano Radtke
()
Date: January 1, 2021 01:45
Early last year, some tracks recorded in 1968 were still up on YouTube. Perhaps somebody can find the 1970 tracks, if there is something to be released.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: January 1, 2021 03:04
Was wondering this as well
JumpingKentFlash
JumpingKentFlash
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: January 1, 2021 03:08
Didn’t they record some songs in 1970 which had titles which have never been released , with titles like candlestick or tiger
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: January 1, 2021 09:46
Quote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
ChrisL
()
Date: January 1, 2021 11:38
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: January 1, 2021 12:15
Quote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
ChrisL
()
Date: January 1, 2021 15:37
Isn’t Portugal on GMT?
And OK, then Abkco could release the 1969 live stuff if they hadn’t preserved the copyright, because they would have been public domain, ostensibly.
And OK, then Abkco could release the 1969 live stuff if they hadn’t preserved the copyright, because they would have been public domain, ostensibly.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
Bungo
()
Date: January 1, 2021 15:47
I don't know about ABKCO but I took a good one this morning.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: January 1, 2021 15:55
Quote
slewanQuote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
The UK was still subject to EU regulations throughout 2020 even though we officially left on 31/1/20. The issue is releasing the material in the EU to renew the copyright (whether the UK is part of it or not) - which Sony did with Dylan's 1970 recordings.
It's strange that ABKCO havent bothered putting out something this time around, considering there are quite a few live shows and studio recordings from 1970. Also strange as it would be there last chance to do this as the Stones were no longer on the label from 1971.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: January 1, 2021 17:46
Quote
slewanQuote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
Copyright is only one aspect. Even with copyright out of the way, there's still the contractual obligations between artist and record company, leading to the strange result that while everybody else could release public domain recordings, the artists and their record companies could not do it because of the original contract that requires agreements to release previously unreleased material!
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:06
Quote
retired_dogQuote
slewanQuote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
Copyright is only one aspect. Even with copyright out of the way, there's still the contractual obligations between artist and record company, leading to the strange result that while everybody else could release public domain recordings, the artists and their record companies could not do it because of the original contract that requires agreements to release previously unreleased material!
well, if the Stones wanted to release stuff from 1970 they are surely able to find someone who lends his or her name…
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:15
Quote
GazzaQuote
slewanQuote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
The UK was still subject to EU regulations throughout 2020 even though we officially left on 31/1/20. The issue is releasing the material in the EU to renew the copyright (whether the UK is part of it or not) - which Sony did with Dylan's 1970 recordings.
my point was not where the stuff is being released, but when – The UK is in GMT time zone, most of Europe is another time zone (GMT+1). Thus in the EU the year 2021 began an hour earlier then in the UK.
Simply put: if Abkco released stuff at 11.30 pm GMT it would have been half an hour too late to save the copyright.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
ChrisL
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:23
Again, except Portugal, which is EU and on GMT.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:23
Quote
GazzaQuote
slewanQuote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
The UK was still subject to EU regulations throughout 2020 even though we officially left on 31/1/20. The issue is releasing the material in the EU to renew the copyright (whether the UK is part of it or not) - which Sony did with Dylan's 1970 recordings.
It's strange that ABKCO havent bothered putting out something this time around, considering there are quite a few live shows and studio recordings from 1970. Also strange as it would be there last chance to do this as the Stones were no longer on the label from 1971.
For the purpose of copyright extension for unreleased material, ABKCO needs the authorization and cooperation of the band. Without specific agreement from the Stones, ABKCO is not allowed = can't legally release any previously unreleased studio or live material. No legal release = no copyright extension.
So, obviously the Stones did not cooperate with ABKCO this time (did they ever on previous ABKCO copyright dumps? I have my doubts, but that's another story!).
Also, the Stones would have to deliver any tapes that physically are not in ABKCO's archives and were obviously not willing to do so, leading to the question what 1970 material (studio or live) is actually in the Stones' own archives or private collections of band members?
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:30
Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
slewanQuote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
Copyright is only one aspect. Even with copyright out of the way, there's still the contractual obligations between artist and record company, leading to the strange result that while everybody else could release public domain recordings, the artists and their record companies could not do it because of the original contract that requires agreements to release previously unreleased material!
well, if the Stones wanted to release stuff from 1970 they are surely able to find someone who lends his or her name…
Sure, out of all idiots in the music business who would proudly boast working with the Stones they must find someone who is loyal to the bone, trustworthy and able to keep his mouth shut... Hey, why not me?
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:31
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:39
Quote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:50
Quote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
A lawyer might argue that releasing it on YouTube does constitute a commercial release since YouTube has commercials and the ABKCO was very likely taking advantage of the partner program and! Next to no one notices or is paying attention anyway.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: January 1, 2021 18:50
Quote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
And that's exactly the point imo. No matter if ABKCO were right or wrong, their sheer financial power to entangle you in lawsuits would drag any smaller company down and destroy any fun in the potential profit you could make out of a few hundred or thousand copies sold...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-01-01 18:51 by retired_dog.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
GJV
()
Date: January 1, 2021 20:27
On the other hand a couple of bootleg labels have released this 1969 stuff last year.
If Abkco didn't put it on Youtube this probably would not have happened...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-01-01 21:33 by GJV.
If Abkco didn't put it on Youtube this probably would not have happened...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-01-01 21:33 by GJV.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: January 2, 2021 01:37
Quote
GJV
On the other hand a couple of bootleg labels have released this 1969 stuff last year.
If Abkco didn't put it on Youtube this probably would not have happened...
A truly serious case of "Feed Your Enemy"-moves.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
Cristiano Radtke
()
Date: January 2, 2021 02:34
It's also worth noting that the 1967 Sessions were not released on YouTube, but on iTunes.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
Ricky
()
Date: January 14, 2021 00:33
wrong... sorry
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-01-14 00:34 by Ricky.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-01-14 00:34 by Ricky.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
MrEcho
()
Date: January 14, 2021 01:10
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
A lawyer might argue that releasing it on YouTube does constitute a commercial release since YouTube has commercials and the ABKCO was very likely taking advantage of the partner program and! Next to no one notices or is paying attention anyway.
The EU copyright law does not ask for the material to be used commercially in order to secure the copyright, but states the material needs to be "lawfully published or lawfully communicated" to the public (source: Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011). Publication on YouTube would count as "lawful communication", I guess.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 14, 2021 05:46
Quote
MrEchoQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
A lawyer might argue that releasing it on YouTube does constitute a commercial release since YouTube has commercials and the ABKCO was very likely taking advantage of the partner program and! Next to no one notices or is paying attention anyway.
The EU copyright law does not ask for the material to be used commercially in order to secure the copyright, but states the material needs to be "lawfully published or lawfully communicated" to the public (source: Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011). Publication on YouTube would count as "lawful communication", I guess.
Here is one definition of publish:
prepare and issue (a book, journal, piece of music, etc.) for public sale, distribution, or readership
YouTube is distribution.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 20, 2021 18:36
Interesting little side note:
When I had the 1968 Ruby Tuesday up on my Facebook page, ABKCO tried to get it taken down. I countered with info that it was from November 1968 and they had not released it(via youtube) until late 2019 thus it had fallen outside of the 50 year rule.
The video stayed up.
When I had the 1968 Ruby Tuesday up on my Facebook page, ABKCO tried to get it taken down. I countered with info that it was from November 1968 and they had not released it(via youtube) until late 2019 thus it had fallen outside of the 50 year rule.
The video stayed up.
Re: ABKCO dump
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 20, 2021 19:10
Quote
His Majesty
Interesting little side note:
When I had the 1968 Ruby Tuesday up on my Facebook page, ABKCO tried to get it taken down. I countered with info that it was from November 1968 and they had not released it(via youtube) until late 2019 thus it had fallen outside of the 50 year rule.
The video stayed up.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
blivet , britstones , ChrisL , dishevelmentblues , djrambler , EggersBand , falo01 , franzk , IsakSun , johnnythunders , kovach , liddas , mike567 , MonkeyMan2000 , NashvilleBlues , piotrek , rpc2uk , spunky , stonesurvive , Taylor1 , Topi
Guests:
1236
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10