Obviously, this is one of those copyright extended-releases (this time from «Reel To Reel»).

A good compilation just the same. I'm listening to the Australian 1966-show now. Great setlist

Looks cool!

I wonder what the issue is in regard to having this material properly released officially. For ABKCO being able to release all this stuff to extend the copyrights they should have had some kind of permission from the Stones, since the band has a veto right to prevent the release of any not yet released stuff. But technically, since the stuff has been 'officially' released (no matter how monkey business it was), ABKCO could do anything with them now. But they are not.

Was there some sort of deal that 'Yeah, you could do these YouTube releases for a day, but that's it, nothing more'. Is it even possible to restrict releases like that?

Another thing is why would the Stones mind at all what happens to ABKCO era material, since it is not in their control? Do they still think that maybe some day they could have their rights back?

- Doxa

<why would the Stones mind at all what happens to ABKCO era material, since it is not in their control?>

I remember a video of Keith listening to «On Air» (Satisfaction, if memory serves). I think they care about the good stuff, and how it comes out, but that's just a guess. Keith looked proud of «On Air», though

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I remember a video of Keith listening to «On Air» (Satisfaction, if memory serves). I think they care about the good stuff, and how it comes out, but that's just a guess. Keith looked proud of «On Air», though

Yeah, that surely is true. They care about their legacy, and seemingly some new releases are alright in their book: ON AIR, 1965 LIVE, ROCK'N'ROLL CIRCUS, YA-YA'S extra material, etc. But then again, they seemingly didn't allow anything extra to be used for the 50th Anniversary releases of BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED and what the ABKCO did to beef up those releases was almost desperate.

But the treatment of these copyright-extent releases is a mystery to me. I mean, if ABKCO have had full rights technically, I am pretty sure they had used, say, the 60th Anniversary of the band as a good opportunity to cash something out of them. I cannot help but think they have their hands tied up somehow.

Or could it be that since the Big Man has gone, the Klein people are not greedy any longer...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-10-28 15:44 by Doxa.

No, I think their hands are tied, unfortunately.

However, it's strange that the Stones don't see that Deluxe-releases of two of their best albums (BB and LIB ) also would benefit them, if not economically so at least definitely legacy-wise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-10-28 15:53 by DandelionPowderman.

BTW, I had never heard the alternate version of Mercy Mercy! Much cleaner sound than that of the album version, and a bit more true to the original.

How did I miss that one?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
BTW, I had never heard the alternate version of Mercy Mercy! Much cleaner sound than that of the album version, and a bit more true to the original.

How did I miss that one?

I now would ask myself: "What else have I missed?", Dandy!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I remember a video of Keith listening to «On Air» (Satisfaction, if memory serves). I think they care about the good stuff, and how it comes out, but that's just a guess. Keith looked proud of «On Air», though

Yeah, that surely is true. They care about their legacy, and seemingly some new releases are alright in their book: ON AIR, 1965 LIVE, ROCK'N'ROLL CIRCUS, YA-YA'S extra material, etc. But then again, they seemingly didn't allow anything extra to be used for the 50th Anniversary releases of BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED and what the ABKCO did to beef up those releases was almost desperate.

But the treatment of these copyright-extent releases is a mystery to me. I mean, if ABKCO have had full rights technically, I am pretty sure they had used, say, the 60th Anniversary of the band as a good opportunity to cash something out of them. I cannot help but think they have their hands tied up somehow.

Or could it be that since the Big Man has gone, the Klein people are not greedy any longer...

- Doxa

No, as Dandy already said, their hands are tied - contractually, and these contractual bindings last longer than copyrights in certain areas...!

Cheap! ... found one for less than $23 US, just purchased it.

can you post it here or would this stuff now fall under the official material catagorie?

Quote
ProfessorWolf
can you post it here or would this stuff now fall under the official material catagorie?

How? This material is in the public domain, what basically means that it's "owned" by you and me just as everybody.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf
can you post it here or would this stuff now fall under the official material catagorie?

How? This material is in the public domain, what basically means that it's "owned" by you and me just as everybody.

cool well in that case can someone please post it?

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf
can you post it here or would this stuff now fall under the official material catagorie?

How? This material is in the public domain, what basically means that it's "owned" by you and me just as everybody.

But but... What is/was then the point of those one day by the end of year YouTube 'copyright-exstension' releases by ABKCO?

(Could it be, like I recall discussed at the time, that those releases might not count as publicly spread proper releases for holding the copyrights (this is something probably common sense says, but what the jurisdical technicalities might say could be something else)? But since this matter is pretty novel and, as far as I know, not yet tested in a courtroom, ABKCO might, in the spirit of their founder, bluff cold-bloodly here. I mean, their lawyers might approach some poor bootleg company and say 'you really wanna test this in a court? You ready for that?')

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-10-29 12:55 by Doxa.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf
can you post it here or would this stuff now fall under the official material catagorie?

How? This material is in the public domain, what basically means that it's "owned" by you and me just as everybody.

cool well in that case can someone please post it?

I should have it in a week or so, I wouldn't mind posting it - just not sure if that's allowed.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf
can you post it here or would this stuff now fall under the official material catagorie?

How? This material is in the public domain, what basically means that it's "owned" by you and me just as everybody.

But but... What is/was then the point of those one day by the end of year YouTube 'copyright-exstension' releases by ABKCO?

(Could it be, like I recall discussed at the time, that those releases might not count as publicly spread proper releases for holding the copyrights (this is something probably common sense says, but what the jurisdical technicalities might say could be something else)? But since this matter is pretty novel and, as far as I know, not yet tested in a courtroom, ABKCO might, in the spirit of their founder, bluff cold-bloodly here. I mean, their lawyers might approach some poor bootleg company and say 'you really wanna test this in a court? You ready for that?')

- Doxa

Two different things, Doxa, two different things:

The material on the above-mentioned 6 CD-Set was never part of ABKCO's "copyright extension tests" - none of these were ever "distributed" on YouTube or anywhere else by them as far as I remember.

A different question indeed is if their extension attempts with the material they actually made available on YouTube for a couple of days (starting with their 1967 material "release") would hold up in court.

Ok, Retired Dog! My mistake. I thought the material in question belonged to the ABKCO's 'copyright extension test'. But yeah, they started that later/too late (but wasn't some kind of 1966 live material, most likely Honolulu, tried to be copyrighted already by the end of 2016, or does my memory, once again, make tricks?).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-10-29 18:52 by Doxa.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf
can you post it here or would this stuff now fall under the official material catagorie?

How? This material is in the public domain, what basically means that it's "owned" by you and me just as everybody.

cool well in that case can someone please post it?

I should have it in a week or so, I wouldn't mind posting it - just not sure if that's allowed.

thank you

seems like it be ok this seems now to be less of a official band release and more of grey area release

Quote
Doxa
Ok, Retired Dog! My mistake. I thought the material in question belonged to the ABKCO's 'copyright extension test'. But yeah, they started that later/too late (but wasn't some kind of 1966 live material, most likely Honolulu, tried to be copyrighted already by the end of 2016, or does my memory, once again, make tricks?).

- Doxa

As you mentioned Honolulu '66, something clicked, and yes, I vaguely recall such a "release" by ABKCO, along with some studio tracks like a different 19th Nervous Breakdown and Mother's Little Helper with the intro sung by Keith. However, I have these files and notes on a different PC in a different location, so maybe someone else could provide info about when exactly ABKCO started their YouTube "copyright extension tests".

In the end, it does not change much about what I said above. However, it needs to be said that only a fully legal "release" would account for a possible copyright extension. In case of the Honolulu show that was not recorded by ABKCO, they would need the authorisation from the radio station who originally broadcasted and recorded it plus, of course, from the Stones themselves as performers.

Bottom line to all this is, of course, the question if a small indie label with not much money behind them should test the legalities of these things at court against mighty ABKCO for possibly nothing more than a few thousand copies sales potential.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
BTW, I had never heard the alternate version of Mercy Mercy! Much cleaner sound than that of the album version, and a bit more true to the original.

How did I miss that one?

The alt, earlier version, is likely without Brian.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
BTW, I had never heard the alternate version of Mercy Mercy! Much cleaner sound than that of the album version, and a bit more true to the original.

How did I miss that one?

The alt, earlier version, is likely without Brian.

Yep, I think you're right.