Some platforms remove music (singles, EPs or LPs) if there's not enough streams (the general number seems to be 1000 per month for 12 months for any, to my understanding) to earn royalties so, last I understood, Deezer and Spotify will drop an artist/band.

Even a major label band? UMG (and WMG) recently made a deal with Spotify. Given the parameter of removal, why is Sweet Black Angel or Melody or (most of DIRTY WORK onward etc) still available? Those tracks/albums had weak streaming numbers before the deal so that's probably not it.

It's been mentioned in one of the threads here about a possibility, I vaguely recall, with the industry that with a/any hits comp, say Tumbling Dice, while played on JUMP BACK on Spotify etc, counts towards EOMS ie the album of origin (just as Jumpin' Jack Flash on HOT ROCKS would count as BIG HITS 2).

If there's a way to know that for fact it's not available to read.

Publishing and licensing is another issue. ABKCO, Geffen, Interscope, Eagle Rock etc... all under UMG. Yet some releases aren't available.

Perhaps a way to entice people to buy one of two hard copy formats? Certainly a legal agreement between the Stones and ABKCO prevents some things but apparently that's not true since some things are on B and no A platform.

While some artists/bands release something and 6 months later people stop listening, it's still available on AppleMusic, which pays much better in comparison to Spotify, but removed from Spotify.

TIDAL is floundering and may not survive through 2025.

Streaming will probably be figured out by 2030 in regard to who survives and who pays more than less, which will weed out SoundCloud and a plethora of others unless they opt to continue for some reason.

For the foreseeable future, The Rolling Stones aren't making much money from streaming because UMG makes a majority of the money and perhaps UMG paid the Stones upfront to lease/distribute, which is essentially how the Stones have handled their back catalog in the past.

There is a ton of mystery in regard with how it works and it's difficult to find information beyond whatever articles that state things like UMG SIGNS STONES TO 300 YEAR DISTRIBUTION DEAL or whatever with no details except for listing the 18 different labels/companies (Bravado, Eagle whatever, etc) doing clothing, videos and coffee cups and yawwwnnnnnn.

The Stones don't need to sell their rights when giant labels like UMG insist on renting their catalog for trillions of dollars.

I can imagine that distributors of legacy bands still have some form of leverage in the negotiations with streaming platforms. At least for as long as these bands have an audience.

I don't think that the distributor of a legacy band could accept that AM or S reserve the right to remove single items in case of poor streams.

Besides, on AM and S you can find stuff that I am quite sure have hardly no streams at all (all the fancy remixed Bsides of the singles of the late 90s early 2000s)

What is amazing, is that nowadays you can find pages and pages on the business models of streaming platforms, and almost nothing on how copyright holders exploit their rights.

What is even more amazing is how fast streaming platforms are evolving and how slowly content providers are adapting.

If we just think on how small independent content providers have adapted to platforms like you tube or tik tok with exceptional results for both the provider and the platform, we have an idea of how music distributors are way back in using streaming platforms at their full potential.

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-28 18:39 by liddas.

Quote
liddas


I have them on the Bigger Bang CD/DVD special edition.

C

Ah, that's the one! Black sleeve, with a silver tongue? I'm trying to visualise it, ha-ha![/quote]

Yes, that's it!

C[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying! What was on the DVD? That, I definitely don't remember!

Quote
Big Al

What was on the DVD?

A Bigger Bang - Special Edition (CD+DVD): [Discogs.com] .

Quote
Irix

Quote
Big Al

What was on the DVD?

A Bigger Bang - Special Edition (CD+DVD): [Discogs.com] .

Thanks, Irix

Apple has a very limited selection of of live music of the Stones.

Quote
Taylor1
Apple has a very limited selection of of live music of the Stones.

Interesting. Although missing a few titles, Spotify seemingly has pretty much everything.

Quote
Taylor1

Apple has a very limited selection of of live music of the Stones.

33 live-albums is very limited - [Music.Apple.com] ?

I do use Apple Play for Hackney Diamonds and other well known Stones releases, but no streaming service may replace my large collection of rare Stones-releases from the past 50 years, hundreds of vinyl and CD releases.

Bjornulf

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Taylor1
Apple has a very limited selection of of live music of the Stones.

Interesting. Although missing a few titles, Spotify seemingly has pretty much everything.

Apple has 33 and Spotify 32 live albums.

Including vault releases there are 41 live albums (not listed is TOTALLY STRIPPED - OLYMPIA, PARIS and STILL LIFE WEMBLEY as far as I can find) listed on the wiki discography.

Their website only has the two BRIDGES live albums, MOCAMBO, the ridiculous simian disaster live album, LICKED IN NYC, SHEPHERD'S, YA-YA'S and WILTERN.

................the boys must have been "Stoned" when they let Klein sleeze their catalog from them. After all they had the fifties to look back on, and see what happened to a lot of those singers (re:little to no royalties).

............how hard would it be for a true, honest music person to start a streaming site, and just let the stuff stay on the site, if the group is a known quantity?

Quote
stonesurvive
................the boys must have been "Stoned" when they let Klein sleeze their catalog from them. After all they had the fifties to look back on, and see what happened to a lot of those singers (re:little to no royalties).

............how hard would it be for a true, honest music person to start a streaming site, and just let the stuff stay on the site, if the group is a known quantity?

The bad deal "with" Klein originated with Andrew Loog Oldham and Eric Easton. Once Klein pounced, he got sneaky, and the Stones' lawyers and business managers were the ones that were stoned.

Perhaps the biggest issue with streaming vs purchasing is equivalent to, say, an oil leak: dilute dilute dilute. Because people have, in a big majority way, stopped purchasing music, streaming pays "better than nothing".

Here's an example: Using $.004 per stream and only that, forget publisher etc, Taylor Swift has 8 trillion streams of one song. AC/DC has 2 million streams of one song. In accordance to paid subscriptions and then advertising (the free version of whatever), Swift makes only $32 billion anyway just from 8 trillion streams.

AC/DC makes $8K.

Swift gets paid the most, right? Of course she does.

Does the rest of the money per stream go to a bank to be able to pay other artists since there's not 8 trillion paid subscribers?

Of course not.

Label and publisher get anywhere from 15% to 26% of the streaming income above $.004.

Pre-streaming with a (very high) royalty rate of $.75 per single sold of 8 trillion copies, Swift would make $6 trillion.

ACDC would make $1.5 million.


If that doesn't sum up the issue of how Spotify and everyone else has destroyed the music industry just for artists/bands then nothing else can. Somehow people still go to movie theatres but they won't and don't buy albums (regardless of format).


Music, new and old, is disposable thanks to streaming. It has zero value.

New movies are maybe 98% in theatres only. People gleefully pay, on average, $12 for a 2 hour movie that once they've seen it, it's gone, but won't buy an album to have until etc happens to it in ABC time but let's say "a lifetime" of listening over and over and over with a one time payment for ownership.

Oh but for $16 a month I can lease all the music I want!!!

Of course that financially makes sense if you listen to just even two albums a month. However still gotta pay $16 a month to listen to, well, maybe the same two albums every month.

Obviously more than that.

I like holding the damn thing and reading whatever - oh it's online.

Is it? Because it's practically impossible to get every detail. Even discogs doesn't list everything and that might be the best site for information.

So how hard would it be for a true, honest music person to start a streaming site?

With zero money being exchanged? Impossible - because label and publisher and maybe the artist would see it as a competing revenue loss where they can make some money.


Paid subscription/advertising?

That means getting labels, publishers, licensing, artists and bands to agree along with whoever else, songwriters, arrangers, managers...

I don't know, truthfully, those are just guesses but I think it's not something you just do, like buying shoes. Some sites say oh just get music licensing in order and just make an interface - as easy as making a P&J sandwich, obviously.

[www.purrweb.com]

Quote
Taylor1
Apple has a very limited selection of of live music of the Stones.

Apple Music is not only a streaming service but also (in my view) a tool. Whatever the streaming is missing I add from my own collection. Once I added it, it is up in my cloud and I stream it from all my devices - like L.A. Friday. It works more than fine for me.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
stonesurvive
................the boys must have been "Stoned" when they let Klein sleeze their catalog from them. After all they had the fifties to look back on, and see what happened to a lot of those singers (re:little to no royalties).

............how hard would it be for a true, honest music person to start a streaming site, and just let the stuff stay on the site, if the group is a known quantity?

The bad deal "with" Klein originated with Andrew Loog Oldham and Eric Easton. Once Klein pounced, he got sneaky, and the Stones' lawyers and business managers were the ones that were stoned.

Perhaps the biggest issue with streaming vs purchasing is equivalent to, say, an oil leak: dilute dilute dilute. Because people have, in a big majority way, stopped purchasing music, streaming pays "better than nothing".

Here's an example: Using $.004 per stream and only that, forget publisher etc, Taylor Swift has 8 trillion streams of one song. AC/DC has 2 million streams of one song. In accordance to paid subscriptions and then advertising (the free version of whatever), Swift makes only $32 billion anyway just from 8 trillion streams.

AC/DC makes $8K.

Swift gets paid the most, right? Of course she does.

Does the rest of the money per stream go to a bank to be able to pay other artists since there's not 8 trillion paid subscribers?

Of course not.

Label and publisher get anywhere from 15% to 26% of the streaming income above $.004.

Pre-streaming with a (very high) royalty rate of $.75 per single sold of 8 trillion copies, Swift would make $6 trillion.

ACDC would make $1.5 million.


If that doesn't sum up the issue of how Spotify and everyone else has destroyed the music industry just for artists/bands then nothing else can. Somehow people still go to movie theatres but they won't and don't buy albums (regardless of format).


Music, new and old, is disposable thanks to streaming. It has zero value.

New movies are maybe 98% in theatres only. People gleefully pay, on average, $12 for a 2 hour movie that once they've seen it, it's gone, but won't buy an album to have until etc happens to it in ABC time but let's say "a lifetime" of listening over and over and over with a one time payment for ownership.

Oh but for $16 a month I can lease all the music I want!!!

Of course that financially makes sense if you listen to just even two albums a month. However still gotta pay $16 a month to listen to, well, maybe the same two albums every month.

Obviously more than that.

I like holding the damn thing and reading whatever - oh it's online.

Is it? Because it's practically impossible to get every detail. Even discogs doesn't list everything and that might be the best site for information.

So how hard would it be for a true, honest music person to start a streaming site?

With zero money being exchanged? Impossible - because label and publisher and maybe the artist would see it as a competing revenue loss where they can make some money.


Paid subscription/advertising?

That means getting labels, publishers, licensing, artists and bands to agree along with whoever else, songwriters, arrangers, managers...

I don't know, truthfully, those are just guesses but I think it's not something you just do, like buying shoes. Some sites say oh just get music licensing in order and just make an interface - as easy as making a P&J sandwich, obviously.

[www.purrweb.com]

WOW, I finally like one of GSStreets responses!. thanks, I have always had an interest in streaming...........

I am also curious, is there a way to copy the songs (that you paid for) and get good fidelity????

THE AGE --- 9 March 2025



ROCKMAN

Quote
stonesurvive

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
stonesurvive
................the boys must have been "Stoned" when they let Klein sleeze their catalog from them. After all they had the fifties to look back on, and see what happened to a lot of those singers (re:little to no royalties).

............how hard would it be for a true, honest music person to start a streaming site, and just let the stuff stay on the site, if the group is a known quantity?

The bad deal "with" Klein originated with Andrew Loog Oldham and Eric Easton. Once Klein pounced, he got sneaky, and the Stones' lawyers and business managers were the ones that were stoned.

Perhaps the biggest issue with streaming vs purchasing is equivalent to, say, an oil leak: dilute dilute dilute. Because people have, in a big majority way, stopped purchasing music, streaming pays "better than nothing".

Here's an example: Using $.004 per stream and only that, forget publisher etc, Taylor Swift has 8 trillion streams of one song. AC/DC has 2 million streams of one song. In accordance to paid subscriptions and then advertising (the free version of whatever), Swift makes only $32 billion anyway just from 8 trillion streams.

AC/DC makes $8K.

Swift gets paid the most, right? Of course she does.

Does the rest of the money per stream go to a bank to be able to pay other artists since there's not 8 trillion paid subscribers?

Of course not.

Label and publisher get anywhere from 15% to 26% of the streaming income above $.004.

Pre-streaming with a (very high) royalty rate of $.75 per single sold of 8 trillion copies, Swift would make $6 trillion.

ACDC would make $1.5 million.


If that doesn't sum up the issue of how Spotify and everyone else has destroyed the music industry just for artists/bands then nothing else can. Somehow people still go to movie theatres but they won't and don't buy albums (regardless of format).


Music, new and old, is disposable thanks to streaming. It has zero value.

New movies are maybe 98% in theatres only. People gleefully pay, on average, $12 for a 2 hour movie that once they've seen it, it's gone, but won't buy an album to have until etc happens to it in ABC time but let's say "a lifetime" of listening over and over and over with a one time payment for ownership.

Oh but for $16 a month I can lease all the music I want!!!

Of course that financially makes sense if you listen to just even two albums a month. However still gotta pay $16 a month to listen to, well, maybe the same two albums every month.

Obviously more than that.

I like holding the damn thing and reading whatever - oh it's online.

Is it? Because it's practically impossible to get every detail. Even discogs doesn't list everything and that might be the best site for information.

So how hard would it be for a true, honest music person to start a streaming site?

With zero money being exchanged? Impossible - because label and publisher and maybe the artist would see it as a competing revenue loss where they can make some money.


Paid subscription/advertising?

That means getting labels, publishers, licensing, artists and bands to agree along with whoever else, songwriters, arrangers, managers...

I don't know, truthfully, those are just guesses but I think it's not something you just do, like buying shoes. Some sites say oh just get music licensing in order and just make an interface - as easy as making a P&J sandwich, obviously.

[www.purrweb.com]

WOW, I finally like one of GSStreets responses!. thanks, I have always had an interest in streaming...........

I am also curious, is there a way to copy the songs (that you paid for) and get good fidelity????

LOL!

In regard to your question Tidal and Apple Music (iTunes - I recently found out I can still purchase - buy - songs! and Tidal is possibly on its way out) have the best available fidelity amongst all digital services hardwired ie not bluetooth (no idea if that will ever happen).

In terms of audio quality, Apple emerges as the clear champion. In fact, not only does Apple offer better audio quality than Spotify, the same is true for just about all of Spotify’s streaming music competitors. Spotify Premium users can only avail themselves of the “very high” audio quality setting, which equates to “approximately 320kbit/s.” In contrast, virtually every song in Apple Music’s library is available for lossless streaming, an uncompressed format that offers a listening experience akin to that of a CD. Additionally, Apple Music features albums that can be streamed at hi-res lossless, which delivers an even superior sound quality than CDs, with the right hardware. Apple Music’s standout feature, however, is Dolby Atmos, which they brand as “Spatial Audio.” Both lossless and Dolby Atmos are included with Apple Music at no additional charge... Apple Music’s lossless audio can only be accessed via a wired headphone connection, as it is currently impossible to stream lossless audio over Bluetooth.

[medium.com].

Which means you can copy it to... CD even.

I'm not a fan of Alexa yet people say to me, Just get Alexa. If I want pointless background noise I can hear the garbage truck and fire engines etc just fine with an open window and instead of saying Hey Alexa, SHUT the ffffffuck UP, I can just close the windows.


Your interest in streaming might find you going into a streaming black hole of, to mimic a Pink Floyd album, a momentary lapse of reality: you can only listen to it.

You'll likely enjoy this article:

We get the resistance to streaming. You're paying not to own music, just rent it. And physical media is so much better in so many ways – sound quality, tactility, artwork, a deeper connection with the work... But the two can co-exist. It's fast food and fine dining – the latter is preferable, but sometimes convenience trumps all.

Streaming is cheap, too. Admittedly you don't get to own the music, so the minute you stop subscribing, you lose it all. But paying a small amount each month to have pretty nigh-on every song ever recorded accessible on every connected device you own – and many of them in lossless quality – is still a pretty great deal.

[www.whathifi.com]


Oh and no matter what deals and promises are made... there are some that say it more directly so I'll just use this one:

Aside from Napster, did anyone use Morpheus and then or Kazaa? A friend went through those three. It was a riot: 12" remixes of things I didn't know existed, or knew of but could never find.

Live music.

The usual, what was on the radio or in our own album collections, we weren't interested in. It was what was impossible to find that was the rage. By 2004 I stopped bothering and it wasn't until 2010 I got iTunes and Google Play Music. When that got shut down and turned into YouTube Music it was so frustrating (you can't just simply look up an artist, it shows EVERY SINGLE THING they're on) that I got Spotify. Once in a while I'll play something from YTM. So glad I bought the few things I did (not much but some Stones, Beatles and maybe a couple other things) during GPM and there's goddamn commercials with my purchased music with YTM.

Still bought CDs, though.

Hurricane Ida hit in 2021 and that ended Spotify for me (no wifi for 3 months).

Went from Android to iPhone, got a really good plan with unlimited hotspot so no wired wifi. I've given up counting how much money I've saved by not having cable internet.

Now it's CDs (two boom boxes and PC with speakers and a house shaking woofer), vinyl, Amazon (the free rip sometimes available with purchase only - although I have Amazon Music it's quite frustrating), YouTube to check something out and Apple Music on my iPhone with a Bluetooth speaker that actually has some ass to it or one of the boomboxes, a Sony something barrel shaped thing that gets plenty loud.

Still no need to get a streaming subscription. If that day ever arrives it will be AppleMusic. For now, anyway.

Quote
stonesurvive

I am also curious, is there a way to copy the songs (that you paid for) and get good fidelity????

Yes, you can download songs in lossless HiRes quality and/or you can also stream songs in lossless HiRes quality - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .

Quote
Rockman


THE AGE --- 9 March 2025

One can agree or disagree, but what makes me laugh is that among the behaviors that the author misses are the preparation of mixtapes and the borrowing of LPs, behaviors that, at the time, were considered "illegal" ...

C

Quote
liddas
One can agree or disagree, but what makes me laugh is that among the behaviors that the author misses are the preparation of mixtapes and the borrowing of LPs, behaviors that, at the time, were considered "illegal" ...

C

It was never considered illegal to borrow and copy and still isn't because it it's covered/protected under Fair Usage laws. One had to buy blank cassettes (and later blank CDs) to transfer owned music to the same or another medium not for profit. There's no copyright infringement with that.

What is illegal is copying for profit. That's intellectual property infringement and copyright infringement.

Playlists are the digital equivalent of a mixtape. Why is it ok for someone to have free Spotify and make playlists? Because there's no intellectual property infringement or copyright infringement. Someone borrowing whatever or making a copy is legal - because it's owned. Is there a loss of money?

Yes? No? If a friend hears you playing something, and doesn't own it, how is that any different than hearing it on the radio or whatever? Recording something off the radio... the industry insisted on blank medium for people to record whatever.


File sharing changed that. One could achieve a library of albums etc for free in minutes or hours.

There's a funny line there. It was OK for decades to copy vinyl or CD or even cassette to etc and no one blinked about it yet file sharing?

One person to one person (paid for album to paid for blank cassette or CD) is nothing at all similar to one person (and then thousands and millions) providing free content to thousands and millions at once.

That was the issue.

You can make your playlist public. Isn't that just as bad as what file sharing was? In theory it could be argued it is - except for one thing: someone playing the songs from your playlist are counted as a play via the platform - it's no different than that person playing songs from your playlist listening to those songs on their own. So it's not technically stealing.


Then there's "other". The unedited ("extended") version of She Was Hot, with the "extra" bit "There goes the telephone..." which was used in the video - is on YouTube. Is it illegal? Absolutely - it was never officially released as far as I am aware. Somehow someone got it and it's available. Is it monetized? Probably.

Maybe the Stones or Promotone etc don't care because so many unreleased, finished and not, songs are available in many formats so... instead of doing the smart thing and officially releasing them in an anthology etc nothing happens because they all made their initial money with official releases and blah blah blah.

Does that show there's demand? Specifically, with this one posting of She Was Hot (haven't looked to see if there are others), in 7 years there have been 188K views.

That is not demand - it roughly translates to $752. With just this one link.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
liddas
One can agree or disagree, but what makes me laugh is that among the behaviors that the author misses are the preparation of mixtapes and the borrowing of LPs, behaviors that, at the time, were considered "illegal" ...

C

It was never considered illegal to borrow and copy and still isn't because it it's covered/protected under Fair Usage laws. One had to buy blank cassettes (and later blank CDs) to transfer owned music to the same or another medium not for profit. There's no copyright infringement with that.

What is illegal is copying for profit. That's intellectual property infringement and copyright infringement.

Playlists are the digital equivalent of a mixtape. Why is it ok for someone to have free Spotify and make playlists? Because there's no intellectual property infringement or copyright infringement. Someone borrowing whatever or making a copy is legal - because it's owned. Is there a loss of money?

Yes? No? If a friend hears you playing something, and doesn't own it, how is that any different than hearing it on the radio or whatever? Recording something off the radio... the industry insisted on blank medium for people to record whatever.


File sharing changed that. One could achieve a library of albums etc for free in minutes or hours.

There's a funny line there. It was OK for decades to copy vinyl or CD or even cassette to etc and no one blinked about it yet file sharing?

One person to one person (paid for album to paid for blank cassette or CD) is nothing at all similar to one person (and then thousands and millions) providing free content to thousands and millions at once.

That was the issue.

You can make your playlist public. Isn't that just as bad as what file sharing was? In theory it could be argued it is - except for one thing: someone playing the songs from your playlist are counted as a play via the platform - it's no different than that person playing songs from your playlist listening to those songs on their own. So it's not technically stealing.

I wasn't referring to personal copies.

In the 80s, if I gave you Dirty Work and you borrowed me Modern Love, and we both made copies, those copies indeed were illegal: both of us saved the money of a new LP (well, probably you wouldn't have bought Dirty Work anyway).

Same if I gave you a the mixtape of Dirt Work outtakes that I prepared for you.

A regulation of fair use, by the way, exists in the US, not necessarily in other countries. It didn't exist in Italy, for example.

Of course, at the time, these copies were tolerated because they did not affect album sales: normally (unless you had a proper stereo system) the copies were not as good as the originals, and cassette tapes were relatively quite expensive (more or less 1/3 of the cost of a new LP).

A general misconception is that we "owned" the record. Technically not true. Read the terms of the licenses that were printed in CD booklets of the 80/90s

Technology continues to drive changes in copyright law.

When CDs became popular, and you easily could burn an identical copy on a cheap CDR, copies became less tolerated.

As it was practically impossible to track down people who burned copies of CDS to give away (for sale or for free), at least here they had the "brilliant" idea to add a surcharge on CDRs to be allocated to copyright holders as a form of partial compensation of the phenomenon and label as "pirates" those who copied copyrighted materials.

Then came internet and all the above activities all of a sudden became history.

Playlists are not exactly the digital equivalent of a mixtape. If I am registered with S and want to share a playlist with someone registered with AM, I can't.

Terms of use of S's copyrighted material provide that you can't listen to the music on different unauthorized platforms. So sharing a S playlist is legal only if done according to S's terms.

And not exactly true that free S is free. You give them access to very valuable personal data.

C

Quote
liddas

Playlists are not exactly the digital equivalent of a mixtape. If I am registered with S and want to share a playlist with someone registered with AM, I can't.

There're tools like e.g. SongShift to transfer music playlists across streaming platforms and for sharing with friends - [www.SongShift.com] .

Quote
liddas

A regulation of fair use, by the way, exists in the US, not necessarily in other countries. It didn't exist in Italy, for example.

This seems indeed to be country-specific. In Germany, we have the right of a private copy for some types of media (§53 Urheberrechtsgesetz). You can legally copy a LP/CD from a friend for your own private use.

Quote
liddas

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
liddas
One can agree or disagree, but what makes me laugh is that among the behaviors that the author misses are the preparation of mixtapes and the borrowing of LPs, behaviors that, at the time, were considered "illegal" ...

C

It was never considered illegal to borrow and copy and still isn't because it it's covered/protected under Fair Usage laws. One had to buy blank cassettes (and later blank CDs) to transfer owned music to the same or another medium not for profit. There's no copyright infringement with that.

What is illegal is copying for profit. That's intellectual property infringement and copyright infringement.

Playlists are the digital equivalent of a mixtape. Why is it ok for someone to have free Spotify and make playlists? Because there's no intellectual property infringement or copyright infringement. Someone borrowing whatever or making a copy is legal - because it's owned. Is there a loss of money?

Yes? No? If a friend hears you playing something, and doesn't own it, how is that any different than hearing it on the radio or whatever? Recording something off the radio... the industry insisted on blank medium for people to record whatever.


File sharing changed that. One could achieve a library of albums etc for free in minutes or hours.

There's a funny line there. It was OK for decades to copy vinyl or CD or even cassette to etc and no one blinked about it yet file sharing?

One person to one person (paid for album to paid for blank cassette or CD) is nothing at all similar to one person (and then thousands and millions) providing free content to thousands and millions at once.

That was the issue.

You can make your playlist public. Isn't that just as bad as what file sharing was? In theory it could be argued it is - except for one thing: someone playing the songs from your playlist are counted as a play via the platform - it's no different than that person playing songs from your playlist listening to those songs on their own. So it's not technically stealing.

I wasn't referring to personal copies.

In the 80s, if I gave you Dirty Work and you borrowed me Modern Love, and we both made copies, those copies indeed were illegal: both of us saved the money of a new LP (well, probably you wouldn't have bought Dirty Work anyway).

Same if I gave you a the mixtape of Dirt Work outtakes that I prepared for you.

A regulation of fair use, by the way, exists in the US, not necessarily in other countries. It didn't exist in Italy, for example.

Of course, at the time, these copies were tolerated because they did not affect album sales: normally (unless you had a proper stereo system) the copies were not as good as the originals, and cassette tapes were relatively quite expensive (more or less 1/3 of the cost of a new LP).

A general misconception is that we "owned" the record. Technically not true. Read the terms of the licenses that were printed in CD booklets of the 80/90s

Technology continues to drive changes in copyright law.

When CDs became popular, and you easily could burn an identical copy on a cheap CDR, copies became less tolerated.

As it was practically impossible to track down people who burned copies of CDS to give away (for sale or for free), at least here they had the "brilliant" idea to add a surcharge on CDRs to be allocated to copyright holders as a form of partial compensation of the phenomenon and label as "pirates" those who copied copyrighted materials.

Then came internet and all the above activities all of a sudden became history.

Playlists are not exactly the digital equivalent of a mixtape. If I am registered with S and want to share a playlist with someone registered with AM, I can't.

Terms of use of S's copyrighted material provide that you can't listen to the music on different unauthorized platforms. So sharing a S playlist is legal only if done according to S's terms.

And not exactly true that free S is free. You give them access to very valuable personal data.

C

I have 3 copies of DIRTY WORK - original vinyl, original CD and Virgin reissue.

A playlist on Spotify is public unless made private - so anyone can listen to it with Spotify.

That's the point. In the platform or app there's nothing illegal about "sharing" a playlist.

You making me a tape of DIRTY WORK outtakes? Ha ha! Illegal that you have the outtakes!!! So what if you make me a copy!

Quote
GasLightStreet

You making me a tape of DIRTY WORK outtakes? Ha ha! Illegal that you have the outtakes!!! So what if you make me a copy!

Probably a grey zone - as long as the Stones tolerate bootlegs, it could work.

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

You making me a tape of DIRTY WORK outtakes? Ha ha! Illegal that you have the outtakes!!! So what if you make me a copy!

Probably a grey zone - as long as the Stones tolerate bootlegs, it could work.

Isn’t there the rumour that Ronnie ‘sold’ CD’s of Voodoo Lounge outtakes in a car park?

Classic Rolling Stones Records See New Dolby Atmos Release

Newly mixed versions of ‘Let It Bleed’ and much more are now available to stream across platforms.
Eight of The Rolling Stones’ records—six full length albums and two EPs—have been released in Dolby Atmos by ABKCO Music & Records. All the titles are now available to stream across Apple Music, TIDAL and Amazon in the audio format for the first time ever.
The releases getting the Dolby treatment include Let It Bleed, which marked the transition between Brian Jones and Mick Taylor on guitar and featured hits like “Gimme Shelter” and “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”; and The 1964 LP England’s Newest Hit Makers, which gathered the group’s rendition of American hits by the likes of Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, is also among the reissue—the record features the group’s first-ever US Top 40 hit, “Heart Of Stone.” In the 1960s, it was standard practice for an artist to release records with different tracklists in the US and UK—both versions of the groups The Rolling Stones record, The Rolling Stones No. 2 and The Rolling Stones, Now!, the latter of which featured the Billboard Hot 100 hit “Heart Of Stone,” are both among the reissued titles.

The Rolling Stones are the latest artists to see highlights from their catalog reissued in Dolby Atmos thanks to ABKCO. The label has also reissued releases from The Animals and Sam Cooke in Dolby in recent years. This fall, ABKCO will release even more Rolling Stones titles in Dolby Atmos, including US and UK versions of 1965’s Out Of Our Heads; 1968’s Beggars Banquet; and 1965’s December’s Children (And Everybody’s).

The Rolling Stones released their most recent new album, Hackney Diamonds, in 2023—it marked their first new record since 2005. It won a Grammy Award for Best Rock Album, and marked the 14th record from the band to top the UK charts upon release.
[abkco.lnk.to]
[www.udiscovermusic.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-14 23:44 by ironbelly.

Quote
ironbelly

Classic Rolling Stones Records See New Dolby Atmos Release

By [ABKCO.com] - [X.com] , [Facebook.com] , [Instagram.com] .

Available on Apple Music, TIDAL and Amazon Music. Mixing by Kenta Yonesaka (Hit Factory, New York) and John Barrett (Abbey Road Studios, London), mastered by Adam Grover (Sterling Sound, Nashville).

"This fall, ABKCO will continue rolling out titles in Dolby Atmos: Beggars Banquet, Got Live If You Want It! (EP), Out of Our Heads (US/UK), Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) (US/UK) and December’s Children (And Everybody’s)."

'Let It Bleed' in Dolby Atmos / Spatial Audio: [X.com] , [Facebook.com] , [Instagram.com] .

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

You making me a tape of DIRTY WORK outtakes? Ha ha! Illegal that you have the outtakes!!! So what if you make me a copy!

Probably a grey zone - as long as the Stones tolerate bootlegs, it could work.

Isn’t there the rumour that Ronnie ‘sold’ CD’s of Voodoo Lounge outtakes in a car park?

I read that his son took a ton of DATs and sold them since everything was mixed to DAT.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

You making me a tape of DIRTY WORK outtakes? Ha ha! Illegal that you have the outtakes!!! So what if you make me a copy!

Probably a grey zone - as long as the Stones tolerate bootlegs, it could work.

Isn’t there the rumour that Ronnie ‘sold’ CD’s of Voodoo Lounge outtakes in a car park?

I read that his son took a ton of DATs and sold them since everything was mixed to DAT.

Ah, that’s correct, I think. I knew the leak had something to do with Ronnie; I just couldn’t quite recollect if he was directly involved.