• The Beatles' 'Love Me Do' Hits the Public Domain in Europe
    44 replies, posted
[IMG]http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/the-beatles-love-me-do-hits-the-public-domain-in-europe-20130112/1000x600/20130112-beatles-600x-1358028819.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE] The Beatles first single, "Love Me Do," has entered the pubic domain in Europe, thanks to current copyright law in the European Union, [URL="http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/reissue-labels-capitalise-on-love-me-do-going-public-domain-as-ipo-begins-consultation-on-copyright-extension/"][I]Complete Music Update[/I] reports[/URL]. As the E.U. law currently stands, copyright for recorded music is set to expire after 50 years. Since "Love Me Do" and its B-side, "P.S. I Love You," were released in 1962, protection for the tracks expired on December 31st, 2012. Although a move is underway to extend recording copyrights to 70 years, the revised law won't come into effect before next November. (In the United States, recordings retain copyright protection for up to 95 years.) The new law will include a "use it or lose it clause," meaning that labels who hold the rights to recordings released before 1963 must make them available for consumption and purchase, or else the artist can claim control of the copyright. (The rule recently prompted Sony to release a limited-edition [URL="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sony-releases-limited-edition-86-track-bob-dylan-outtakes-collection-in-europe-20130107"]collection of 86 Bob Dylan outtakes[/URL] in order to retain its copyright on the material. The copyright for Dylan's debut album expired along with "Love Me Do.") A company called Digital Remasterings has taken advantage of the expired copyright by including "Love Me Do" on a compilation of early Beatles recordings. The classical reissue label Pristine Classical also released the song, this time as a remastered single, in protest against the trouble the extended copyright will cause in its work reissuing old symphonic recordings. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-beatles-love-me-do-hits-the-public-domain-in-europe-20130112[/url]
Good thing I've already made all the bank I need.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39208410]Good thing I've already made all the bank I need.[/QUOTE] if you were the real paul mccartney
You shouldn't be able to extend copyright.
[QUOTE=Jookia;39208435]You shouldn't be able to extend copyright.[/QUOTE] Yep. 50 years is fine. The USA's 95 year one is fucking stupid as hell.
[QUOTE=Jookia;39208435]You shouldn't be able to extend copyright.[/QUOTE] yea fuck those people who work hard to make music
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] Yeah fuck them, we're the companies still trying to make money off of this.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] After 50 years, you're either dead or old as hell and already have enough money.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] you'll be dead or rich, what does it matter [editline]swag[/editline] shit
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] Because you're working [I]so[/I] hard 50 years later
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] More like fuck the companies who take nearly all of the profit from the songs, royalties to the artists are a pittance, artists tend to make more from actual gigs. Besides, most of these copyrights last after the original artists have actually died, which strikes me as rediculous. A 15 year copyright would be much more reasonable.
[video=youtube;ed_2W_KO_zI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed_2W_KO_zI[/video] [QUOTE=Terminutter;39208610]More like fuck the companies who take nearly all of the profit from the songs, royalties to the artists are a pittance, artists tend to make more from actual gigs. Besides, most of these copyrights last after the original artists have actually died, which strikes me as rediculous. A 15 year copyright would be much more reasonable.[/QUOTE] I agree entirely. It's complete bullshit that you can lock your shit up tighter than fort knox long after you're dead and gone. We desperately need copyright reform over here.
This is great news. I'd argue that even 50 years is too long a time to retain copyright however, 20 or 25 feels about right. By then in 9 cases of 10 the media will have stopped generating revenue for the maker. Edit Feel free to come with contradicting arguments instead of rating dumb. I'd love to hear what you have to say.
Welcome to the [I]business[/I] boys...
Locking up a media product for over a century is bullshit; half a century is borderline acceptable, but 95 years is rubbish. Also, if you have ownership of the product, you should use it whilst you still have it. Plus, one probably shouldn't be allowed to extend copyright claims beyond their allotted timeframe; by the time 50 years have passed you'd probably have a bunch of other IPs and products to sell, so you wouldn't need the old product to make you money.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] You realize that copyright was originally intended to protect the inventor and help them, however companies forced the obscenely long copyrights. If I remember right it was originally only like 15-25 years or something? Then later became the creator's life plus 50 or 100 years after the creator's death. Which is fucking bullshit as it only serves a company, and not the creator at that point and only serves to impede progress and make asshole companies more money.
[QUOTE=Jookia;39208435]You shouldn't be able to extend copyright.[/QUOTE] Why not?
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] Do you work for a record company? Because this is exactly what they say.
Well now it's time to make a short film for profit and include this song in every single scene.
There was actually a list of things that were going to go into the public domain last year if it wasn't for it being extended, and 2012 didn't have one damn thing going into the public domain. It was really depressing to look at. But hey, the time required to go into the public domain goes up every time Steamboat Willie is about to enter it, so we already know Disney is basically in charge of that part of the government.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] yea fuck those people who want to be able to form a historical record of human life over the years
Video games need this but set to 15 years instead. Most video games older than 15 years are no longer sold anyway and float in the void or the internet.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208528]yea fuck those people who work hard to make music[/QUOTE] this actually plays more to the advantage of companies who own the intellectual property rather than the artist. especially when copyright law is like "50 years after the creator dies" shit. who needs intellectual property after you're dead?
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39208419]if you were the real paul mccartney[/QUOTE] Alright scooby doo.
[quote=Pristine Classical Newsletter]Free The Beatles Anyway, in celebration of the law the British press likes to refer to as "Cliff's Law" (singer Cliff Richard campaigned for it on behalf of the British music industry, though it'll have very little effect on his royalties or considerable wealth), here for one time only (I promise) is that first, 1962 Beatles single, now in the public domain, in a new 24-bit XR remastered FLAC. It's a free download for all Pristine Classical newsletter readers: [url=http://www.pristinestorage.com/Free/LoveMeDo.flac]Love Me Do.[/url] If you like it please buy their album - they need the money, though you won't get an XR-remastered version from EMI, I'm afraid.[/quote]
I bet they're going to copyright it again anyway.
copyright as it is nowadays is a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=BloodRayne;39213179]Video games need this but set to 15 years instead. Most video games older than 15 years are no longer sold anyway and float in the void or the internet.[/QUOTE] Pretty damn sure they're classified as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware"][I]"abandonware"[/I][/URL] See more here: [url]http://www.abandonia.com[/url]
[QUOTE=Van-man;39214415]Pretty damn sure they're classified as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware"][I]"abandonware"[/I][/URL][/QUOTE] that's got no legal basis sadly though
Prepare for every video on Youtube to have this is a backing track for the next month. [I]Not that is makes a difference.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.