Developer Of Bookmaking Software Gets Full Kim Dotcom Treatment For 'Promoting Gambling'
Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs

Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work

Copyright

from the copyright-at-work dept

Tue, Jan 8th 2013 7:56am — Mike Masnick
It's almost as if the major labels aren't even trying to hide how they like to abuse the spirit of copyright law in order to keep things locked up as long as possible. Sony Music recently "issued" (and I use the term loosely) a special limited release Bob Dylan collection and didn't even bother to try to hide the real reason for putting it out. It's in the name of the damn release: "Bob Dylan: The Copyright Extension Collection Vol. 1."
Yes, the entire purpose of releasing this is so that Sony Music can keep Bob Dylan songs under copyright in Europe for a longer period of time. As they're all too happy to explain, copyright term extension for recordings happened in Europe recently, bumping it up from 50 years to 70 years -- but there's a "use it or lose it" clause in there:
Two spokesmen for Sony confirmed that the set was legitimate, its bootleglike appearance notwithstanding. They explained that the point of the release was to keep the recordings under copyright protection in Europe, where the laws are in flux. Currently, recordings can be copyrighted in Europe for 50 years, a much shorter term than in the United States, where recordings made since 1978 will remain copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.

In 2011 the European Union revised its copyright laws to extend copyright to 70 years. The change is not yet in effect but will be by 2014. 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. The recordings on “The 50th Anniversary Collection” were about to fall over that legal precipice.
Of course, since this is all about protectionism rather than actually getting people to hear the music, this collection is somewhat difficult to find (well, unless you go to unauthorized sources for digital downloads -- not that we recommend such things). That's because they only made 100 copies of them and gave them to a few stores in key European countries.
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.

It also comes as a downloadable version, available through the singers’s Web site, bobdylan.com, but only to fans who log on from France or Germany. (Prices for the CD set vary from country to country, from the equivalent of $39 to, in Britain, $138)

American collectors are locked out, although for those desperate to have an original CD set, several have made their way to eBay, where bids have gone as high as about $1,450.
Anyway, I'm sure all of this activity is creating incentive for Bob Dylan to make more music from 1962.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bob dylan, copyright, copyright extension
Companies: sony music

138 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“
If you were not a 4th generation inbred moron, you would understand the point. Now, kindly fuck off.
—Zakida Paul
 ”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Rikuo (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:01am

    "recordings cannot benefit from the 20-year extension unless they were published before the 50-year term expired."

    I do have to ask: wouldn't these songs have been published before? Or are these all secret never before released tracks?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:08am

      Re:

      "all previously unreleased studio outtakes and live recordings from 1962 and 1963."

      I'm going to guess the latter. Presumably they were afraid of "losing money" on Blowing In The Wind if a free live version was legally available.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:13am

        Re: Re:

        I'm sure Mike Masnick phoned Bob Dylan and asked him why he agreed to (or even requested) this release of *his* music. That *he* has the copyright on. That *he* gets royalties for.

        Oh wait, no he didn't.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 12:53pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No he didn't. He must have been too busy noting that music that Dylan agreed to have in the public domain by now - under the terms of the contract in place at the time - was now being robbed from the public so that a corporation that wasn't even in the music industry at the time he recorded the songs could profit.

          Funny how you wail and moan about things being "taken" from your corporations but can't even accept the naked theft from popular culture as it's happening against the contract originally granted.

          "That *he* gets royalties for."

          What about the other artists who have work from the same era that major labels won't release (or can't, due to copyright issues) who should be under the public domain by now as well under the originally agreed rules? Did Sony give them royalties or ask their permissions first, or does that only apply to people you think are famous enough?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 2:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Your post needs more dissembling. /s

            You can't refute anything I said. You just try to change the subject.

            Dylan green-lit the entire package. Why? Because copyright gets him paid.

            You're as intellectually dishonest as Masnick.

            You must be so proud of that.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              JMT (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 2:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Dylan green-lit the entire package. Why? Because copyright gets him paid."

              So Dylan is just a greedy old man who wants to make even more money for no effort, at the expense of the public domain that he implicitly agreed to provide his works to after a much shorter period of time. He has reneged on the deal that provided him income in the past. What a great guy, you must be in love.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 2:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Dylan green-lit the entire package. Why? Because copyright gets him paid."

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 3:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Should read - maybe, depends on what he agreed to, and with 100CD's for sale, unless they charge 3000 pounds per CD, he ain't making shit!

                He likely is trying to recoup advancements he took for albums he recently released he hoped would sell well, but you can't expect Dylan or Springsteen to connect with 15yr olds.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 5:14pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  LOL

                  Dylan's last studio album, released in September, went to #3 in both the US and UK.

                  Yes, you're such a beacon of music business knowledge...

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 6:10pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    And you still have not debunked anything.

                    Did he make a lot, factoring in advance, 360 deal, etc?

                    Is he hip with 15yr olds?

                    Then your comment is moot

                    How long did it last there?

                    Do you know that the copies sold get him paid? How much? What's his contract look like?

                    Since you know everything and we're just a bunch of freetards, do tell us how Dylan made is bones that required copyright for his latest albums?

                    Or was his revenue from live performances?

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 6:16pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Do you know how many albums peak then tank? Did Dylan's Tempest peak then tank? What was his clientele? Any demographic info? Was he heavily traded on filesharing networks? Heavily seeded?

                    Point being, locking up his old stuff, as the article explains, is not going to help him create something new, but it will prevent some up and coming artists from doing exactly as Dylan did; building upon the works of others!

                    That is what copyright is used for Gene Lowery, it's to stifle culture. It was all and grand back in the day when poor artists were screwed over and barely given recognition (unless they managed to sue - Led Zeppelin??? Remember them? Why were they sued instead of negotiating fair deals with the artists they were drawing heavy influence upon, while ignoring copyrights????).

                    Yes, yes, copyrights totally help up and coming artists!

                    I see you're just a beacon of knowledge of anything ain't yah?

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2013 @ 3:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                One of the problems with copyright is that the publisher, in this case the label, controls whether a work is available for sale, and how many copies are made available. Therefore the control whether, and how much the artist gets paid, after the have deducted as much in the way of expenses that they can think of.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 1:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So, you're not going to address my points, just whine and launch impotent personal attacks. Nothing's changed for the new year, we see.

              Yes, OK then Dylan greenlit it, so that means he just wanted the money like all the other whores you support. Art doesn't matter so long as your preferred party gets paid, we get it.

              What about those who don't have that choice, whether through death or orphaning of their work, but whose work is still being robbed from the public domain? Their work can disappear because nobody can legally access it, all so your preferred artist can get paid for something he did 50 years ago? Thanks for proving the central point.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hrrrm, this guy sounds familiar like that terribad musician who claimed people actually wanted to pirate his music.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          How is o_o_t_b going to collect his checks if he can't prove it's he who composed the post? ;-(

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Karl (profile), 10 Jan 2013 @ 9:58pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I know I'm late to the party with this, but...

          I'm sure Mike Masnick phoned Bob Dylan and asked him why he agreed to (or even requested) this release of *his* music. That *he* has the copyright on.

          It would shock me if Dylan was even informed before the record was released.

          That's because he almost certainly does not hold the copyright on these recordings. Under nearly every label contract (and especially those from the 60's), recording artists were required to assign the copyright to the label.

          He may still hold the copyright on the songs themselves - assuming they're not covers, which many of Dylan's songs were at the time. But even if he does, the label (nor anyone else) is not required to get permission or consult him before releasing the disc. All you have to do is pay the statutory royalty rates, and Bob's your uncle. (See what I did there?)

          Oh, and there's no question that the limited release will simply encourage piracy. If you believe those that hold this opinion are simply "piracy apologists," then I guess CNN Money are "piracy apologists" too:

          By releasing just 100 copies of a CD containing unreleased early material recorded by Bob Dylan, Sony Music is practically inviting pirates to download the album.
          - Sony Music's Bob Dylan copyright disaster

          But I guess they're in good company - that of Bob Dylan himself.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Dr.Filth, 14 Mar 2013 @ 3:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Folks this debate go on forever , so let Sleeping dogs Lay and Eventually the Answer will be Found " Blowin' in the Wind !

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Andrew Heenan (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 5:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "hat's because he almost certainly does not hold the copyright on these recordings. Under nearly every label contract (and especially those from the 60's), recording artists were required to assign the copyright to the label."

            That's true - but many did later deals to reclaim their property in exchange for licensing later work - eg the Rolling Stones. I'd be surprised if Dylan had not done a deal with Sony.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:06am

    I invite any IP maximalist (our usual critics) to come here and tell us with a straight face that this is promoting culture and encouraging people to create more music. I dare you.

    I will not be surprised with the replies given the level of hypocrisy, trolling and complete and utter douchebagness displayed by Sony.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      MrWilson, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:11am

      Re:

      It's really sad that this doesn't incentivize Dylan to make more music from the 1960's. Those were his best years.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:33am

        Re: Re:

        It does incentivize him, it says it in the article.

        " I'm sure all of this activity is creating incentive for Bob Dylan to make more music from 1962"

        So we CAN look forward to more great Dylan creations from the 60's proving how useful copyright extensions are.
        Win-Win

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Watchit (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re:

        Obviously this is all part of some dark ritual by Sony to raise Bob Dylan from the dead and enslave him in their studio dungeons. Making hit albums for the rest of his undead years.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 12:54pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Obviously this is all part of some dark ritual by Sony to raise Bob Dylan from the dead...

          Bob Dylan isn't dead.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Have you seen him lately?

            The literally looks like a fucking corpse.

            Sounds like one too.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 2:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yeah. Lol. All true. But technically.....

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                MrWilson, 9 Jan 2013 @ 3:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I saw him in concert in 1999. He basically just mumbled the lyrics to his songs at the same time the band was playing. I love his music and songwriting, but I stupidly expected that if he was still touring that he'd actually be able to still perform his music instead of doing bad karaoke of his own work.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:07am

    And what they have done is illustrate exactly why copyright law needs to be reformed. Thank you, Sony, for making our case even stronger.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:10am

    "Johnny's in the basement mixing up the medicine. I'm out on the pavement thinking about government" granted monopolies.

    ftfy Bob.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:16am

    That's bullshit. Just because a company can or is still profiting from a monopoly is not a good reason for an extension of it

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:19am

    I would love for Dylan to create some more music from 1962
    (and since I consume mostly sci-fi, that seems perfectly reasonable).

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:21am

    I take it then Sony has about as much respect for the intelligence of europe's politicians and judges as they would a 5-year old, given how blatant this is.

    Of course the truly sad part is, the complete and utter lack of respect for the intelligence of the politicians will no doubt be justified as they don't even bat an eye at this blatant abuse of a broken system.

    Well, it's either that or they believe their latest 'donations' will be enough to let it slip by.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:40am

      Re:

      The politicians don't consider this abuse. They consider it following the law. They'll see nothing at all wrong with this.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:38am

        Re: Re:

        Actually, i expect they'll be thrilled that this is the result of the extension.

        "Look we extended copyright and all this additional content was produced. We should do more extensions!"

        Don't count on any of them considering that this content was already produced and simply unreleased.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:28am

      Re:

      > I take it then Sony has about as much respect for the
      > intelligence of europe's politicians and judges as they
      > would a 5-year old


      Sony has as much respect for anyone as they have for their own customers -- on whose computers they install malware with a rootkit when the audio CD is played on the computer. Each customer then may have to spend a hundred or more dollars to get the malware infestation removed from their computer at their own expense.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gwiz (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:30am

    (Prices for the CD set vary from country to country, from the equivalent of $39 to, in Britain, $138)

    Personally, I wouldn't pay anywhere near that amount unless it was someone other than Bob Dylan singing Bob Dylan's songs.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:42am

    Financial Incentive

    Thank goodness that Bob Dylan wrote those songs almost 50 years ago knowing that the copyright term was going to be extended last year - otherwise he wouldn't have had the incentive to write and perform them.

    Just think, we wouldn't have had those songs if copyright was not extended for another 20 years in 2011!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:43am

    Only a hundred or so copies were released?

    I can't wait to download it!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:30am

      Re:

      You better hurry and download it before other downloaders or those hundred or so copies will be gone!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:33am

        Re: Re:

        That's actually a good line to use when people try to conflate digital copying and physical good theft.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:45am

    FTA

    Because Sony has been considering some tracks on “The 50th Anniversary Collection” for its Bootleg Series, a program of archival releases that now encompasses nine multidisc sets, the company decided to throw a few dozen tracks onto the market, however tenuously, to ensure their ownership.


    As if they couldn't release this material if it wasn't in the public domain.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:49am

    Learned from the twitter: it's available on TPB already in 320K - 139 seeders :)

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:51am

      Re:

      Sony epic fail

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Keroberos (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:55am

      Re:

      Not surprising. Its rarity and subject matter make it a prime candidate for file sharing--not even adding the fact that it's not even available in the country where Dylan was actually from.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:10am

      Re:

      no flac?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      And the pirate douchebags here wonder why such a release was necessary... too funny.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:28am

        Re: Re:

        And the studio douchebags at Sony wonder why piracy is necessary when they released 100 copies to public... too funny

        ftfy

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually if Mike Masnick wasn't so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't have had to point out what I did.

          And if his agenda wasn't simply one of demonizing record labels as a way of rationalizing his beloved piracy, he would have written about something like this:

          http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/20/sony-playstation-plus-music-unlimited-premium/

          But that didn't happen. Because Mike Masnick isn't anything but a shill for giant tech corporations looking to leech off of other people's creative work.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Zakida Paul (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If you were not a 4th generation inbred moron, you would understand the point. Now, kindly fuck off.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Nothing stings a pirate like the truth, eh Freetardo?

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Zakida Paul (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:56am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I don't illegally download and I spend £100 a month on music - try again, dumbass.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:58am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Amazing, people who don't support copyright maximalism and do support cultural preservation are Freetards?

                Wow, that was intellectually stimulating. I think my 2-month old son has more intelligent things to say than you do!

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:12am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Nothing stings a pirate like the truth, eh Freetardo?

                The truth here is that it is the copyright extentionists who have been doing the thieving

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                silverscarcat (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The truth of how horrid copyright is stings, doesn't it, Copyright Apologist?

                FTFY

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Nothing stings a moron like sanity, eh, Anonymo?

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Come on AJ. Who's being intellectually dishonest here, really?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That works the other way around. Why don't you do some research - it's easy - watch youtube videos on the reality of the labels. There are LOTS of insiders telling you the truth, start with Frank Zappa:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0

            Then some even more inside folks
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsCzcZxSLJA

            There are tonnes of explanations of the labels leeching. At least those you claim leech (which they do not) do not charge artists or steal their copyrights!

            You can argue they ignore the right to copy, but that's the corporate owned site of CNet who promoted Limewire.

            Like anything, programs have "good" and "bad" uses and we don't seem to ban guns or cars or planes because they could be used to kill people or collapse buildings.

            There are a lot of legitimate uses of filesharing, but competition (software, music, movies) scares the BSA members, labels, studios.

            That's market interference to uphold monopolies. When the mob did it, it was illegal. Now it's normal? Yeah, whatever buddy.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              OIC, so because there have been some bad actors in the record business (as there are in any business), you feel that rationalizes how you and everyone else here steal everything and anything, everywhere you possibly can.

              You're a fucking idiot.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:01am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Nice strawman.

                You're a fucking idiot.

                And nice ad-hominem attack.

                So far you have not successfully argued against anything in this thread. And you have not disrupted it either, the intelligent discussions will simply flow around you, leaving you behind.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:11am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                there have been some bad actors in the record business


                The music industry is unlike most other industries in that this behavior is systemic. It's not just "some bad actors". It's standard operating procedure for the entire mainstream industry.

                The mainstream music industry is organized crime by any definition.

                This doesn't justify piracy, of course. It justifies depriving the companies of revenue.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  LOL

                  You know absolutely zero about the music business.

                  Just like everyone else here. However you must inflate and make up idiotic scenarios in an attempt to rationalize ripping off musicians.

                  Everyone knows this, but you douchebag's constant lies here means it must constantly be reiterated.

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:29am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    FTFY:

                    LOL

                    We know absolutely zero about the music business, economics, consumer purchases, consumer income, income priority, adaptive practices, and culture.

                    Just like everyone else in our corporate circles. However we must inflate and make up idiotic scenarios in an attempt to rationalize ripping off musicians, consumers, and killing competition.

                    Everyone knows this, but we douchebag's[sic] constant lies here means it must constantly be reiterated to perpetuate our existence.

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:42am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      If you weren't lying you'd demonstrate how all the record labels were ripping off all the musicians all the time.

                      If you weren't lying you'd demonstrate how these labels have been put out of business by the government for breaking the law.

                      If you weren't lying you'd demonstrate how rock stars that don't tour were able to buy nice houses and cars with their record royalties.

                      You're a liar, thief and asshole.

                      You follow a sick sociopathic liar named Mike Masnick, who champions piracy because it's makes his buddies in Silicon Valley rich since they profit off of, and exploit, the work of others without giving them a single dime. You and the rest of your sorry, cretinous pirate buddies have volunteered to be stooges for these robber barons as long they continue to provide you a fix for your pathetic addiction to art- art you clearly have no capacity to create yourself.

                      So don't try to draft me into your or Masnick's reality distortion field, you worthless leech- I've been making music myself and with others for decades and know exactly what the score is.

                      Now kindly go die in a fire. Thanks.

                      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    silverscarcat (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:38am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    If even the Dixie Chicks, back in the late 90s, when they were at their peak, were complaining about how they barely got paid for their records (And Dan Rather pointed out that their latest album had, in 3 months, sold millions), you KNOW the industry's crooked.

                    But, of course, you won't admit to that, now will ya?

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 4:08pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    However you must inflate and make up idiotic scenarios in an attempt to rationalize ripping off musicians.


                    Except that I don't rip off musicians or condone ripping off musicians. I am continually amused that this remains the standard attack line from people who have no actual response, given its utter falsity.

                    Everyone knows this, but your continual lying means it must be constantly reiterated.

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:24am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It was Stalin, Khrushev and Brezhnev who perverted the perfect idea of Communism. If not for these few bad apples, Soviet Union would drown in prosperity already.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                silverscarcat (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:36am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Who's stealing?

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Keroberos (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Eh? What news? An overpriced music streaming service from Sony? Big whoop. Why in the hell would I pay Sony 60 bucks for the first year (after that it goes up to $120 a year) for a music streaming service when I can get Pandora for $36 a year.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Because Mike Masnick isn't anything but a shill for giant tech corporations"

            LOL whut? You're attacking Mike as a tech corporate shill because he didn't write an article promoting a Sony product when you wanted him to? WTF do you think Sony is, genius?

            Maybe you're talking about just the music side of Sony you love so much, but then what really separates Sony's offering from all its existing competitors? The PR blurb you linked to doesn't tell me, other than a temporary discount, which is irrelevant to anything talked about here. Hell, the most recent comments on that article are complaining about the quality and region locking of the product, so that's what would have been relevant to talk about, rather than whatever you think he should write about.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Gwiz (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 2:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            ...he would have written about something like this:


            Why the hell would I want an overpriced music service like that when I can continue to put my mp3's ripped from my extensive CD collection onto any device I own - for free?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 2:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              overpriced music service

              LOL

              Please just shut your piehole already, you idiot douche.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 4:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You're just mad that he has a free legal alternative. Makes your label-happy dick sad, doesn't it?

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Gwiz (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Please just shut your piehole already, you idiot douche.

                Wow. With such a mature, witty retort I almost feel I should concede to your superior intellect.

                Anyways, yes, I feel $60 bucks a year is overpriced for a music service. (I choose not to support Sony monetarily as a general rule anyways, so it's a moot point to me). The $12 price tag is kind of misleading, if you ask me, since you need a "PlayStation Plus subscription" (how much $ is that? Do you need to purchase a PlayStation?) and it's only for a year.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 1:42am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "how much $ is that?

                  $50/year.

                  "Do you need to purchase a PlayStation?"

                  You'd be dumb not to. The PS+ account largely offers subscriptions to PS3/Vita games (which you can't access if you stop paying), on top of a few extra features mostly relating to gaming. It's not bad value if you play a lot of those games, and/or access the other media options available, but you'd have to be a moron to buy it to get the "discount" for the music service. Especially when free and equally priced services with companies like Spotify exist.

                  Of course, you could debate this and even discover why Sony's product is actually worthwhile if people on the pro-corporate side weren't immature assholes who act like kindergarteners when someone points out they have legal competition. If they were capable of explaining why Mike should be covering Sony's product, not attack other commenters for imagined crimes, and explain why it's valuable there might be an interesting discussion, perhaps even some sales if the argument is convincing enough.

                  Alas...

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                techflaws (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:10pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                u mad bro?

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:31am

        Re: Re:

        Could this be in response to corporate douchebags trying to lock it up? Um.. yes! To prove a point that you cannot promote culture by locking it up.

        How many kids are going to run out to buy this overpriced rarities? How many kids can even relate to Dylan?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        gnudist, 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Did you even try to understand what is being talked about? Doesn't look like you did

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        techflaws (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re:

        And the AC shill douchebags here wonder why nobody gives a damn about their whining.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Keroberos (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:50am

    New Reality TV Show Idea: Copyright Hoarders

    The really sad thing is, that this doesn't look like they're trying to profit from this material (which would make this somewhat understandable). It's almost like they're just pathologically hoarding the copyrights because they can--and to hell with any increase in the market for Bob Dylan's music that some freely available studio out-takes and live tracks might bring.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 8:59am

      Re: New Reality TV Show Idea: Copyright Hoarders

      Apparently they're part of a big 50th anniversary box sex Sony is releasing next year (for profit) and for some reason feel like they can't release it and make money without also owning the copyright.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Duke (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:31am

        Re: Re: New Reality TV Show Idea: Copyright Hoarders

        If that is the case, it sort of makes sense. (From my limited understanding of how this works) if they release it next year there will be no copyright in the sound recordings in the EU, as the copyright (first 'fixed' when they were recorded/made) will only last 50 years and then expire. However, if they publish something within those 50 years you get another 50 years (for a total of up to 100 years). Iirc if something falls out of copyright before the extension goes into place, it might not be brought back in for the extra 20 years.

        So publishing today means it will stay in copyright until 31 December 2063/2083. Publishing next year gives them nothing. And that extra copyright will be a nice bump to their balance sheets (even if it has minimal actual value).

        The really interesting thing is that, of course, the copyright in the *underlying songs* will last until 70 years after Bob Dylan (or whoever) dies. So by having the copyright in the sound recordings, they are only stopping the publication of the sound recordings by whoever owns the copyright in the original song (possibly Bob Dylan?). Any other publication would still need a licence.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Duke (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:35am

          Re: Re: Re: New Reality TV Show Idea: Copyright Hoarders

          Having read the article, it seems the recordings are from 1962 and 1963, hence the had to rush it out before the new year. That means the expiry dates will be 31 December 2062/2082. This is what I get for not reading the article...

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:41am

          Re: Re: Re: New Reality TV Show Idea: Copyright Hoarders

          Except even if it's public domain, they own the master recordings and can still release and sell them as definitive, so I don't really see what they or anyone else gains by 50 more years of copyright.

          But basically the 50th anniversary box set is now the 49th anniversary box set.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        silverscarcat (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 11:40am

        Re: Re: New Reality TV Show Idea: Copyright Hoarders

        "Apparently they're part of a big 50th anniversary box sex Sony"

        ... For some reason, I now see the Sony Playstation 1, 2, and 3 getting together with Sony music to make horrible mutant babies.

        ... Someone rule 34 that now!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:24pm

        Re: Re: New Reality TV Show Idea: Copyright Hoarders

        Apparently they're part of a big 50th anniversary box sex Sony is releasing next year

        Could be interesting.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    The Real Michael, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:02am

    Just another reason to never sign a "deal" with a label, as I've stressed time after time. Let 'em have the 20th century and we'll have the 21st.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:04am

    U m a d, b r o ?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2013 @ 9:57am

    Bob Who?

    They probably know that no one is going to be buying anything by Bob Dylan so they only made 100...I wonder if Sony put an rfid chip or root kit in the CDs.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Colin, 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:09am

    From the Rolling Stones article:

    ""This isn't a scheme to make money," a Sony Music source tells Rolling Stone.""

    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sony-releases-limited-edition-86-track-bob-dylan- outtakes-collection-in-europe-20130107

    I'm glad the reporter left out the obvious snickers and "can you believe they're buying this shit?" that must have been in the background when this "source" said that.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Robert (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:41am

    Music Biz not for WallStreet

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPwmHjeTjes

    This makes more sense and explains why the industry changed in the 80's and more so in the 90's.

    Makes much more sense on why things have changed than "piracy" which is the convenient scapegoat.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Donny (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:33pm

    Bob Dylan of all people

    Goddamit, what really pisses me off about this is that this is Bob Dylan, copier extraordinaire, whose music is being locked up.

    As it happens, this very night I was listening to The Times They Are A-Changin'. Small coincidence. But let's go through that album quickly so:

    Track 1. 'The Times They Are a-Changin' - by Dylan's own admission, based off various Irish/Scottish ballads.

    Track 2. 'Ballad of Hollis Brown' - based off an Appalachian tune called 'Pretty Polly'.

    Track 3. 'With God on Our Side' - based off a song of Dominic Behan's called 'The Patriot Game'. (Interesting side-note: the melody is not Behan's own. Which just shows that such borrowing is an ordinary, even healthy, way to go about songwriting and none of this is meant on an attack on Dylan's character.) (Say that to Behan though: he considered Dylan a "plagiarist and a thief").

    (To my ears, tracks 5 and 6, 'North Country Blues' and 'Only a Pawn in Their Game' sound like developed melodies Dylan came across somewhere, the former especially seems Irish/Scottish with its i->VII->i progression. No solid sources on them though, so I'll pass over.)

    Track 7. 'Boots of Spanish Leather' - based off Dylan's own 'Girl From North Country' which in turn was based off the English song 'Scarborough Fair'.

    Track 8. 'When the Ship Comes In' - based off a more contemporary (well, 1928) operatic song Pirate Jenny.

    Track 9. 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll' - based off the Child Ballad Mary Hamilton (no. 173 in that collection).

    Track 10. 'Restless Farewell' - little more than a personalised rewrite of a (still popular) Irish tune called The Parting Glass.

    Now I don't mean to denigrate Dylan. I think he's one of the twentieth century's greatest songwriters, I've huge personal respect for him. But he depended heavily on other people's creativity to achieve what he did (let's not even get started on how derivative the b-sides and outtakes are).

    So that he's locking up all these songs, all this culture, claiming it as his own, and demanding dues for its use...it's simply wrong of him. And not only for its inequality of sharing, but for culture to come: how can the twenty-first century's great songwriters hope to achieve even half what he did, if they can't lean on inspiration such as his but are expected to create all of their own songs whole cloth?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2013 @ 4:03am

      Re: Bob Dylan of all people

      So that he's locking up all these songs, all this culture, claiming it as his own, and demanding dues for its use


      A significant correction, its is Sony who own the copyrights and are locking them up, not Dylan.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Donny (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 5:39am

        Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

        Fair point. From what I've gathered, his attitude reflects theirs and he'd behave much the same if he owned them. But true, he's not to blame really.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2013 @ 7:22am

          Re: Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

          With Sony holding the copyrights on his recordings, they have a significant amount of leverage over Dylan, as they can control whether any of his recorded music is made available for sale.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2013 @ 10:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

            Wrong. Dylan owns the copyrights to those songs.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2013 @ 10:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

          Wrong. Dylan owns the copyrights to those songs.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2013 @ 10:35am

        Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

        Wrong. Dylan owns the copyrights to those songs.

        Which of course Mike Masnick never mentioned.

        Because he's not honest. And he's only interested in flaming record labels because they are being pesky about not letting his SillyCON Valley robber baron buddies leech their content for their uncreative business models.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Robert (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 11:13am

          Re: Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

          Can you back any of that up with a fact? A link maybe?

          How about you call Google, talk to their HR, and confirm that Masnick is an employee, recording the conversation, put it up on YouTube and come here and post the link?

          How about you email Bob Dylan or his reps and ask them who owns the copyrights to the Copyright Extended material, then paste portion of their reply to here?

          Or better yet, since you know so much, why not ask Bob Dylan to comment here?

          Two can play at your game of non-proven "i know" facts:
          I know you're a failed musician, because you would not be so bitter otherwise.
          I know you're not worth purchasing OR your anger is so great you've turned off a majority of your paying market, who'd rather freely acquire (assuming they do - you don't post at real ID so we just have to guess) than support you (again assuming your music is even available).
          I know Bob Dylan is not relevant to the youth of today and is only supported by old farts who can't hear anything and love getting high, listening to Dylan.
          I know people go up to Ozzy Ozborne and say they only know him from his TV show, not his musical artistry (true actually - he says it).
          I know the industry is not dead, but thriving, and the labels have loads of money in offshore bank accounts and are distracting everyone with the piracy tirade, to hide their true intentions - make all music works for hire, they own everything, nothing ever goes into the public domain.
          I know the labels intend to simply steal credit for all work in the public domain, re-release it with a 808 kick drum and call it a house track, so they can copyright it.

          I know you're a true coward, you spew adhominem attacks, you spew a stupendous number of logical fallacies, you have no real career in music (probably afraid to try something new - fuck, even Dylan's website store has interesting reasons to buy - like a harmonica approved by Dylan), and have nothing better to do than to bash others because you don't agree but can't back up your views with facts.

          I know that's a run-on sentence.

          Since I know, I win, woo hoo!

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2013 @ 2:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

            "Can you back any of that up with a fact? A link maybe?"

            I doubt it. Baseless assertions and childish tantrums are his thing, not honestly answered questions, citations or debate. The entire shtick is "I'm right, you're wrong", and any attempt to question him or prove him wrong (usually very easy) just comes with name calling and criminal accusations, never facts.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jameshogg (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 1:50pm

    Ohhhh Ohhhh OHHHHHH!

    Here are lyrics from a band that is also one of the very few that matter:


    They said release 'Remote Control'
    But we didn't want it on the label
    They said, "Fly to Amsterdam"
    The people laughed, but the press went mad

    Ohh, oh, ohh, someone's really smart
    Ohh, oh, ohh, complete control, that's a laugh

    On the last tour, my mates they couldn't get in
    I'd open up the back door but they'd get run out again
    At every hotel, we was met by the law
    Come for the party, come to make sure

    Ohh, oh, ohh, have we done something wrong?
    Ohh, oh, ohh, complete control, even over this song

    You're my guitar hero!!

    They said we'd be artistically free
    When we signed that bit of paper
    They meant let's make a lotsa money
    And worry about it later

    Ohh, oh, ohh, I'll never understand
    Ohh, oh, ohh, complete control, let me see your other hand

    I don't trust you, why should you trust me?
    —Huh?
    All over news, spread fast
    They're dirty, they're filthy
    They ain't a gonna last

    (Total) This is Joe Public speaking
    (C-O-N, Control)
    I'm controlled in the body
    I'm controlled in the mind

    (Total) This is punk rockers
    (C-O-N, Control)
    We're controlled in the price
    Of the hard drugs we must have to find

    Total C-O-N, Control
    Total (Parent! Control!)
    C-O-N, Control

    We've gotta ??????
    (C-O-N, Control)
    That means you
    I kick it, I fight it, I gotta get up at it
    (C-O-N, Control)
    I gotta kick it

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ojpetho (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 9:31am

    who cares he sucks

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    uhjim (profile), 10 Jan 2013 @ 3:30pm

    human nature vs black, white and grey

    "When somethings's not right it's wrong" vs copyright.
    "Don't follow leaders watch your parking meters" vs listening to the lawyers.
    I wish you could do coke commercials to fund your estate while giving all the good stuff away for free, but things are never as simple as that.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

The Last Word

“
I invite any IP maximalist (our usual critics) to come here and tell us with a straight face that this is promoting culture and encouraging people to create more music. I dare you.

I will not be surprised with the replies given the level of hypocrisy, trolling and complete and utter douchebagness displayed by Sony.
—Ninja
 ”

Developer Of Bookmaking Software Gets Full Kim Dotcom Treatment For 'Promoting Gambling'
Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.