When I heard that Apple Records were digitally releasing a 59-track album of various 1963 bootlegs by The Beatles, I thought “huh, sounds like a cash grab.” Then when I heard that the album is only being released so that it will extend copyrights on the tracks within for another few decades, I thought “huh, sounds dumb.” And when I learned just now that the release was only available on iTunes for a few hours early this morning before being removed from the store, I thought “now that’s obnoxious.” There is no longer anywhere you can buy the release. If you missed it, too bad.
Sure, it’s mainly tracks that have been floating around Beatles bootlegs for ages, but supposedly in slightly better quality. More insulting is the fact that the entire release was masterminded solely for benefit of the royalty owners rather than music fans. These are tracks for which Apple Records seems to have no plans for a legitimate release (hence the delay until it was absolutely “necessary”), and yet they want to effectively ensure that you won’t hear them in decent quality for at least another twenty years. Thanks guys.
I have to say my jaw dropped in disbelief when I read, from The Telegraph, “Without this little manoeuvre, a flood of cheap, sub-standard Beatles albums would have soon started appearing, with profits going to any enterprising salesman who could think of a catchy way to market the freely accessible songs.” Too bad! That’s capitalism, baby, and if you don’t like it, don’t release your music. In the EU, you have 50 (now 70) years to make your money on the music and then it belongs to the people. Can you name a single example of a work of art, in any medium, that has had its brand image sullied by entrance into the public domain? The vast majority of artwork predates the copyright system completely, and we still worship the Mona Lisa and Starry Night. But because of lobbyists and copyright warriors, no books entered the public domain in the US in 2013.
So the chances are that you missed out on “Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963” and the record industry keeps milking old product and giving the finger to the fans. In fifteen years from now, when copyright extensions mean it will still cost you a fortune to put a Beatles song in your movie, if you’re allowed to at all, don’t say I didn’t warn you. Then again, maybe the remaining Fab Four really do need the money, Paul seems to be low on shirts.
h/t: Consequence of Sound, The Telegraph, NY Times | Image: TheBeatles.com