2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

General music and other artist discussions.
User avatar
Ziggy C
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:10 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 125 times

2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by Ziggy C »

Just a heads up that another tranche of Pink Floyd recordings has been officially and clandestinely released to streaming services. This time around it's 18 recordings from 1972, aka the pre-Dark Side Of The Moon era. They were touring Meddle and Obscured By Clouds. But they were also presenting an embryonic version of what would become their greatest and best-selling album. This is yet another chapter in what is more commonly referred to as a "copyright dump." An avenue many artists take to preserve their copyright. Dumps such as these, at least in the UK, extend the copyright from 50 years to 70 years. Adding another twenty years before the recordings potentially lapse into the public domain.

Those who are aware, probably already have these in some form or another. The versions Pink Floyd has released are most likely the same ones already in circulation.

https://variety.com/2022/music/news/pin ... 235465265/
User avatar
yymca6
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 1:02 pm
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 594 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by yymca6 »

I listened to the Carnegie Hall version, awful sound.
Yves
zaval80
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:19 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by zaval80 »

Yeeshkul! folks say these are godawful, some title is even from 1974 pretending to be 1972. Pink Floyd are bootlegging the bootlegs.
User avatar
Ziggy C
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:10 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by Ziggy C »

There are but a few decent LIVE recordings from back then. Most of those are from radio broadcasts which were already officially released on The Early Years set.Beyond that there are a couple soundboards. And a ton of marginal audience recordings. No doubt that's what's in the latest batch. It's not meant to bring full spectrum sound to light. Its meant to keep it out of the public domain.

Bootlegging the bootleggers. So that's a stream from a CD of a tape of a tape of a tape.
User avatar
Mr Bump
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:01 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by Mr Bump »

Isn't the idea that these recordings will fall out of copyright completely if not released? The release now gives them 70 years' protection from today?
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 4598
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 3936 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by Lord Reith »

What a shame we missed all The Beatles copyright dumps. The 1969 one that leaked shows that in all likelihood there was one every year for the past ten years, if we'd been paying attention.

I'm still of the opinion that the Bootlegs 1963 "release" was only meant to be available for a day, and the only reason it was reinstated after it's sudden disappearance was that Wogblog had made all the fans aware of it in advance and there was an almighty stink when it vanished suddenly. Without that heads up, we probably all would have missed that too. As I recall it was available for no more than a few hours in Australia and a few other countries in that timezone before it vanished.

I can also remember that after that what were probably Apple minions were going around all the forums insisting that there would be no more copyright dumps of The Beatles because they had found a legal workaround. Sure.
Women there don't treat you mean, in Abilene
cooryder
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:22 pm
Location: London

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by cooryder »

Fascinating thread, and clearly I am not up to speed on these copyright dumps.

@LordReith, what have we missed out on, to your knowledge?

Thanks,

coo
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 4598
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 3936 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by Lord Reith »

cooryder wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 2:06 pm Fascinating thread, and clearly I am not up to speed on these copyright dumps.

@LordReith, what have we missed out on, to your knowledge?

Thanks,

coo
I am only guessing. But that 1969 copyright dump on Spotify was 100% kosher since it was made by UMG and Calderstones. And it followed very closely the format laid down by the 1963 itunes bootleg: large swathes of material to cover the most obvious contenders (like the full Get back album) and a selection of outtakes from a variety of sessions (like with the 1963 boot, they figured that only including two or three takes would mess up any attempt at a public domain release sufficiently to not have to include them all).

Whether there would have been anything worth having we can't know. They could have just used all bootleg sources.
Women there don't treat you mean, in Abilene
User avatar
Ziggy C
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:10 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by Ziggy C »

Lord Reith wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:55 pm
I am only guessing. But that 1969 copyright dump on Spotify was 100% kosher since it was made by UMG and Calderstones. And it followed very closely the format laid down by the 1963 itunes bootleg: large swathes of material to cover the most obvious contenders (like the full Get back album) and a selection of outtakes from a variety of sessions (like with the 1963 boot, they figured that only including two or three takes would mess up any attempt at a public domain release sufficiently to not have to include them all).

Whether there would have been anything worth having we can't know. They could have just used all bootleg sources.
UPDATE: I suppose I stand corrected on some, but not all of this. Things going online for 30 seconds? One hour? And then getting pulled? But there still has to be some smidgen of detail as to what was included besides a blanket "BBC Sessions" or "Twickenham" description. Right?

LR, the multitudes of Beatle fans continually scour the net for stuff such as the 1963 dump. I find it highly unlikely that subsequent dumps were made at all. A couple things which support this notion. 1) We'd all have them. 2) There would have been similar online announcement articles (Rolling Stone, Ultimate Booteg, etc.)

Yeah, I can see that when such a loaf is pinched, it is flushed nearly immediately due to the rapidly spreading aroma. (Live in that analogy for a bit, eh?)
But there would be a digital paper trail. Beyond 1963 there is none.

As for copyright extension,...it is my belief that the extension is for an additional 20 years. Not for a full 70 additional years. As I read it, the intent is to extend the initial copyright from 50 to 70 years in the UK. Not from 50 to 120 years.

Have I got this wrong?
User avatar
Mr Bump
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:01 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: 2022 Pink Floyd Copyright Extension Dump

Post by Mr Bump »

It would ne nice to have some definitive answers but the situation is confusing. Everywhere I look I see confusing claims where they talk about publication of musical works etc, which is open to interpretation.

The UK government website today says "50 years from the year in which the sound recording was made. If during that period the sound recording is published or made available to the public (e.g. by being played in public or broadcast), copyright lasts for 70 years from that year."

It's that last but which is ambiguous. What do they mean by "that year"? Maybe the year the recording was made, or maybe the year it's made available.

As for the other Beatles copyright dumps, I've never heard of that before and like Ziggy I am sceptical. Beatles fans are hot on anything - a little notice on Paul's site or an image pops up on Beatles.com and it's all over the web. I can't imagine six years's worth of outtakes were put out and no-one noticed and took at least a screen grab of the playlist. Maybe they have some way of doing it which keeps it hidden or obscure? Would like to know more.
Post Reply