Unreleased 1963 Beatles Tracks On Sale To Preserve Copyright 230
Taco Cowboy writes "Back in 1963, the Beatles did some performances for the BBC and other places. The songs were recorded, but never officially released. Now, 50 years later, Apple has packaged all 59 tracks together and put them up for sale on iTunes for $40. The reason? Copyright. The copyright for unreleased works expires 50 years after the works are recorded. By releasing the 59 tracks on iTunes before the end of December, the songs will be protected under copyright law for 20 more years."
Re:yea right (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that the entire purpose of copyright law? To encourage the release of artwork? Is this not a perfect example of copyright working as intended?
Similar to Bob Dylan (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:All the more reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an example of the silliness of copyright law: Because my late grandfather collected and arranged a folk song in upstate New York in the 1950's that eventually became a skiffle hit in the UK, my family gets a check each year from sales of recordings we had basically nothing to do with creating, for work done about 60 years ago by someone who has been dead for over 30 years. Now, it's not a very large check these days, but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.
On the upside, it is also the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, so I'd at least have something to talk about if I ended up face to face with Paul McCartney for some reason.
Re:All the more reason (Score:3, Interesting)
so if your grandfather had invested in a building that rented out for his lifetime, it would be silly for you for continue to receive benefit from his idea and work?
Re:All the more reason (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright was supposed to be for the public benefit with a severely LIMITED term. Now Copyrights just get extended to eternity and nothing falls into the public domain, so piss off corporate shill....