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

from the copyright-at-work dept

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,, 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.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: sony music

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: 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?

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Andrew Heenan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

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.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: 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.

nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile) says:

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!

jupiterkansas (profile) says:


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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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:

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.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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:

Then some even more inside folks

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.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:


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.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:



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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 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.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Please don’t discount the possibility that he is Gene Simmons. That would actually make a lot of sense…

-Grumpy old fist waving man sense of entitlement – Check

-No actual argument so resorts to vague statements and ad homs – Check

-Finds a way to look more ridiculous by opening his mouth than dressing up in a homo-erotic devil costume – Check

I’d say he’s 97.6% probably Gene Simmons

Killercool (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Point by point.

They are not ripping off ALL musicians ALL the time. Just MANY, MOST of the time.

They are NOT breaking the law, they got the law changed to suit their desires.

Rock stars do NOT buy nice houses off of royalties, they buy them from ADVANCES. They usually never see royalties in the amounts they are truly due.

And I believe, rereading your transparently counter-able arguments, that I have just been trolled by someone who agrees with me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Point by point.

I don’t a “citation” for .1; he’s the one that needs show many record labels are stealing from bands most of the time.
2. No law was changed making it legal to steal from bands.
3. Bands that haven’t made records for a year or more font get advances, they get royalties. That’s how they live if unable to tour.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Point by point.


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Point by point.

hahahaha all links to tech blogs; all you’re doing is proving my point about what Masnick and the rest of the SillyCon Valley robber barons are doing.

And Courtney Love?

Her husband has been dead and unable to tour for almost 20 years. Funny how she and their daughter are still getting paid.

You people are lying scum.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Point by point.

1; he’s the one that needs show many record labels are stealing from bands most of the time.

I have some of those:

2. No law was changed making it legal to steal from bands.

Not for lack of Mitch Glazier trying though:

And I am sure there are numerous other instances like this throughout history.

3. Bands that haven’t made records for a year or more font get advances, they get royalties. That’s how they live if unable to tour.

Sure they get advances – which are pretty much never recouped:

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Point by point.

You are aware all those links cite there sources, right? You might not know this but it’s true and a fact. So basically, those links are all citations that prove the point made which proves you wrong.

Secondly, got a citation that any of those are “lying propaganda from Google employee Mike Masnick”? Or should we just call you hypocrite now and be done with it?

Oh, and before you try and cite Techdirt and the article about Google, keep in mind that what Google presented when asked was NOT a list of people they employ. It was a list of ANYONE AND EVERYONE who had written about their specific court case against Java.

You really are horrible at this point-counterpoint thing. I’m tempted to just say, “Jane, you ignorant slut” and call it a day. But that’d give you too much credence and respectability, but only because I called you that thus making the reference to Point-Counterpoint from SNL and the fact that Jane actually used facts and evidence in her rebuttals against Dan Aykroyd, which he did too. Something you are unable to do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Point by point.

Their source is David Lowery

Of course anyone who doesn’t think copyright maximalism and the 90’s were the way to do things is a shill apparently.

I’m sure we saw this before, all those women strangled to death thanks to Vivendi’s VCR-Boston Strangler claim.. wait? The industry made a shit load of money once they adapted? What an odd concept!

Maybe Lowery can get in his 1985 Delorian, travel exactly 88mph when a bolt of lightning containing 1.21GW of electrical power, channeling it right into the flux capacitor. Then he could go back to 1992, when his album was selling well and he was bitching about being a slave to the system.

Then he could kill Sean Fanning (and why not make Microsoft happy and take out Linus Torvalds) and life would be so grand for him in 2012. After all, no one pays for music anymore, not a single person.

Or could it be he’s so good at biting the hand that feeds him, beyond his loyally blind fans, and alienating any potential customers with rants against the only industry left that can help him (if he could stop hating them so much), the tech industry.

Maybe Lowery should just go work for the RIAA.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:6 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?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“how much $ is that?


“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.


Keroberos (profile) says:

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.

Duke (profile) says:

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.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

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.

Colin (user link) says:

From the Rolling Stones article:

“”This isn’t a scheme to make money,” a Sony Music source tells Rolling Stone.””

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.

Donny (profile) says:

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Robert (profile) says:

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!

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

jameshogg says:

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?
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

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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