Apple Records last night quietly released 59 studio outtakes by the Beatles, including the unreleased “Bad to Me,” as downloads on iTunes. The tracks were only fleetingly available before being withdrawn. From what I can gather they were never available on the U.S. iTunes site. The stunt was pulled in order to extend the phonographic copyright on the tracks, which was set to expire if the recordings had remained unreleased. Now, even though there was almost no opportunity for anyone to purchase the recordings, they are technically published and the Beatles’ organization has bought itself an extra 20 years of copyright.
It’s such a fine line between stupid and clever.
Ah, apparently they were “available” in the U.S. as well. There is now an icon among the other Beatles albums on iTunes to a collection titled Bootleg Recordings 1963, but it’s a dead link.
Argh. So close and yet so far.
The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963 is available right now on iTunes (US); 59 tracks listed at $1.29 each, or $39.99 for the album.
Yaaaaaaargh! Tis a pirate’s life for me.
I’m not missing out on any Beatles due to any technicalities.
Good news! I hope they don’t disappear again. I’ve snapped 'em up myself.
Just bought it. I wasn’t in that big a hurry to get it, but if it may disappear soon, I figured I’d better not hesitate.
It looks like this shrewd marketing move is working.
I knew someone would say that! 
But this is SO unlike Apple’s* usual modus operandi that I don’t believe for a second that it’s a gimmick. If it were, there would have been a **ton **more publicity for it. Apple really did try to keep this under wraps, and it wasn’t easy to find out about.
*That’s Apple as in Beatles, not Apple as in iTunes.
Man, John Lennon is worse than Tupac - been dead 30 years and still releasing music !
They’ve both got a long way to go to match Hendrix.
See, I dunno. The thing is listed on iTunes as “Mastered for iTunes”, which implies not only a specific intent to release it, but a specific intent to clean it up in order to do so. I don’t know where the Telegraph got its information regarding the “temporary” release and copyright boondoggle, but it appears to be an ordinary release at this point, with the possibility it was made available in error earlier due to some glitch and subsequently properly released. Aside from which, what purpose does withdrawing the music have anyway? Once it’s published, the copyright extends, so why release and then immediately withdraw it when you know you can make money from fans wanting to buy it?
From what I understand, the Beatles really did not want this material released. If they wanted to make money off of the tracks, they could have done so long ago. This was a move to head off the unauthorized releases of the material that would appear if the tracks went into public domain. Ironically, Apple had to release the recordings in order to continue to sit on them.
(It does seem to me that the Beatles should still be able to suppress unauthorized releases even without extending the phonographic copyright, as there is still the separate copyright on the actual songs–at least those written by the Beatles–as well as the trademark on the Beatles name.)
Doesn’t the expiration time on copyright start from when something is first published? If these had never been released until whatever happened here, how could they have an expiring copyright? How DO you determine copyright date for unreleased material?
Apparently in the UK, the new law provides an implied copyright for unreleased tracks starting the year it was recorded and lasting for 50 years.