Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   How a Beatles superfan from the 60s ended up getting a thank you in the liner notes of an official Beatles compilation, all because she taped their music off the radio. Music pirate   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: CSB  
•       •       •

1272 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 May 2022 at 1:20 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-16 1:41:16 PM  
Cool story, Sis!
 
2022-05-16 1:46:05 PM  
that's awesome!  (as someone who's taped 15-20 shows over the past decade or so, between Bob Weir, The Cult, Depeche Mode, U2, Tedeschi Trucks Band, Calexico, Foo Fighters, etc.)

my best friend's parents are in their 70s,and turns out they lived in Liverpool in the early 60s.  We hung out and when this came up, I said, "i'm a huge, huge, HUGE Beatles fan, and, I have to ask - "

"Oh yes, we saw them all the time!"  My jaw hit the floor.

His mom worked in the city center and would go to the Cavern Club often.  "we saw them dozens and dozens of times.  They were just a local band.  They weren't, you know, The Beatles, in terms of fame, just a bunch of knockabout lads.  My pal and I would have dinner with them after the shows, quite often.  I fancied John, and Pul fancied my friend. One time we went out and I was famished.  John had a half eaten sandwich and I asked if I could have the rest.  He said of course!"

"then they went down to London and became, you know, "The Beatles".  They started playing bigger places and we never got to see them again.  But they were always 'our lads', we were with them from the start."

"When John died, it was just..............years on, it saddens me.  i knew him when he was just another bloke with a band, knockin' about in this club, that club....we were friends. he knew my name.  Just a dreadful ending."

i was absolutely astonished.  i asked her if she was putting me on and she laughed, "oh no, every word is true."
 
2022-05-16 1:51:45 PM  
I thought it would be fun to put out the old programmes ..., so I contacted the BBC for permission to air them.
In my naivety, I thought this would be a formality, as it had been nearly 60 years since the programmes were made and I was not seeking to profit from the broadcast. However, a BBC operative told me that it had copies of the programmes in its archive and would 'not approve' the upload of my versions to any site, adding that there were 'quite complex issues with the use of Beatles materials across BBC, or external, sites'.  . . . It seems mean-spirited of the BBC not to allow these little time capsules to be broadcast, either by me or by the Corporation. I cannot believe there are copyright issues that cannot be solved.  So come on, Auntie, and give us a break - and let us hear these fantastic shows again!


You got paid for your tapes.  The BBC converted your tapes into albums that they then sold to fans.  If you put out the remainder of your tapes for free, that circle of life can't continue for future profit-making iterations.  From the BBC's perspective, this has nothing to do with "letting us hear these fantastic shows again" and everything to do with making more money. Filter everything through that lens and you'll understand the process just fine.
 
2022-05-16 1:52:10 PM  
That's a terrific story.
 
2022-05-16 2:12:42 PM  
I love how she has a dig on the beeb at the end.
 
2022-05-16 2:14:18 PM  
does not approve
i.makeagif.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-16 2:42:23 PM  

mekkab: I love how she has a dig on the beeb at the end.


Boomers...
 
2022-05-16 4:01:37 PM  

mekkab: I love how she has a dig on the beeb at the end.


Fark user imageView Full Size
?
 
2022-05-16 4:53:53 PM  
Sometime around 1981-82 there was a national syndicated FM radio broadcast called The Beatles at the Beeb, and it was all previously unreleased (at the point) "live"-on-air Beatles performances with short interviews and chatter. In my area of Ohio at the time it was broadcast for at least 4 hours (maybe more) one Sunday afternoon. All I had was one 90 minute mid quality cassette to spare so I taped as much of it as I could and listened to the rest, bumming that I couldn't get the whole program. But what I got was incredible. And this would have been before Ms. Ashworth handed over her tapes.

A decade later when the first Beatles Live on the BBC cd came out I was stoked to finally have better quality recordings, but almost half of what was on my tape wasn't on the cd. I was finally able to retire the cassette when the On Air: Live at the BBC Vol 2. cds came out a decade after that. And I'm fairly certain there's still more I heard that day of the original broadcast that hasn't been released.
 
2022-05-16 8:15:12 PM  

Uzzah: I thought it would be fun to put out the old programmes ..., so I contacted the BBC for permission to air them.
In my naivety, I thought this would be a formality, as it had been nearly 60 years since the programmes were made and I was not seeking to profit from the broadcast. However, a BBC operative told me that it had copies of the programmes in its archive and would 'not approve' the upload of my versions to any site, adding that there were 'quite complex issues with the use of Beatles materials across BBC, or external, sites'.  . . . It seems mean-spirited of the BBC not to allow these little time capsules to be broadcast, either by me or by the Corporation. I cannot believe there are copyright issues that cannot be solved.  So come on, Auntie, and give us a break - and let us hear these fantastic shows again!

You got paid for your tapes.  The BBC converted your tapes into albums that they then sold to fans.  If you put out the remainder of your tapes for free, that circle of life can't continue for future profit-making iterations.  From the BBC's perspective, this has nothing to do with "letting us hear these fantastic shows again" and everything to do with making more money. Filter everything through that lens and you'll understand the process just fine.


She should have negotiated that into the contract.
 
2022-05-16 8:26:15 PM  

Uzzah: You got paid for your tapes.  The BBC converted your tapes into albums that they then sold to fans.  If you put out the remainder of your tapes for free, that circle of life can't continue for future profit-making iterations.  From the BBC's perspective, this has nothing to do with "letting us hear these fantastic shows again" and everything to do with making more money. Filter everything through that lens and you'll understand the process just fine.


It was EMI, the record label, that bought the tapes and restored them, and while the BBC would have owned the copyright on the show they would not have owned the copyright on individual songs performed. They would have paid royalties to the label that owned them for one broadcast, but the copyright would have remained with the original label or publisher.
So legally it is highly unlikely the BBC has the right to give permission for these tapes to be broadcast. Someone owns the rights, and back cataloge is a huge business.

/The BBC actually have a rather unique broadcast deal. They play a flat rate no matter what they broadcast. Charlie Brooker poked fun at this by playing a clip of Sgt Pepper on his show, saying that thanks to the BBC flat rate any BBC show can play pretty much any music without having to pay a penny, but he wasn't allowed to show the cover of the Sgt Pepper album because then his producers would have to pay hundreds of pounds for the rights.
 
2022-05-16 8:28:06 PM  

mekkab: I love how she has a dig on the beeb at the end.


The Daily Mail hates the BBC.

Strangely they never bother to inform their readers that they are major shareholders in ITN, direct competitors to BBC News.
 
2022-05-16 8:31:20 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: She should have negotiated that into the contract.


She might have owned a physical copy of a broadcast, but she wouldn't have owned the rights. She's lucky if she got anything for them. They could have offered her £5 and threatened to sue her for making an illegal recording if she didn't agree. From the sound of it they did the decent thing and gave her something reasonable.
 
2022-05-16 9:35:33 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: She should have negotiated that into the contract.

She might have owned a physical copy of a broadcast, but she wouldn't have owned the rights. She's lucky if she got anything for them. They could have offered her £5 and threatened to sue her for making an illegal recording if she didn't agree. From the sound of it they did the decent thing and gave her something reasonable.


Beatles music is still used today. You just need to negotiate usage. I'm sure if you ask Paris Jackson nicely she will cut you a deal LOL

I thought the recording of BBC was deemed in the interest of the public and allowable?
 
2022-05-16 10:21:09 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Beatles music is still used today. You just need to negotiate usage.


But she had (almost) nothing to negotiate with. She owned a physical recording. No different to you owning a CD of Thriller. That allows you to listen to it in your own home but that's it. You don't own the rights. You can't broadcast it, use it in a movie, sell copies, anything.
She just happened to own the only good physical recording of some live performances. She could sell it to them, they were the Beatles label, but probably no one else. No other broadcaster or label would buy them because without the rights there would be nothing they could have done with them. Even for EMI the rights would have been tricky. The BBC would own the broadcast, the Beatles would own their performance and the writer/publisher of each song would still own the rights to that song. There could be dozens of people and companies who would have to sign off on the CD, with each getting their cut.
 
2022-05-16 10:25:42 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Beatles music is still used today. You just need to negotiate usage.

But she had (almost) nothing to negotiate with. She owned a physical recording. No different to you owning a CD of Thriller. That allows you to listen to it in your own home but that's it. You don't own the rights. You can't broadcast it, use it in a movie, sell copies, anything.
She just happened to own the only good physical recording of some live performances. She could sell it to them, they were the Beatles label, but probably no one else. No other broadcaster or label would buy them because without the rights there would be nothing they could have done with them. Even for EMI the rights would have been tricky. The BBC would own the broadcast, the Beatles would own their performance and the writer/publisher of each song would still own the rights to that song. There could be dozens of people and companies who would have to sign off on the CD, with each getting their cut.


Anything can be negotiated. She could have sold the tapes to anyone.
 
2022-05-17 1:17:09 AM  
"I have no way of knowing whether the BBC versions are as good as mine. They may have come from one of the other six sets of CDs made at Abbey Road."

Can anyone explain this? I'm confused.
 
2022-05-17 8:09:45 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Carter Pewterschmidt: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Beatles music is still used today. You just need to negotiate usage.

But she had (almost) nothing to negotiate with. She owned a physical recording. No different to you owning a CD of Thriller. That allows you to listen to it in your own home but that's it. You don't own the rights. You can't broadcast it, use it in a movie, sell copies, anything.
She just happened to own the only good physical recording of some live performances. She could sell it to them, they were the Beatles label, but probably no one else. No other broadcaster or label would buy them because without the rights there would be nothing they could have done with them. Even for EMI the rights would have been tricky. The BBC would own the broadcast, the Beatles would own their performance and the writer/publisher of each song would still own the rights to that song. There could be dozens of people and companies who would have to sign off on the CD, with each getting their cut.

Anything can be negotiated. She could have sold the tapes to anyone.


But anyone else buying them would not have been able to do anything with them except listen to them in private.

I could sell you my CD of Pink Floyd The Wall. That doesn't mean you can sell copies on Amazon, broadcast it, perform it in public etc.
 
2022-05-17 11:31:39 AM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Beatles music is still used today. You just need to negotiate usage.

But she had (almost) nothing to negotiate with. She owned a physical recording. No different to you owning a CD of Thriller. That allows you to listen to it in your own home but that's it. You don't own the rights. You can't broadcast it, use it in a movie, sell copies, anything.
She just happened to own the only good physical recording of some live performances. She could sell it to them, they were the Beatles label, but probably no one else. No other broadcaster or label would buy them because without the rights there would be nothing they could have done with them. Even for EMI the rights would have been tricky. The BBC would own the broadcast, the Beatles would own their performance and the writer/publisher of each song would still own the rights to that song. There could be dozens of people and companies who would have to sign off on the CD, with each getting their cut.


She had a lot to negotiate with.  She had the best know recording of something that was played over the air once that EMI thought they could make a lot of money on by releasing on CD.

Clearly without her they would have had crappy tinny recordings of the thing.  So either she sells her tapes to them or they don't get to make a bunch of money.

Since we do not know how much she got out of the deal, or how much EMI made we have no idea if she got a good deal or not.

Given she is an unsophisticated dealer and EMI likely had a bunch of high priced lawyers we can surmise the answer is she got screwed.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.