Radio broadcasts being mastered and sold -- what's going on?

[Samsara]

In the last few years, as I've scanned online and gone through record shops, I'm seeing more and more radio broadcast shows, that were once full-on "bootlegs" I collected, being mastered, cleaned up (to varying degrees), re-packaged, and legitimately sold.

I've noticed titles being released in Europe first (Amazon.co.uk, .de, etc.), and then slowly make their way here to the U.S. Guns N Roses, Alice in Chains, Queensryche, Soundgarden, and yes, even Dream Theater.

I know there's a distinction in the copyright laws of the U.S. and Europe, but does anyone have any detailed information about this uptick in releases?

On one hand, as a music junkie, it's awesome to have some shows I loved on silvers that I can actually purchase (I picked up Queensryche's 1984 Detroit gig -- now called Storming Detroit -- and various other gigs from the bands I mentioned above). On the other hand, it's quite obvious these are unauthorized and cheaply done. However, if they are on Amazon, and also at CD stores, the bands (I would think) could stop it if they really wanted to.

It creates a bit of a conundrum for me, because on one hand, I support the bands I like, but I am sure they are not seeing a dime from these. However, I also know they could stop it if they really chose to, and they perhaps don't because it just helps promote the band by having more titles (even if not authorized) out there. The quality of course varies, but the ones I've gotten, at least an effort was made to clean things up just a little.

So, does anyone have any further details about this issue? It seems to be happening with more frequency, and the lawyer in me knows there's absolutely a copyright discrepancy going on. But it's been years since I followed copyright that closely.

[Setlist Scotty]

I read somewhere that there's apparently some sort of loophole in a European(?) country (maybe Italy?) that allows specifically for radio broadcasts to be released in a legal fashion. So that's why you're starting to see all these unsanctioned radio broadcasts being released (but not for instance, soundboard or audience recordings). I haven't looked for them recently, but whenever I saw them (first one that comes to mind is Rush ABC 1974) they were always "imports" into the US, never domestic releases. Dunno what efforts are being made to patch up the loophole, but obviously it hasn't happened yet and it seems that bands/artists have been powerless to stop them from happening.

[Stadler]

I'm not an expert, at either foreign copyright law or copyright import/export law, but this is my understanding more or less. 

Some artists are pro-actively releasing the material to get ahead of it (I'm pretty sure that Maiden, Tull and KISS have done something like that). 

[lonestar]

Well, if this is happening, hopefully they can master the old BBC Pink Floyd recording from after the Meddle album that had mindblowing versions of Echoes and Atom Heart Mother.

[TAC]

I've bought a few and been totally happy with them. KISS, Aerosmith, and Queensryche.

[Mosh]

Cool you opened a topic for this, was going to post the following response in the QR thread but I'll paste it here so we don't derail that discussion:

Re Bootlegs: Anyone following the Iron Maiden thread knows I like bootlegs, although I'm not sure I need to buy them when they're available for free online more often than not. However, the way I see a lot of these broadcasts, they're filling a void that could easily be filled by the band. The bands are also certainly aware of them and don't find it worth the effort to take them down.

[Ben_Jamin]

I bought a Pantera one from when they released Cowboys From Hell, so it has some older Power Metal songs.

[Kwyjibo]

For a long time there were radiobroadcasts sold on professional looking compact discs at large recordstore-chains in Germany. They were clearly not authorized by the bands and varied in quality.
I heard back then that this was kind of legal, as long as the companies that produced these cds payed the artist in question. And the companies did this by giving a fee to GEMA, GEMA being a german organization that manages the copyright for the artists and gives them money for performances or usages of their songs on a somewhat complicated distribution basis. But then I'm no legal expert so maybe I understood this wrong.

I haven't seen a lot of these in the last few years, but maybe this kind of loophole still exists?

[Stadler]

Well, if this is happening, hopefully they can master the old BBC Pink Floyd recording from after the Meddle album that had mindblowing versions of Echoes and Atom Heart Mother.

Aren't those on the "Crea/tion" sets that came out a couple months ago?  You should  look into that.

[Samsara]

Dunno what efforts are being made to patch up the loophole, but obviously it hasn't happened yet and it seems that bands/artists have been powerless to stop them from happening.

I don't think they are powerless. I think it's a matter of them not thinking it is worth the effort to do so. Plus, it is additional marketing.

...

Adding to the topic, I'll throw out there something else I've seen more readily -- radio station master reels of these live shows popping up for sale. For example, I've had Queensryche's 1997 live show broadcasted from the Very Large Array in New Mexico on a silver bootleg for almost 20 years. It's not the whole show, but it is the entirety of the radio broadcast.

But about a year and a half ago, I purchased the actual reel that was sent out to radio stations to broadcast that show with on replay. I am sure it is one of a bunch of similar reels sent to various stations. But the point is, I spent like $20 bucks for this reel, and then another $20 to have to transferred and mastered to .wav, just on a whim to to take a chance and see if it was the COMPLETE gig, not just the broadcast (it wasn't, it was only the broadcast).

So, for a VERY limited investment, I have to imagine people are buying reels, having them transferred, starting up a company, and putting these gigs out. Now, that may seem shady, but it brought to mind whether, if the radio station sold these reels off (which happens), and the stations owned the copyright in the particular broadcast because of that, it is possible that the conversion and re-sale of the gigs in CD/digital format is legal. What IS NOT legal, however (I assume), is that I believe, at least in the U.S., that bands are supposed to be paid a percentage each time that gig is broadcast, so it follows that they probably also should be getting some sort of royalty for the sale of these broadcast CDs, which, of course, they aren't.

But maybe it is SO minor, that the value the bands derive, marketing-wise, from having this on the shelf, doesn't make it worth pursing.

[SoundscapeMN]

I have a Queensryche recording from the Promised Land tour where the on-air people did almost like a play-by-play sporting event broadcast.

not sure if that's the Queensryche one people are referring to.

[Setlist Scotty]

So, for a VERY limited investment, I have to imagine people are buying reels, having them transferred, starting up a company, and putting these gigs out. Now, that may seem shady, but it brought to mind whether, if the radio station sold these reels off (which happens), and the stations owned the copyright in the particular broadcast because of that, it is possible that the conversion and re-sale of the gigs in CD/digital format is legal. What IS NOT legal, however (I assume), is that I believe, at least in the U.S., that bands are supposed to be paid a percentage each time that gig is broadcast, so it follows that they probably also should be getting some sort of royalty for the sale of these broadcast CDs, which, of course, they aren't.

I could be wrong and I certainly cannot speak for all the releases that are coming out this way, but from what I've read about the Rush (1974, 1975, 1980) and DT (1993) ones, it sounds like these broadcasts were taken from the well circulated bootlegs, rather than from pre-broadcast tapes. Granted, I know in the case of the 1974 Rush show, that the pre-broadcast version was circulating, but I'm almost 100% positive that the same is *not* true of the DT show. So I wouldn't honestly expect these loophole finding people to be looking at the most legitimate (expensive) ways to get source material, as they are just making a quick buck (not unlike the makers of all the old silvers of yesteryear). If they actually cared, I would expect much better packaging and whatnot than the slapped together crap that they put out.

[ytserush]

So, for a VERY limited investment, I have to imagine people are buying reels, having them transferred, starting up a company, and putting these gigs out. Now, that may seem shady, but it brought to mind whether, if the radio station sold these reels off (which happens), and the stations owned the copyright in the particular broadcast because of that, it is possible that the conversion and re-sale of the gigs in CD/digital format is legal. What IS NOT legal, however (I assume), is that I believe, at least in the U.S., that bands are supposed to be paid a percentage each time that gig is broadcast, so it follows that they probably also should be getting some sort of royalty for the sale of these broadcast CDs, which, of course, they aren't.

I could be wrong and I certainly cannot speak for all the releases that are coming out this way, but from what I've read about the Rush (1974, 1975, 1980) and DT (1993) ones, it sounds like these broadcasts were taken from the well circulated bootlegs, rather than from pre-broadcast tapes. Granted, I know in the case of the 1974 Rush show, that the pre-broadcast version was circulating, but I'm almost 100% positive that the same is *not* true of the DT show. So I wouldn't honestly expect these loophole finding people to be looking at the most legitimate (expensive) ways to get source material, as they are just making a quick buck (not unlike the makers of all the old silvers of yesteryear). If they actually cared, I would expect much better packaging and whatnot than the slapped together crap that they put out.

I agree.

 I won't speak for anything other than the Rush releases  either(Though I imagine the business model is the same.) but I'm going to guess that the source material for these is MP3.  I think any investment at all here is with the art department. A lot of these really look great (though many are the same recordings under different names) and they are mildly tempting due to the art, but that's the only think that's different about them.

Oh...and I don't think bands are seeing a penny for these releases due to the copyright on the recording expiring and the Euro loopholes.