SOS
Active topics
U2 - Songs Of Surrender (2023)
 Tracks: 40
  1. Absolutely, my favorite Album by Dylan,although I prefer the sound of the albums that came after that one.
    Have you listened to the new mix of TOOM?
  3. I wonder if U2 released these songs because of copyright considerations?
  4. All of a sudden, I haven't touched the album in a week now.
  5. This occurred to me too. Wouldn’t rule it out as a consideration.
  6. The reissues of the early albums likely covers that - 2007/2008/2009 would be the new date of copyright for any of the first five albums with the reissues, which covered off most of the b-sides as well.
  7. Originally posted by u2wanderer1:[..]
    The reissues of the early albums likely covers that - 2007/2008/2009 would be the new date of copyright for any of the first five albums with the reissues, which covered off most of the b-sides as well.


    Maybe I'm out of the loop. What's the copyright issue? Don't they own their entire catalog?

    On the recent Zane Lowe interview Edge even suggested they would not rule out selling the rights to their back catalog the same way Dylan, Paul Simon and Springsteen have done.

    Surely if they wanted to preserve ownership of the old work following a sale, they would have postponed releasing SOS until after a deal, since it would Taylor Swift a lot of their older songs, basically renewing their lease.
  8. I think the re-releases of albums are seen as a way of extending the length of time that a copyright can protect a work (if that is actually how it works...). Eventually, copyrights expire.
  9. Originally posted by Keeb13r:I think the re-releases of albums are seen as a way of extending the length of time that a copyright can protect a work (if that is actually how it works...). Eventually, copyrights expire.


    At least in the US, I think it's the life of the creator plus 70 years?

    Who knows where U2's copyrights are registered but if it's anything like U.S. law, none of us will be around to see U2's copyrights expire.
  10. Originally posted by u2wanderer1:[..]
    The reissues of the early albums likely covers that - 2007/2008/2009 would be the new date of copyright for any of the first five albums with the reissues, which covered off most of the b-sides as well.
    U2 own all their own masters, they said they made that deal early on, so it’s never about copyright
  11. Originally posted by BloodyValentine:[..]


    Maybe I'm out of the loop. What's the copyright issue? Don't they own their entire catalog?

    On the recent Zane Lowe interview Edge even suggested they would not rule out selling the rights to their back catalog the same way Dylan, Paul Simon and Springsteen have done.

    Surely if they wanted to preserve ownership of the old work following a sale, they would have postponed releasing SOS until after a deal, since it would Taylor Swift a lot of their older songs, basically renewing their lease.
    i listened to that interview, and have no recollection of him mentioning that. do you happen to recall what part of the interview?