Wouldn't It Be Nice To Live Again

[GoofyJeff]

People are acting like spoiled little brats.  "Beachboysfr gets to hear something awesome and rare and I don't, wahhhhh!!!"   Tough sh*t.   He paid a boatload of money for it, you didn't.  Suck it up, buttercup.

[hypehat]

Hypehat - I have ALREADY and REPEATEDLY explained that I am not equating the value of Dennis' song to the cure for cancer.

And I agree that the financial value of Wouldn't It Be Nice to Live Again would be less if more had it. But there is more to life than money. And a time is coming when few will have heard of it and even fewer will care.

Then DON'T SAY IT'S LIKE HIDING THE CURE FOR CANCER. Jesus.

[AndrewHickey]

Of course I did not mean that Dennis' song is as important as the cure for cancer but the principle remains the same.

No it isn't. Nobody is harmed by a song not being shared.

There are many, many good reasons why beachboys_fr might not have shared the track:
S/he might not actually have it and just have been winding us up.
S/he might be put off by the horribly rude attitude of many of the posters here.
S/he might have secretly shared it with two or three people, who might then be sharing it with others so the initial point of origin might not be so obvious
S/he might have been contacted by someone saying "I have a copy of Cal. Feeling 74 (or Surf's Up Part 2 or insert holy grail here) which I will share with you if you share the track only with me."
S/he might have had a cease and desist notice from BRI
S/he might just have not come back to the board yet -- not everyone spends their lives on Beach Boys boards.
S/he may not know how to rip CDs

Or any of a thousand other reasons.
There is no need whatsoever for the horrible behaviour over a few minutes of music that we'll almost certainly hear within a few months anyway. Remind me not to mention on here if I ever get any music anone might want to hear...

[bgas]

Agreed with rab, the badgering for this track is getting lame. Its one BBs outtake for crying out loud and calling a guy "selfish" just because he has it is not cool.

For the first time I am in total agreement with you. No one is entitled to anything. Considering he paid $400 for essentially one song and to own a reference CD, I think it only right that we pay him $400 each to own a lossless file of WIBNTLA. Any takers? Didn't think so.

guess we have learned something here. If I had a rarity I wanted to share...

1) would not blab it on the board

2) would pm a few here and burn about 10 Cds and send them out.

3) Nature would do the rest

For a board that is monitored such as this one, yea announcing & sharing here is not a smart thing, legally speaking.

  Taking both at once:  
Obviously, most of the folks here are not "collectors" so much as fans of the BBs. Those of us who do collect, know there is a value to every item we buy, even tho that value is obviously not appreciated the same by the non-collectors. Whether we get something for 50 cents or $5000, if something uniquely rare is included, it's ours. NOT the "joint" property of everyone that wants it.
 I don't have WIBNTLA, but I have others which I treasure just as much. I've shared some things in the past, because I wanted to. With the exception of a few, there were no thank yous, no well dones. And while not why I've done it, Where's the incentive in that?  Fortunately it's not all that imprtant to me, as owning them makes me happy.
 But the incessant clamoring, the "you have it, you should give it to me because I want it and it won't cost you anything more is completely amiss". We have them because we've spent our time finding them and PAYING for them.  I kndof like the DR's idea that those who want the track should pay for it. ( tho that would potentially mire BBs_Fr in a world of hurt)  
which leads to the "blabbing":  Not being a lawyer, I can't speak to the legal side, but he bought an item thru Ebay, and he is now the "legal" owner of said item. I don't believe that gives him ownership of the copyright, nor the legal right to distribute that item. But mentioning that he has it?  Of course he can. I don't believe there  can be any repercussions from a legal purchase, other than possibly to the seller.  Anyone can talk about any track they own, right?  

[The Shift]

This isn't about the financial value, whether anyone's heard it (or is going to), whether it's on MIC or whether it's a cure for cancer though.

It's about beachboys_fr doing what he likes with what is his,w hat he's paid for and is quickly becoming no-one else's business.

I propose the thread gets closed before someone paints themselves into a corner for ever.

[Lowbacca]

S/he might have had a cease and desist notice from BRI

I think what you meant to say was... cease to resist?

()

[Lowbacca]

This isn't about the financial value, whether anyone's heard it (or is going to), whether it's on MIC or whether it's a cure for cancer though.

It's about beachboys_fr doing what he likes with what is his,w hat he's paid for and is quickly becoming no-one else's business.

I propose the thread gets closed before someone paints themselves into a corner for ever.

Well, it's beachboys_fr who came to this board to discuss the track in the first place. It's only natural it's being anatomised among folk like us. Everybody just chillax for a second.
I haven't asked for it and I will continue not to. Either he decides to share it or not. Either way it fine by me. I like mysteries to remain mysteries (at least for a while). Same f*cking problem with the Star Wars prequels.

[Ang Jones]

Hypehat:

I wrote: "Suppose I had discovered the cure for cancer. Would it be incredibly selfish to keep it just for myself? The answer is surely yes. " I did not suggest that the value of these items was in any way comparable.

The bottom line here is of course copyright. An item that was supposed to be not for sale shouldn't have been sold but playing this for someone is surely not illegal. Copying it however would be. A pity that there is no way we could just hear it without being able to own it.

But this is getting incredibly petty so I'm not bothering with this subject any more.

[leggo of my ego]

guess we have learned something here. If I had a rarity I wanted to share...

1) would not blab it on the board

2) would pm a few here and burn about 10 Cds and send them out.

3) Nature would do the rest

For a board that is monitored such as this one, yea announcing & sharing here is not a smart thing, legally speaking.

He was lurking here when I wrote my last post. So beachboy fr may still be contemplating sharing the track with the board.

Considering he is not in the USA he is very well insulated from the legal issue. International lawsuits are extremely costly and this track is not worth anybodys time and effort to stave off a leak.

beachboy fr I still hope you might take the advice in my post. The chances that you might even only get and cease and desist letter are slim to none. I would share the file and I live in the USA.

[beachboys_fr]

S/he might just have not come back to the board yet -- not everyone spends their lives on Beach Boys boards.

I posted several times within the past 6 hours...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I wrote: "Suppose I had discovered the cure for cancer. Would it be incredibly selfish to keep it just for myself? The answer is surely yes. " I did not suggest that the value of these items was in any way comparable.

Then why did you make the observation?

[drbeachboy]

This isn't about the financial value, whether anyone's heard it (or is going to), whether it's on MIC or whether it's a cure for cancer though.

It's about beachboys_fr doing what he likes with what is his,w hat he's paid for and is quickly becoming no-one else's business.

I propose the thread gets closed before someone paints themselves into a corner for ever.

Well, it's beachboys_fr who came to this board to discuss the track in the first place. It's only natural it's being anatomised among folk like us. Everybody just chillax for a second.
I haven't asked for it and I will continue not to. Either he decides to share it or not. Either way it fine by me. I like mysteries to remain mysteries (at least for a while). Same f*cking problem with the Star Wars prequels.

That is exactly what we are saying, as well. He shouldn't be pestered to share. He came here for verification, because supposedly we know our sh*t. I bet he had no idea what he was about experience by doing so.

[Lowbacca]

This isn't about the financial value, whether anyone's heard it (or is going to), whether it's on MIC or whether it's a cure for cancer though.

It's about beachboys_fr doing what he likes with what is his,w hat he's paid for and is quickly becoming no-one else's business.

I propose the thread gets closed before someone paints themselves into a corner for ever.

Well, it's beachboys_fr who came to this board to discuss the track in the first place. It's only natural it's being anatomised among folk like us. Everybody just chillax for a second.
I haven't asked for it and I will continue not to. Either he decides to share it or not. Either way it fine by me. I like mysteries to remain mysteries (at least for a while). Same f*cking problem with the Star Wars prequels.

That is exactly what we are saying, as well. He shouldn't be pestered to share. He came here for verification, because supposedly we know our sh*t. I bet he had no idea what he was about experience by doing so.

 

[Nicko1234]

Hypehat:

I wrote: "Suppose I had discovered the cure for cancer. Would it be incredibly selfish to keep it just for myself? The answer is surely yes. " I did not suggest that the value of these items was in any way comparable.

The bottom line here is of course copyright. An item that was supposed to be not for sale shouldn't have been sold but playing this for someone is surely not illegal. Copying it however would be. A pity that there is no way we could just hear it without being able to own it.

But this is getting incredibly petty so I'm not bothering with this subject any more.

The phrase 'stop digging' springs to mind.

[Yorick]

Beachboys_fr should PM the track around in a couple of weeks and post on the board that he has decided not to share it. When it leaks, people can only assume he was the source, but legally they can't do a thing.

[hypehat]

Beachboys_fr should PM the track around in a couple of weeks and post on the board that he has decided not to share it. When it leaks, people can only assume he was the source, but legally they can't do a thing.

They couldn't, if you hadn't just posted that   

[The Shift]

Beachboys_fr should PM the track around in a couple of weeks and post on the board that he has decided not to share it. When it leaks, people can only assume he was the source, but legally they can't do a thing.

"should"?

[Yorick]

Beachboys_fr should PM the track around in a couple of weeks and post on the board that he has decided not to share it. When it leaks, people can only assume he was the source, but legally they can't do a thing.

"should"?

Yes, as in it's his moral duty/obligation.

[guitarfool2002]

which leads to the "blabbing":  Not being a lawyer, I can't speak to the legal side, but he bought an item thru Ebay, and he is now the "legal" owner of said item. I don't believe that gives him ownership of the copyright, nor the legal right to distribute that item. But mentioning that he has it?  Of course he can. I don't believe there  can be any repercussions from a legal purchase, other than possibly to the seller.  Anyone can talk about any track they own, right?  

This is it in a nutshell. I'm not a lawyer myself, nor an expert, but having waded into the shallow waters of the music business and copyright/publishing through previous jobs, I think this is exactly the case.

Waaayyyy back on page 13 or whatever, I mentioned some related issues about copyrights and the digital media age, and quite honestly even the record companies haven't quite squared it all up into something cohesive, and I believe many of the legal precedents are still referred back to the court's decision in the Sony Betamax case, which by now is three or four decades old and concerned consumers having access to equipment to make high-quality copies of copyrighted materials like movies and TV shows.

I'll agree 100% to what bgas says here about "ownership" and copyrights. The buyer of such an item, once the payment has cleared and delivery taken on the item, is now the legal owner of that item. Period. Which means he can play it for anyone he/she chooses, and unless the specific item itself had been reported as stolen and is on file as such, no one can come back and claim ownership of that physical item. *However* as far as I know, that legal ownership does not transfer to usage and copyright issues, which means anything owned by a publisher or under a copyright contained on that item cannot be sold (as in posted on iTunes for sale or included on a commercial release)-broadcast-distributed-etc. without written consent (that crap they read after sports telecasts on TV).

I wouldn't offer advice that others more knowledgeable in this pursuit have already offered, but if such a thing should happen again perhaps not putting out the word in public would be a plan of action to consider.

Consider this too:

Al Kooper had been given a Fender guitar by Jimi Hendrix. After Hendrix died, Kooper had loads of trouble come his way because it was known that he had one of Jimi's guitars. From being hounded and chased by people wanting to buy it, to having various places he lived broken into and ransacked by people looking to steal the Hendrix guitar, to other assorted hassles, if I recall he said it felt like the guitar had a curse on it. And it was apparently an experience shared by others who had been given guitars by Jimi and who told people they owned other guitars Hendrix had given away. I read between the lines to think Al Kooper might have wished he had kept news of his gifted guitar more private, because when word spread that he owned it, all hell broke loose.

[Phoenix]

People are acting like spoiled little brats.  "Beachboysfr gets to hear something awesome and rare and I don't, wahhhhh!!!"   Tough sh*t.   He paid a boatload of money for it, you didn't.  Suck it up, buttercup.

My thoughts exactly.

[LostArt]

In response to Lost Art, if I won $50000 in a lottery and decided to keep it, it is the same as if I had a bottle of Lafite Rothschild and decided to drink all of it or sell it. Giving some away diminishes the amount I have left. But if I have a song, copying and giving away costs me virtually nothing. I got loads of criticism for likening to someone having the cure for cancer and keeping it to themselves. Of course I did not mean that Dennis' song is as important as the cure for cancer but the principle remains the same. If any of us has something they know is valuable to others and yet doesn't share it, whilst that is undoubtedly their right, it is not a generous attitude to take although if they are motivated by a wish to avoid bad consequences for themselves or others the situation is of course different.

The moniker 'Lost Art' is ironic really. I don't like the idea of lost art - I would rather we all get the benefit of it. I don't care that I don't own the original folio of Shakespeare or the manuscript of Beethoven's 9th Symphony or the Mona Lisa. I just want these things to be available for everyone.

And I agree entirely with the above post.  But I would actually be prepared to pay $400 for Wouldn't It Be Nice to Live Again if it was officially released as a special collector's item for this price and if this was the only way I could get it, I'd pay up.

So, you're telling me that you'd give your $50,000 lottery winnings away to strangers on a message board?  Is your real name Mother Teresa?

As for my moniker, the term 'lost art' is a term used to describe a once valued art or skill that is not practiced much anymore, such as 4-track analog recording as was done in the '60s.  And since my first name happens to be Art, and I'm old enough to have listened to the Beach Boys when their songs were on the radio in the early '60s, I thought it fitting to adapt LostArt as my moniker ('cause they don't make 'em like me anymore).  

[hypehat]

Beachboys_fr should PM the track around in a couple of weeks and post on the board that he has decided not to share it. When it leaks, people can only assume he was the source, but legally they can't do a thing.

"should"?

Yes, as in it's his moral duty/obligation.

His moral duty? Come off it! It's not like he bought Dennis' bones on ebay, is it?

[Nicko1234]

Yes, as in it's his moral duty/obligation.

You are joking of course.

[Lowbacca]

Beachboys_fr should PM the track around in a couple of weeks and post on the board that he has decided not to share it. When it leaks, people can only assume he was the source, but legally they can't do a thing.

"should"?

Yes, as in it's his moral duty/obligation.

You're joking, right?

[SMiLE Brian]

This obsession with the song is getting weird. Its not like beachboys fr. has the completed 1967 Smile album, its ONE song.