Feel Flows vol 2?

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

So make fun of me if you want, but I bought all 5 of the MISC TRACKS 1971 release, all separately as that cost less than buying the "set" for $9.99 or whatever it was.

Funny thing is though, I got a refund from Bandcamp today. So are we sure this was indeed sanctioned by Brother Records? I just think it's interesting they didn't keep my money if it was something on the level.

Capitol is responsible for the posting.  They violated Bandcamp's terms of use by so doing, thus everybody who bought anything from them got refunded.

[guitarfool2002]

This is ridiculous. So the tracks are cataloged, prepared, and uploaded (under cover of darkness) to Bandcamp of all places, then pulled, and will fans be able to legitimately buy these recordings at some point? Or is it radio silence yet again?

I thought the "blockbuster" deal struck with the band's catalog and legacy was going to prevent this kind of fumbling around with the catalog.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It’s not that big of a deal. There will be some sort of release this year. It got people talking though lol

[Don Malcolm]

As the Lovester once put it (right after being divested of that infamous "jug"...):

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose..." 

[doc smiley]

It’s not that big of a deal. There will be some sort of release this year. It got people talking though lol

Holding you to a release date Billy 

[Dan Lega]

So make fun of me if you want, but I bought all 5 of the MISC TRACKS 1971 release, all separately as that cost less than buying the "set" for $9.99 or whatever it was.

Funny thing is though, I got a refund from Bandcamp today. So are we sure this was indeed sanctioned by Brother Records? I just think it's interesting they didn't keep my money if it was something on the level.

Capitol is responsible for the posting.  They violated Bandcamp's terms of use by so doing, thus everybody who bought anything from them got refunded.

Hey, I know absolutely NOTHING about Bandcamp.  Josh, could you please explain which Bandcamp's "terms of use" were violated by the Beach Boys?  And how much did it cost to listen/download the tracks?

[guitarfool2002]

Again I'll say the whole thing on the surface is ridiculous. For Capitol to dump tracks to Bandcamp - an upload site for artists and podcasters which anyone can join, start an account and upload their music either for free or for purchase - seems to have been an undercover way to establish a release of those tracks to reclaim the copyright under those existing and often absurd "rules" regarding copyrights running out. And it seems like it was done as a placeholder until a future release to establish that copyright ownership by showing proof of a release date within the time frame...not expecting anyone to actually find and try to buy the tracks.

So yes, I'm also confused as to this point about violating the terms of use on Bandcamp, since there really aren't many terms of use to begin with and pretty much anyone can record a 3 minute clip of themselves screaming into a mic and upload it for sale on Bandcamp with little restriction. And if Capitol did it, I'd think any violation if that's what it was would have been by design. Selling the tracks wasn't the goal, and I think they hoped no one would find them until the release date could be established and then they'd be pulled anyway.

They've done similar things before. I'm just saying that's what it seems happened, not stating what exactly happened. But for a catalog that was just purchased for literally tens of millions of dollars, and one of the last few remaining major labels from the old days being involved, it all seems a little ridiculous to do this and have people find it.

My question is after the tracks were purchased by whoever bought them, did they actually receive access to hear the tracks, or was the purchase canceled before it even went through?

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

People who paid for them were able to download them, they got access.

I can't speak for Bandcamp, but I'd imagine if pressed, they'd cite their term of use "You shall not...upload...[anything] you know is false, misleading, untruthful or inaccurate".  That could just be a loose pretext for simply not appreciating being party to a bad-faith workaround of a loophole in copyright law, though -- again, i'm not privy to the inner workings of the company's decision to declare that the terms were violated.

[JonEverett]

Do we know about these on YT?

I certainly didn't, and  did a search on here and found no mention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfuZ3___kCg&list=OLAK5uy_kRnxiFllLZJcN4mJZpiZROSz-7BYmpV54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOc5bOGKdxQ&list=OLAK5uy_nIn_6PoId2ONJwhvaC_u72gTGRzfu_4I0

I hope someone at least finds them useful.

Jon

[37!ws]

"Video not available" on both.