Someone asked me, possibly off-list, about this...see the end of this
forward for Dave Lennick's update (he's in a position to know...)
Steven C. Barr
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lennick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: Interesting ARSCLIST reply to: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [78-l] (Fwd)
Naxos Wins Landmark Case AgainstCapitol/EMI
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > The text of the Capitol v. Naxos opinion was sent to me by Sam
> > > Brylawski, and it's a very interesting read. While it's direct impact
> > > appears to be narrowly specific to pre-1953 EMI (recorded in Europe)
> > > recordings (they're PD even in US), I wonder if broader conclusions
> > > be drawn from it, particularly from the concept of "abandonment" of a
> > > copyright.
> > > Judge Robert W. Sweet declared in his summary judgement that
> > > Capitol did not own the rights to the EMI recordings it claimed. This
> > > was for at least three reasons. First and biggest, EMI was found to
> > > waived their copyright claim to pre-1957 EMI recordings. Second, EMI
> > > England only transferred it's rights to its recordings to Capitol (US)
> > > in 1996, after everything from 1946 and earlier had gone into the
> > > domain in England. Third, Capitol had abandoned these copyrights
> > > by allowing others to "bootleg" their recordings without taking
> > >
> > > So what defines "abandonment" of a copyright? How many years, how
> > > many "bootleg" copies? That's the biggest question for me and others,
> > > doubt.
> > > The restoration question only comes into play with the
> > > that Capitol had no rights to the original recording and that Capitol
> > > and Naxos were competing fairly with dueling restorations.
> > > Capitol had 20 days from May 6, 2003 to submit more factual
> > > information to the judge. Does anyone know if they did?
> > >
> > > James
> Apparently Capitol asked for an extension. Watch this space.
> To unsubscribe, see http://www.78online.com