LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  June 2003

ARSCLIST June 2003

Subject:

Fw: [78-l] (Fwd) Naxos Wins Landmark Case Against Capitol/EMI

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:29:52 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (105 lines)

This was sent me by Cary Ginell of Sound Thinking. Informed comments
welcomed.

Steve Smolian

>
> > June 2, 2003 (naxos.com)
> >
> > New York, USA - On November 22, 2002 Capitol Records, Inc.
> > brought an
> > action against Naxos of America in the United States District Court,
> > Southern District of New York. Capitol brought the action for unfair
> > competition, misappropriation of property, unjust enrichment and
> > common law copyright infringement. Capitol challenged Naxos'
> > distribution of historic recordings dating from the 1930's featuring
> > performances by Yehudi Menuhin, Edwin Fisher and Pablo Casals.
> > Capitol
> > claimed to be the owner of all rights in the United States to the
> > original recordings. Capitol complained that Naxos sold and
> > distributed its restorations of the original recordings throughout the
> > United States in bad faith, at substantially discounted prices in
> > direct competition with Capitol's recordings of the same
> > performances,
> > often in the same retail outlets.
> >
> > The Court, in finding for Naxos, noted that Naxos used the original
> > discs, the so-called shellacs (78rpm shellac discs) to restore the
> > performances. The restorations involved artistic choices and the
> > use
> > of the latest digital software. Naxos has distributed and sold its
> > restorations at discount prices since about October, 1999
> > throughout
> > the United States. The Court took notice of the fact the Naxos
> > restorations have been widely praised by classical music critics.
> >
> > Naxos had claimed that EMI expressly disclaimed any exclusive
> > commercial interest in the original recordings made more than 50
> > years
> > ago and that Capitol had, furthermore, failed to pursue many other
> > companies engaging in restorations of the original recordings. The
> > Court completely agreed with Naxos.
> >
> > The Court found that Capitol has no rights in the original recordings
> > and that the English copyrights in the recordings had long since
> > expired. The Court also found ambiguity concerning Capitol's chain
> > of
> > title in all agreements. The Court further found that Capitol waived
> > or abandoned any interests it had in the original recordings.
> > Capitol's lax practices were found consistent with EMI's disclaimer
> > of
> > any intellectual property rights in any sound recordings made prior
> > to
> > 1957 and which are more than 50 years old. Naxos therefore
> > operated
> > under the good faith belief that the recordings at issue are in the
> > public domain, said the Court.
> >
> > The Court further found that Naxos has not competed unfairly.
> > Since
> > Capitol has no rights in the original recordings it cannot charge
> > Naxos with unfair competition. Naxos never falsely advertised its
> > restored products as duplicates of the originals and did not simply
> > copy Capitol/EMI's restorations. Naxos employed significant effort
> > to
> > create entirely new and commercially viable products. Naxos did
> > not
> > profit from the labour, skill, expenditures, name and reputation of
> > others but rather created and marketed new products relying on its
> > own
> > labour, skill, and reputation.
> >
> > The Court found that the quality and nature of the restorations stand
> > as evidence to the fact that Naxos did not aim to simply duplicate
> > the
> > original recordings and capitalize on Capitol's efforts. Instead,
> > Naxos worked to create new products with superior sound.
> >
> > The Court agreed that the Naxos restorations do not discourage but
> > rather encourage the preservation and dissemination of fine
> > performances. The Court even felt that it was possible that the
> > Naxos
> > restorations have revived the relevant market in historical classical
> > performances to Capitol's benefit. The Naxos restorations help
> > ensure
> > that quality historic performances are commercially available for the
> > present generation and well preserved for the next, the Court said.
> >
> > The Court clearly concluded that Naxos lacks the bad faith
> > necessary
> > in a common law unfair competition claim because Naxos neither
> > attempted to sell its records as Capitol's, nor sell Capitol's records
> > as its own. Naxos did not misappropriate Capitol's labour and
> > expenditures, but rather sought to profit from its own efforts and
> > ingenuity.
> >
> > The Naxos motion to dismiss the Capitol action was granted by the
> > court and converted to a summary judgment. The Capitol motion for
> > partial summary judgment was denied. All substantive
> > issues were
> > decided in the favour of Naxos.
>
> Cary Ginell
> Sound Thinking Music Research
> [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager