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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2003

ARSCLIST October 2003

Subject:

Re: Capitol vs. Naxos

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:27:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

If I were a record compnay which possibly held rights to a recording, I'd
want my lawyers to look at any relevent paperwork to be sure there was
nothing that might come back and bite me later, regardless of potential
sales.  This is just good corporate policy.

And that's were the expense comes in- no small edition reissue label can
bear this cost, especially when multiplied by, say, 20 cuts.

At $ 5.00 per cut, wouldn't the companies loose money just on the cost of
posting and other bookkeeping expenses?

A solution should be proposed that covers the issues as seen by the
copyright owners as well as those based on our own collector's passions.

Perhaps a "hold harmless" insurance policy for which a small reissuer could
apply might be worth consideration.

Speaking of Capitol-Naxos, enough time should have elaped by now to
determine if Capitol actually did file an appeal.  If not, the case stands
as decided.  Anyone know?

Steve Smolian
 .
----- Original Message -----
From: "James L Wolf" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Capitol vs. Naxos


>    Mike brought up an important distinction bewteen "abandoned" and
> "unissued" recordings
>    Abandoned material is that which has been infringed upon with no
> response from the copyright holder (with the understanding that the
> copyright holder had or should have had knowledge of the infringement
> and had means to respond in court). IMHO one need only look at the large
> number of jazz, country, and blues unauthorized reissues on European and
> domestic labels available for sale in the US for the last 30+ years to
> find examples. And just because they're PD in Europe doesn't mean the
> "bootlegs" are automatically allowed to be distributed in the US, as
> we've seen with the Metropolitan Opera recordings. The judge that ruled
> on Capitol v. Naxos seemed to say that abandonment was a significant
> factor to be taken into account in copyright violation rulings. Whether
> or not this opinion stands is another matter.
>    Non re-issued and uninfringed material, such as obscure Columbia
> cylanders, are still fully protected under current law until 2067. As we
> all know, this is an absurd catch-22. These recordings lack the
> commercial value to support a large enough "bootleg" (European or
> domestic) operation that the copyright holders would even notice. They
> also lack the commercial potential for the copyright holders to bother
> with requests  to license them. A friend of mine tried once to license
> some 1901-1910 Victor sides and was turned down summarily because he
> could not garauntee 10,000+ sales! Something that breaks this logjam is
> needed before the recordings deteriorate beyond recall.
>    I think Mike's "title fee" idea is quite good, as long as the cost
> was under $5 or so per recording. This way the companies would be making
> more money off their old recordings than they are now, wouldn't have to
> bother with the cost of licensing, yet would retain their current
> rights. Considering their clout on Capitol Hill, a proposal like this
> seems far more likely evade their corporate veto.
>
>
> James
>
>
>
> The idea is to distinguish abandoned from unissued material. My
> suspicion
> is that most of those with rights to material of interest to us are
> unaware
> that they have those rights - or even those recordings. Only if the
> item is
> brought to their attention (e.g., by an "infringing" release) would
> they
> take notice. Why Capitol initiated this contest is hard to imagine, but
> at
> this stage I am delighted that they did.
>
> Note that the numbers you are suggesting are quite substantial on the
> scale
> we're dealing with. $1 may be too low, but reality for a 78- or 45-rpm
> side
> would be no more than $10 unless there were a commitment for a
> substantial
> release. Few sides other than those of the "superstars" would be worth
> $100
> or anything approaching it.
>
> IMHO, there should be a corollary: any title abandoned by that
> definition
> should require some sort of "title fee" comparable to the renewal fee
> would
> be needed for someone to issue the title without infringement. Needless
> to
> say, a reissue of twenty sides that carried a title fee of $20000 would
> be
> unthinkable; even $200 would decrease interest substantially. That fee
> would not only address the costs of the paperwork but would also make
> the
> proposal far easier to negotiate with holders of rights.
>
>
> Mike
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.mrichter.com/

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

August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
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