From that case:
"The Court then noted the parties' agreement that the
original recordings are not protected by federal copyright law because
they are sound recordings *fixed before February 15, 1972.* Id. at
(internal quotation marks omitted).1 However, the Court recognized
that the recordings would be covered by any applicable state common
law protections until federal preeemption occurs on February 15, 2067.
Id.; see 17 U.S.C. * 301(c).
"1 For the quoted phrase "fixed before February 15, 1972," the Court
cited17 U.S.C. * 104A(h)(6)(C)(ii), a provision of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994), concerning
restoration of copyright in certain public domain works. However,
that provision merely identifies one criterion of a class of works
that are eligible for restoration of copyright. The provision that
leaves sound recordings "fixed before February 15, 1972" unprotected
by federal copyright law (but subject to protection under state law
until February 15, 2067) is 17 U.S.C. * 301(c)."
>>> Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]> 7/18/2007 5:02 PM >>>
Sam Brylawski wrote:
> Internet radio may be crucial to promotion of historical recordings,
> an internet radio station plays only 78s and early LPs in their
> form, i.e. not from CDs, the recent webcasting fees do not apply.
> sound recordings have no federal copyright protection and digital
> dissemination fees cannot be collected for streaming them.
What is the basis for your blanket declaration on copyright? Is there
reason to believe that Capitol USA vs. Naxos does *not* apply? Under
that decision, federal copyright does apply and in fact is restored to
works which are in the public domain in other countries.
Without a citation, you are offering a legal opinion which is at best
[log in to unmask]