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  April 2015

ARSCLIST April 2015

Subject:

Re: More pre-72 sound recordings lawsuits filed

From:

"Leggett, Stephen C" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:18:32 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

"[Un]Happy Together: Why the Supremacy Clause Preempts State Law Digital Performance Rights in Radio-Like Streaming of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2595794


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leggett, Stephen C
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] More pre-72 sound recordings lawsuits filed

Interesting argument arising out of the unique status of pre-1972 recordings

"If the Supreme Court ever gets involved in this issue, it might be here. Although SIriusXM spends less time on this issue in its brief, it could have been an important consideration in why the 2nd Circuit is taking up a review rather than kicking it to a state appeals court. Essentially, SiriusXM's lawyers Daniel Petrocelli and Robert Schwartz are arguing that it broadcasts to millions of subscribers across the country, and that the "practical effect of applying a New York performance right to Sirius XM would thus be to require Sirius XM to comply with New York law nationwide."

-----Original Message-----
From: Leggett, Stephen C
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] More pre-72 sound recordings lawsuits filed

Latest development

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/appeals-court-agrees-review-sirius-788996

"Appeals Court Agrees to Review Sirius XM's Challenge Over Pre-1972 Music The 2nd Circuit will take up the issue of whether New York protects the public performance of older songs — and whether that violates the U.S. Constitution.

SiriusXM's warning to a federal appeals court that broadcasters might pull all pre-1972 sound recordings from the airwaves has paid off. On Wednesday, the satellite radio giant got the 2nd Circuit to grant its petition for a review just as lawmakers get set to take up the issue as well.

When Congress amended copyright law in the 1970s, only sound recordings authored after 1972 were given protection.
......"

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leggett, Stephen C
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] More pre-72 sound recordings lawsuits filed

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2015/02/articles/what-washington-has-in-store-for-broadcasters-and-digital-media-companies-in-2015-part-2-court-cases-congressional-communications-and-copyright-reform-and-other-issues/#more-4848



-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Haley
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] More pre-72 sound recordings lawsuits filed

Thanks Paul. At the time our country was founded, the Crown owned all scientific discoveries. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a patents and copyrights system (with the same great wisdom they showed in so many other
areas) that would grant a reasonable period of exclusivity to inventors and artistic creators, so they could profit from their endeavors, but then ensure that the benefits of scientific advancement and artistic creation would benefit the entire public when that period was over. That was their overriding point--and that is where their vision of public domain came from. Corporate greed has consistently eroded PD ever since, so that it hardly exists in this country. Politically, public domain now has no real advocates, except ARSC.

Re all the streaming services, they have merely taken advantage of the fact that Congress never provided any copyright protection for audio recordings prior to 1972. Nothing illegal at all in what they have been doing, nor evil, nor immoral. Perfectly legal and up until now, perfectly acceptable. The current spate of lawsuits is driven by sheer corporate greed (the original artists are never going to get a nickel out of all this), as well as lawyers looking for a great payday in statutory legal fees, by arguing for some kind of new protection that was plainly never there. They are all trying to create new law, new ways to soak the public and enrich the fat cats. Also, all this state law copyright stuff is a recent invention, coming from the last decade. All one has to do to see that is look over the legal precedent that New York supposedly relied on to create sweeping, unprecedented state common law on state copyright.

Best, John







On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Why do people feel entitled to hear this music for free on streaming
> services? I can see there being a legitimate beef if the songs
> disappear for streaming services people subscribed to and pre-paid
> under the impression that those songs would be available ("premium
> customers"). But otherwise, people need to get real and expect pay for
> professionally produced music just like they always have! It's not
> like CDs cost an arm and a leg. Almost every song on a streaming
> service was ripped from a CD, meaning either the CD is still in print
> or the music can be bought as downloads (in a less-lossy format than streamers) from Amazon or iTunes.
> Many Amazon MP3 downloads are around $6 per album, chump change.
>
> And anyway, now that all these blogs have sounded the alarm,
> stream-catching software downloads are in overload. It's not rocket
> science to call all the old tunes you want up on Spotify and record
> them before they get taken down, if you're that desperate.
>
> Where I'd have an objection is if the tunes were to be taken down from
> streaming services and then taken out of print. That would violate the
> use it or lose it ethic.
>
> Finally, here's a "bold prediction" -- all of these tunes will remain
> available to paying ("premium") customers of streaming services
> because there will be a deal worked out where royalties are paid on
> them. It's also worth noting, there is not a united opinion about
> streaming in the record business. Especially in Europe, some
> executives see this as a great marketing tool and/or they feel it is
> inevitable because it's what consumers want. I suspect there is a
> cadre of trial lawyers in the US who have convinced some record execs
> that it's a good idea to file these lawsuits, which could very well
> backfire on the industry the way suing Napster downloaders did.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leggett, Stephen C" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 9:45 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] More pre-72 sound recordings lawsuits filed
>
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=classic+rock
>>
>> http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/01/all-of-the-
>> big-streaming-services-just-got-hit-with-lawsuits-over-
>> pre-1972-sound-recordings.html
>>
>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/253778575/Zenbu-v-Google-Pre-
>> 1972-Sound-Recordings-Complaint#scribd
>>
>> http://www.avclub.com/article/sony-apple-and-google-sued-
>> streaming-songs-recorde-214365
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Urbahns
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 9:11 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] More pre-72 sound recordings lawsuits filed
>>
>> John Haley wrote:
>>
>> Congress certainly has the power to federalize pre-1972,.... but
>>> since in our poor country public domain barely exists at all,
>>> totally contrary to what our Founding Fathers had in mind, that is
>>> not going to happen.
>>>
>>
>>
>> John brings up an excellent point that has not been mentioned in this
>> thread before. The original purpose of copyright laws was so that a
>> creator of a work, for example an author of a book or poem, would be
>> able to make a decent living through their personal life from their
>> creation. It was never intended to be forever.
>>
>> The basic purpose of public domain is to inspire new creations that
>> otherwise might not be possible, by allowing new adaptions based on a
>> PD creation.
>>
>>
>> Paul Urbahns
>> Radcliff, Ky
>>
>>
>>

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 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