Print

Print


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lennick" <[log in to unmask]>
> "Steven C. Barr" wrote:
> > Also, when you think about it, the reason for this sudden interest
> > inextending copyright terms is quite simple!
> > At the end of this year, the first recordings by Elvis Presley
> > will slip into the public domain in much of the world (except
> > the US, of course!). These recordings are still "cash cows"
> > for whatever descendant firm of Eldridge Johnson, et al, may
> > hold the copyrights...
> I'd be happy if a compromise were reached, such as a 1950 cutoff....much
that's
> worthwhile from that point on is being kept in print by the copyright
holders,
> and I could live happily without producing reissues of people like Guy
Mitchell
> and Don Cornell and Patti Page (among the various warblers I've done in
the
> last couple of years). But it cuts off a lot of good early mono classical
> material which probably is of limited interest to the big fat
> musikgesellschaeften.
Well, it still seems to me that there is no practical way of removing
something from the public domain...since all the infringer would have
to do is testify that he/she/it made the copy while the recording
was in the public domain! It isn't possible to do this with composer
or publisher rights, since the date of use is pretty well current...
but they are under compulsory license, unlike sound recordings. It
would be up to the plaintiff to prove that the copy of a re-copyrighted
sound recording had not been made while that recording was p.d.!

Steven C. Barr