A note on the CBS unhappiness, referenced below.

Their pressing plants were being kept busy by making LPs for others as well 
as themselves.  Among their client were some of the "pirates."

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78's and PD, was Curatorial Responsibility, formerly 
Copyright of treasures

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Does anyone have any idea what percentage of commercially-produced 78's
> are
>> now in the PD?
> In the US of A, exactly 0.00%. I don't know if the copyright laws placed
> them under Federal copyright until 2067, or simply left the various state
> laws (most of which have NO terms and thus no expiry dates) to protect
> them. There are some 78's, such as Grey Gull, where the existing copyright
> holder "died intestate" (the company went broke without selling their
> masters or copyrights) which are functionally p.d. -- that is, there
> is no one qualified to sue infringers!
>> When, for instance, CBS/Sony re-issues Duke Ellington 78's as
>> multi-CD collections, are those now re-copyrighted for 50+ years? And 
>> what
>> about that guy Joe Buzzard down in Maryland -- is he just flying under 
>> the
>> radar or is it perfectly legit for him to reissue all of his obscure
> blues,
>> country and bluegrass 78's? He comes off as a somewhat goofy collector,
> but
>> I get the sense he's a very shrewd business man too, and I wouldn't be
>> surprised if his venture is pretty profitable even though it seems
>> labor-intensive. I've read several interviews with him, but he never
>> squarely addresses the copyright issue except to say he's never been
> pursued
>> or prosecuted.
> As far as current reissues, this won't matter until 2068; nothing is p.d.
> in the US of A until then. In other venues, I suspect it would be a
> matter of proving that the processing used to prepare the reissue
> might make those separate musical entities (which is how lawyers
> get rich!). As far as small-scale private reissues, I would assume
> that it is simply a case of their not seriously threatening the
> business of the valid copyright holders (so don't try reissuing
> Elvis!)
> The record companies fought this battle once, in the late forties
> (see Record Changer). A number of companies started reissuing dubs
> of jazz rarities, and they sold well. The copyright holders,
> such as CBS (which held the rights to a lot of stuff via ARC)
> took exception...and two things happened. First, CBS filed suit
> (against a party who had reissued some Armstrong sides...since
> Armstrong had a contract calling for royalties on record sales,
> which the indie guy wasn't paying, the court acted...), and then,
> having discoved there was gold in them thar vaults, they
> started reissing the stuff themselves!
> However, the US record industry is in a fightin' mood these days,
> what with all the digital piracy of current I dunno
> as I would want to cross them...
> Steven C. Barr
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 10/6/2005