Print

Print


Sam is right.

As you can imagine, our legal team has gone over this with an extremely fine
toothcomb. When I say legal team, we have one in house who is lawyer in
commercial contract law and another who is an expert on licensing law and is
a registered member of the State Bar of California. The team also extends to
one of the top law firms in London which specialises in music law.

What I have to say is the result of listening to the results of lengthy
research and discussion. I am keeping it short because I am not an expert
and must be very careful how words are chose in what I realise is a very hot
topic, that's why I employ these people.

The court in the Capitol vs. Naxos case originally found in favour of Naxos
because U.S.A. federal law does not recognise copyright protection in  sound
recordings prior to 1972. Not a fact that is widely known. Anything decided
after that date cannot be put into force retrospectively. On Appeal, the
court in the Capitol vs. Naxos case brought into play a Common Law ruling
for the state of New York. This being the case New York State is actually
the only state where the judgement was applicable.

Gary Atkinson
Managing Director
Document Records Ltd


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mike Richter
Sent: 18 July 2007 22:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s, SoundExchange, & SaveNetRadio


Sam Brylawski wrote:
> Internet radio may be crucial to promotion of historical recordings, but
if
> an internet radio station plays only 78s and early LPs in their original
> form, i.e. not from CDs, the recent webcasting fees do not apply. Pre-1972
> 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
questionable.

Mike
--
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mrichter.com/

__________ NOD32 2405 (20070718) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com