Print

Print


Thanks for reminding me, Steve. I purposely did not scan any of the 
auction lists for any of the issues. I was more interested in the meat 
of the articles and photos, as opposed to the potatoes of the auction lists.
If someone or an editorial group wants to do the cut and paste stuff and 
edit article segments into cohesive wholes, then by all means go for it!
Mal

*******

On 8/8/2010 9:05 AM, Steven Smolian wrote:
> The big conflict within RR is its work trying to organize the 
> discographic world while being so disorganized itself as a 
> publication.  Indexing is just a starting point.  With the 
> cut-and-paste muscles offered by the cosmos of digital tools, RRs 
> content should be edited into coherent segments that span issue 
> numbers.  Otherwise it's just a "feel good" exercise to those who post 
> or CD it and a world of frustration to the potential user.
>
> If potential copyright matters are of concern from issue 151 on, 
> there's plenty of meat in the earlier ones to keep an editorial group 
> busy while CRing the balance.  (that's copyright researching).
>
> The task would be made much lighter if the very stale auction lists 
> were disregarded or appendicised.
>
> Steven Smolian
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Rockwell" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record Research--old issues
>
>
>> Issue 150 takes us up to 12/31/77. Many of these after 150 are double 
>> issues.
>> Last issue was 253/254 of January 1995.
>> So, if issues 1 - 150 are in public domain, what is to be done with 
>> issues 151 - 254?
>> Do we publish and hope for the best (no involvement with possible 
>> copyright holders) or no?
>> I remember hearing one way around this might be to open a savings 
>> account or trust, deposit whatever royalties deemed appropriate to 
>> accrue in it, and hold it until such time as any possible claimant 
>> may come forth. There may even be a statute of limitations for how 
>> long the funds must be held before they can revert to the publisher.
>> Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet there's someone lawyerly in 
>> ARSC who can give a relevant legal option.
>> Malcolm
>>
>> *******
>>
>> On 8/8/2010 8:06 AM, Michael Biel wrote:
>>>> From:  Dick Spottswood
>>>> "...  I thought when you published something without copyrighting 
>>>> it, the
>>>> work was automatically in the public domain."
>>> On 8/8/2010 1:53 PM, Bob Olhsson wrote:
>>>> Not at all!
>>>>
>>>> Copyright registration only establishes a date and entitles you to 
>>>> collect
>>>> statutory damages and attorneys' fees from an infringer in addition to
>>>> actual damages.  Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
>>>
>>> Not if it was published before 1/1/78 and not copyrighted.  Under 
>>> the old law, anything published but not copyrighted was P.D., and if 
>>> it was P.D. at the point the new law came into effect, it stayed P.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/8/2010 1:42 PM, Malcolm Rockwell wrote:
>>>> I base my assumption on this premise: If I write a song and do not 
>>>> copyright it with the fed and find out that someone else has 
>>>> recorded and released it I can still sue, and probably win, based 
>>>> on inherent copyright.
>>>
>>> If you published it or recorded it before 1/1/78 without 
>>> copyrighting the song, it is P.D.
>>>
>>>> If I wrote it and can prove it, it's mine, along with any profits 
>>>> the issuer may have generated according to a number of court 
>>>> rulings (I cannot cite chapter and verse on this, but I'll bet a 
>>>> music lawyer can). No public domain involved.
>>>
>>> If you wrote it without publishing it, you might not be able to 
>>> prove you wrote it.  If you published it after 1/1/78 without 
>>> copyrighting it, your ability to recover damages is much more 
>>> limited than if you copyrighted it.
>>>
>>>> However, if I abandon the piece - and I've had this happen to me - 
>>>> I have pretty much no recourse when I hear it being performed or 
>>>> released by someone else on down the line unless I want to spend a 
>>>> lot of money going after them.
>>>> Malcolm
>>>>
>>>
>>> Publish or perish.
>>>
>>> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>> *******
>>>>
>>>> On 8/8/2010 6:58 AM, Dick Spottswood wrote:
>>>>> The act of printing and issuing them is an
>>>>> inherent act of copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that right?  I thought when you published something without
>>>>> copyrighting it, the work was automatically in the public domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>