Print

Print


--- On Fri, 8/27/10, Eric J Harbeson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Eric J Harbeson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ph.D. needs educating (copyright)
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, August 27, 2010, 3:03 PM

Good heavens!

Yes, the pre-1972 sound recordings are not subject to federal copyright, but
that does not mean they're not protected.  To the contrary, they have
stricter protections because they're subject to state and common law, which
don't generally even have fair use or preservation exemptions.  If they're
doing business in the U.S., they might be interested to read the Capitol v.
Naxos opinion from the 2nd Circuit...

What interests me is the proliferation of such sites, both commercial and non-commercial. On the non-commercial side there are various email lists, groups, blogs, peer to peer file sharing, etc., even Youtube. One can find everything from old broadcasts, to transfers of LPs, to recent broadcasts, to in-house recordings, (not to mention software, films, etc.) all stored on servers like rapidshare.  On the commercial side there are so many who sell things, even on ebay, by making up their own labels. Its not just copyrighted recordings, but works which would also require the paying of a mechanical license. 
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that copyright is unenforcible. There are times I think that to be successful at enforcing it, the equivalent of the resources used by all the US intelligence agencies to monitor communications would need to be used...but then you might need to teach those people a bit about music...
Karl