Print

Print


Please look back at my prior discussion of the decision earlier in this
post, I think back in June.  The case has some procedural oddities but when
I read it I thought it was well reasoned and I predicted that it will stand
up on appeal, at least as to the merits of the decision.
Best,
John Haley
On Aug 30, 2016 5:11 PM, "Wolf, James L" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Ben,
>
> Well, there's money on both side of this issue, and plenty of it. So I
> doubt that it will be the determining factor.
>
> I was hoping that those who have some expertise with sound recording
> copyright and/or legal arcana could weigh in or speculate on the future of
> this remarkable decision. Specifically, have there been any decisions like
> this - based on poor technical understanding or with tremendous impact on
> the rights of previous rights holders, and which have survived appeal?
> Furthermore, does the fact that this was a federal court impacting the
> rights provided by state laws have any bearing?
>
> It seems like an open and shut case of judicial incompetence to me, but I
> don't have the knowledge to say that without some reservation.
>
> James
>
> All opinions personal, no representation of LoC policy, etc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin Roth
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pre-1972 sound recordings
>
> Just follow the money!
> Ben Roth
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wolf, James L
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pre-1972 sound recordings
>
> I'm deeply skeptical that this decision will stand on appeal. It's an
> obvious misunderstanding of what remastering is in relation to an original
> work, combined with a complete disregard for the impact of the ruling on
> previously established rights. Either of those is enough of an excuse for a
> competent judge to throw this in the trash, or at least stay it pending
> further study.
>
> Can anyone speculate how or why this decision could stand?
>
>
> James
>
>
> All opinions personal, etc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leggett, Stephen C
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 8:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pre-1972 sound recordings
>
> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/08/29/decision-
> remastering-disrupt-copyright/
>
> "How a Court Decision on Remastering Could Completely Change Copyright Law"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leggett, Stephen C
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 6:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pre-1972 sound recordings
>
> http://uk.practicallaw.com/w-002-5422?source=rss
>
> http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2016/06/cbs-dodges-
> pre-1972-royalties-claim-with-disatorous-court-ruling-that-
> new-masters-deserve-new-copyri.html
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leggett, Stephen C
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pre-1972 sound recordings
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160602/07371934600/
> this-is-bad-court-says-remastered-old-songs-get-brand-new-copyright.shtml
>
> http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2016/06/articles/us-district-court-finds-
> digitally-remastered-pre-1972-sound-recordings-are-
> derivative-works-covered-by-federal-law-dismisses-suit-
> against-broadcaster-seeking-over-the-air-p/#.V1Bm7d0QEjE.twitter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leggett, Stephen C
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 9:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pre-1972 sound recordings
>
> http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/cbs-radio-defeats-pre-
> 1972-royalties-claim-with-remaster-reboots-copyright-argument/
>
> http://radioink.com/2016/06/02/end-copyright-war/
>
> http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202759076693/CBS-
> Wins-Fight-Over-Rights-to-Play-Oldies?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=1&
> slreturn=20160502085801
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Shoshani
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 5:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pre-1972 sound recordings
>
> What's going to happen is that dozens of independent producers are going
> to tweak and remaster needledrops from pre-1972 vinyl and even shellac,
> with signal processing/alteration and possibly time/pitch shifting. And the
> producers will claim copyright protection under this precedent.
>
> I mean, I'm no attorney, but doesn't this decision basically undo Capitol
> vs Naxos? (A case I personally feel had no business being brought, as the
> original HMV work would have been issued by Victor under license rather
> than under copyright; the US was not part of any reciprocal copyright
> conventions pertaining to sound recording at the time the record in
> question was originally published, and Capitol itself was over a decade
> away from formation...)
>