Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright wrongs: we can't let the music industry suits stifle creativity

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Richter wrote:

>  From my point of view, it would be sufficient to define as "abandoned" any
> copyright not exercised for a defined term. Copyright would then be a right
> to publish where today it is a right to withhold from publication. Another
> option would be a compulsory license. Specifics would need to be
> negotiated: how long before abandonment is declared; what does it mean to
> be in print; the price of the license. Any such choice would likely be
> better all around than the present flat protection.

I wonder how we'd handle a situation where a copyrighted recording is kept in print
but not in general (i.e. easy to obtain) circulation....for example, singer Bea
Wain, whose sides with Larry Clinton and with studio orchestras have been issued on
an obscure CD by RCA in Japan but otherwise can't be found except on original 78s.
You and I can't go into Tower or Barnes & Noble and buy that disc, although we
might be able to find it on the web..meanwhile, if BMG can prove that the
recordings are in print, SOMEWHERE, would that constitute reasonable "publication"?

dl