Re: [ARSCLIST] Brunswick Records rights/Universal

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Conrad" <bob618@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James L Wolf" <jwol@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>> Then of course there's the question: If Archeophone is legal to
> >>> operate in
> >>>
> >>
> >> Illinois, are the CDs still legal to sell in NY? I think NY would
> >> have to decide this, since all pre-72 recording are not under federal
> >> jurisdiction. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing the whole interstate
> >> commerce issue wouldn't apply here unless the state of Illinois
> >> decided to sue the state of NY over Archeophone (or vice versa),
> >> which seems unlikely.
> >>
> >>
> >> Only they ARE under Federal jurisdiction...that was the whole point
> >> of the DMCA (or its predecessor) which specifically voided the maze
> >> of state laws and replaced them with the 2047/2067 expiry date. Prior
> >> to that, I assume each state had laws (I think Vermont didn't)
> >> regarding making copies of "phonograph records" so that what was
> >> legal in one state suddenly became "Disco non grata" when you crossed
> >> the wrong state line...
> >>
> >> Steven C. Barr
> >> (who is waiting with bated breath for someone from either Victor or
> >> Columbia to rush in and grab their early records back, since I
> >> violated the terms of the lease by buying them second-hand...)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Okay, now you've really got me confused. If these recordings are now
> > under FEDERAL law/jurisdiction thanks to the late Sonny Bono, and not
> > individual state laws, then why was Naxos sued in New York State court
> > just a few months ago? Why wasn't the case brought to federal court?
> > What you're saying doesn't make sense and I'm starting to consider the
> > possibility of moving to Vermont.
> >
> > Bob Conrad
> > Fort Lee, NJ
> >
> >
> Not being a lawyer, I can't say for sure...but I suspect it was because
> the recordings were originally cut in the UK, and if over 50 years old
> were p.d. in that country. I don't know enough about international
> copyright law to say whether or not that makes them p.d. in the US as
> well...but, as I understand it, the basis for the suit was that EMI had
> reissued the same material (taken from recordings in their own
archive)...?
>
> Steven C. Barr
>
>
> Steven, I don't think you understand what I am saying.  Your first reply
> stated that the copyright on pre-1972 U.S. recordings are now under
> Federal jurisdiction (quote from you: "Only they ARE under Federal
> jurisdiction").  I do not believe that is true.  Pre-1972 U.S.
> recordings are still protected under individual state laws.
>
> For example, if these recordings were protected under Federal law, as
> you assert, then Naxos would not have been tried in a N.Y. state court.
> It would have been a Federal suit.  The Naxos case would have been tried
> in Federal court -- not N.Y. state court.  And it would have cost both
> parties at least 10 times more, because Federal court is extremely
> expensive.  But the Naxos case WAS tried in N.Y. state court.
>
> So Steven, your reply ("Only they ARE under Federal jurisdiction") only
> applies to U.S. recordings made/created/copyrighted after 1972, and to a
> very small extent, certain post-1946 foreign recordings, which is a
> whole can of beans and it would probably be best if we didn't even get
> into that topic.
>
> The 1976 Copyright Act (Federal) states:
> "With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any
> rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall
> not be annulled or limited by [Title 17, which includes federal
> copyright law] until February 15, 2067."
>
> <http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub135/sec2.html#46>By the way, does
> anyone know for sure what Vermont's laws are concerning the copyright of
> pre-1972 U.S. recordings? Is it really the ONLY state in the country
> that doesn't address this issue? I realize, though, that charges can
> also be created using terms like "piracy," "copyright infringement,"
> "unfair competition," etc. so it may make no difference . . .  or does
> it?  Or would it just be easier to move to Canada?  I hope not, because
> it's just too darn cold up there in Canada!
>
1) My understanding was that the last revision of copyright law (if not the
Bono revision) specifically took sound recordings out from under the maze
of state laws and placed them all under federal copyright protection until
2067. This is based on messages I have read on ARSCLIST and 78-L, not on
actual reading of the laws involved (which I leave to the legal fraternity,
since I get lost on about the fifth or sixth "hereinunder" or "whereas!")
Otherwise, sound recordings may be doubly protected, with the state laws
lacking any fixed-term expiries...at least until February 15, 2067 or
whatever new date RIAA selects by then!

2) Yes, it's easier to move to Canada...or at least move your business up
here, which is what a lot of CD merchants are doing...until RIAA manages to
make the US pseudo-eternal copyright terms mandatory world-wide, which is
their eventual intent!

3) Your comment reminds me of an ancient wheeze!

It seems there was an old farmer who lived immediately adjacent to a
state line in New England. One day he noticed that his front yard was
filled with surveyors peering through their transits and making notes.
Finally, the chief of the crew walked up and knocked on his front door...
when the old chap answered, the surveyor said, "We have just remeasured,
and we have news for you...the state line is about a hundred yards or
so too far to the east, so it turns out your property is in New Hampshire
and not Vermont! You'll be receiving an official document shortly."

The old farmer said, "Thank God! I don't think I coulda stood another
one o' them Vermont winters!"

Steven C. Barr