Re: [ARSCLIST] Brunswick Records rights/Universal

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Richter wrote:

>
>
> The citation was fitting for the CLIR paper because the other issues in
> the case may be found incidental to any other matter, while the answer
> the NY Supreme Court provided on the question of coverage is broadly
> relevant. In other words, New York has said: Here's what copyright means
> in this state. Now (or at least since then), it's up to the Court of
> Appeals to apply it to the current case and, by implication, to
> determine its scope in future ones.
>
> I have been in dialogue with Klaus Heymann on many matters including
> this. He is prepared to invest a good deal to secure the right to do
> what he feels is just (and profitable). He has offered royalties to the
> Met for the broadcasts he reissues so that they may be sold in the U.S.,
> but the Met will not discuss the possibility.
>
> I'm told that whether measured by number of discs or by dollar volume,
> Naxos is the largest publisher of classical music in the world. Their
> catalogue is remarkable, their economic models are unique and their
> success is admirable. Since it's Klaus's company, I am particularly
> gratified that he is both a sound (and creative) businessman and a
> committed music lover.
>
> Mike
> --

Meanwhile, EMI in the States is going after other labels which have reissued
its material and are marketing in the US (so far, only classical)....this I've
been told by Living Era, which recently launched the "Living Era Classics"
label, but EMI material such as John McCormack and Paul Robeson tracks issued
on the original LE label are also being targeted. I understand that EMI has
suggested a payment of 15% of the gross (awfully sweet of them, especially
since a given CD may contain only a few EMI tracks).

dl