Re: [ARSCLIST] Brunswick Records rights/Universal

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Conrad" <bob618@xxxxxxxxx>
> My apologies to Mike and anyone else who feels my past post was 
> offensive in any way.  It certainly was not meant to be.  And I now have 
> to agree with you, and I see my error: there are two important words 
> that I somehow did not see or read in the description of the court case 
> at the clir.org site:
> 
> "Capitol brought suit in FEDERAL COURT under New York law for unfair 
> competition . . . " (caps mine)
> 
> Yes, I'm red in the face over this.  How could I not have seen those two 
> very important words?  But in all fairness, it seems to me that this 
> case description should not be under the heading "State Law Protection 
> For Pre-1972 Recordings" and then go on to cite 4 different examples of 
> state law and then suddenly throw the Naxos case into the group.  Yes, I 
> can see why it was done, because the decision was based on NY state law, 
> but you can easily see how someone would get confused and think that the 
> Naxos suit was a NY state court case (when in fact, I am now well aware, 
> it was not).
> 
> That case must have cost Naxos a bundle -- just for attorney's fees!
> 
Well, the vital question here is whether state law, with its eternal
lives for sound recording rights, will "trump" the federal law until
February 15, 2067...or whether the federal law, by placing all sound
recordings ever made in the US under copyright (which had previously
been inadvertantly overlooked) rendered the state laws inapplicable.

The other question, of course, is how you can take something that was
previously under public domain and make copyright once again applicable?
Something like putting toothpaste back in the tube...

Steven C. Barr