Re: [ARSCLIST] New U.S. Copyright Laws

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
> At some point, UCSB will realize that their posting of cylinders relies 
> on rational interpretation of law. Given the recent finding by the New 
> York Supreme Court, the 1923 'rule' does not apply. I'm sure no one will 
> complain at their posting pre-1924 recordings as out of copyright, but 
> when their own attorneys realize how the law has devolved, they will 
> pull the plug.
> 
Actually, there never WAS a "1923 'rule'" for sound recordings. These
carried no copyrights until 1972...but were protected by an accumulation
of state laws regarding "piracy" as well as the application of "common
law" which had created precedents. The effective result was that NO sound
recording could be legally copied (I have no idea if the courts ever
defined "fair use" in this respect) and that was replaced by the current
"until 2067" term in more recent legislation (which can always can be
extended further if the industry so desires!). I think the 1923 date may
have applied to publisher royalties (if so, it probably still does)...but
publisher rights operate under compulsory license in the US (oddly enough
NOT in Canada, where the publisher can refuse someone permission to use
a song!)...whereas the rights to a sound recording don't.

Steven C. Barr