Your proposal is very fascinating and your tact is remarkable. =)
Thanks for sharing!
-Steve
On 10/26/06, Jon Noring <jon(a)noring.name> wrote:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Jon Noring wrote:
> Although I'm not certain Sony BMG would
entertain an offer, there is
> some reason to believe they might, especially if linked in with some
> potential tax write-offs and the positive publicity that this would
> give Sony BMG.
That seems naïve. Although the profit that the
recording companies may
garner from any one recording are likely to be small. Their investment
in the collection as a whole would be substantial, and I do not see them
going into that fit of altruism that would inspire them to give up
capital rights in the material. Keeping the works in vaults until the
United States has passed a database protection law would be more in
keeping with their profit motives.
I appreciate your feedback.
Anyway, I don't believe my proposal to be naïve because the monetary
value of the pre-1942 collection to Sony BMG is not that high compared
to their contemporary catalog. The value of a sound collection depends
upon:
1) Current costs to maintain the collection (legal, administrative and
physically archiving and preserving the metal parts that still
exist.)
2) Current profits of reissuing from the collection, and
3) Potential future profits of reissuing from the collection.
From the information I have, the net profits,
current and future, from
the pre-1942 collection are and will remain quite nominal.
They are a
drop in the bucket compared to revenues of more contemporary sound
recordings. In fact, I've heard some rumours (unsubstantiated) that
Sony BMG is *losing* money on its pre-1942 collection. But even if
this is not true, they clearly are making very little money on their
pre-1942 sound collection (it would not surprise me if Sony BMG's top
artist today probably makes many times more money for Sony BMG than
the entire pre-1942 collection does -- and Sony BMG has hundreds of
very profitable artists and thousands of more minor artists. Figure
out the math and the pre-1942 collection is a drop in the bucket. Sony
BMG may actually be happy to get rid of the collection for $50
million plus some good PR.)
Anyway, is there any harm in negotiating with Sony BMG? Until they are
asked, we really don't know what their reaction will be. Anyone coming
in with $100 million in their pocket will probably get an immediate
lunch with Sony BMG's chairman, that's for certain. <laugh/>
For much of the stuff that they hold, copyrights
may very well have
expired, but if they have the unique copy of one of these works, they
still have the right of possession, and will milk it for what it's worth
to them.
NO!
Read the article I wrote. The sound recordings are NOT covered by
Federal copyright law, but by a patchwork quilt of state laws. The
recent "Capitol vs. Naxos" copyright ruling was issued by New York
State Supreme Court, which held for the plaintiff. So, in essence,
Sony BMG holds *state copyright* rights to the collection, and it
is enforceable just like Federal Copyright is enforceable. And state
copyright laws are more onerous than is Federal Copyright law.
And from the rulings, the recording companies don't have to hold the
original metal parts to maintain ownership of the recordings. They
just have to prove in court that they own them "on paper", and for
the major labels from the pre-1942 era it is very easy to demonstrate
the chain of ownership -- it is well-documented.
> For background information on the unusual
copyright status of early
> U.S. sound recordings (which is surprising!), and whether or not Sony
> BMG might even be interested, refer to the article I wrote about the
> topic of freeing the older sound recordings:
>
>
http://www.projectgramophone.org/TeleRead-Article-01Nov2003.html
>
> (Especially refer to the section entitled: "A Note To The Major Media
> Companies: Why Not Donate Your Older Sound Recording Catalogues?")
I read your article, but I think you exagerate
the legal points.
Copyright is a federal matter, and I don't see any state copyright laws
withstanding a constitutional challenge. The burden of proving
perpetual royalty rights on a very old recording falls on whoever is
alleging that such a contract exists. If nobody can find the old
contract the effect would be the same as if it had never existed. They
are not indeterminable.
Yes, Copyright is a Federal matter. and the U.S. Congress has decided
NOT to cover pre-1972 sound recordings with Federal Copyright
protection. At present sound recordings are covered by the patchwork
quilt of state laws mentioned above and in the article I wrote. And
refer to the Capitol vs. Naxos decision. When Federal law kicks in, it
then pre-empts state law, but unless Congress acts sooner, for
pre-1972 sound recordings we won't see that happen until 2067.
The royalty issue I don't deem to be critical for what we are talking
about.
But to the recording companies, it is a big deal. For a long while
MCA, which held the Decca collection, refused to reissue any of their
older recordings because they were unsure of their royalty status. And
they denied third-party requests to reissue the Decca stuff. This led
to a period of time when NOTHING from the Decca collection was legally
reissued.
Jon Noring
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l