Re: [ARSCLIST] Some potential bad news ...

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nigel Barrett" <nigelinseychelles@xxxxxxxxx>
> Why should anyone have an eartly interest in protecting 95 year old
> recordings ? 99 percent plus of the public are not interested in a 1913
> recording unless perhaps exceptions like Caruso.
> 
> Also why should  some undeserving relatives benefit from royalties from way
> back to 1913 because they happened by circumstances to be linked to the one
> who created the work ?
> The good news is thank god for archives made available to the public like
> www.wfmu.org Edison in West Orange.
> I get extremely irritated at the BBC for hoarding from the public  a mass of
> outstanding archival material peeing their knickers about copytright
> concerns,modern fee rates for musicians who recorded works 50 years ago
> etc. but I do admire the folks who do present these recordings like Malcolm
> Laycock and his wonderful 20's and 30's bits of his Dance Band years show.
> 
To answer your first question..."Because they CAN!!" The idea that somebody
other than themselves can make ANY money on their "creations" inspires
them to new heights of...well, GREED!!

The second eventuality you note is rather an unlikely one...since it
implies that a party who is legally entitled to performing royalties
on a recording "fixed" many decades ago (for the most part, NOT the
case for pre-WWII recordings) is (1) fully aware of that fact, and
(2) that (except in the very rare cases of 130-year-old recording
artists) the right to royalties has been correctly (in the legal
sense) passed on to any/all "heirs & assigns"...?!

Steven C. Barr