http://salon.com/ent/feature/2003/12/19/rock/index.html

Eric Boehlert proclaims Dec. 20 1969 greatest music in history here's the
charts.

No. 1, "Abbey Road," the Beatles
No. 2, "Led Zeppelin II," Led Zeppelin
No. 3, "Tom Jones Live in Las Vegas," Tom Jones
No. 4, "Green River," Creedence Clearwater Revival
No. 5, "Let It Bleed," the Rolling Stones
No. 6, "Santana," Santana
No. 7, "Puzzle People," the Temptations
No. 8, "Blood Sweat & Tears," Blood Sweat & Tears
No. 9, "Crosby, Stills & Nash," Crosby, Stills & Nash
No. 10, "Easy Rider" soundtrack (featuring the Byrds, the Jimi Hendrix
Experience, and Steppenwolf)

thay could not get that kind of talent togather for a whole year now adays let alone one week of realeaseing lmao

A whole year? Try a whole decade. =P

The header, while technically accurate, leaves the implication that you are free to copy pre-1972 songs without fear of legal penalty. This is untrue. See

http://www.pubdomain.com/experts.htm#anchor5481498 for the whole story.

I was also unsure about the Sonny Bono "eternal copyright" (can't remember poster's name) extension act.

spareme,

That is for people thinking they can use the sound recordings for their commercial or non-commercial works without first licensing them.

Mr. Boehlert proclaims the WORST WEEK in history as Oct 2 1989 as follows:

No. 1 "Repeat Offender," Richard Marx
No. 2. "Hangin' Tough," NKOTB
No. 3. "Batman" soundtrack
No. 4. "Forever Your Girl," Paula Abdul
No. 5. "Girl You Know It's True," Milli Vanilli
No. 6. "Full Moon Fever," Tom Petty
No. 7. "Skid Row" Skid Row.
No. 8. "The Raw and the Cooked," Fine Young Cannibals
No. 9. "Cuts Both Ways" Gloria Estefan
No. 10. "End of Innocence," Don Henley

spareme -- Get a clue.

Your link discusses selling these songs or using them in a commercial or video.

There is no copyright on the sound recording of any of the 1969 titles listed.

Thanks for backing me up, George. I KNEW I was right!

Ok, so somebody explain to me what that means...no copyright on the sound recording of any of those 1969 lps.

So if I have the following on my hard drive, is the RIAA coming after me?

She Came In Through the Bathroom Window
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Guenivere
The Lemon Song
Oye Como VA
Sometime In Winter
I Can't Quit Her
to name a few.

I think it means there's little they can do at this point, and it wouldn't be worth any effort. I could be very wrong, seeing as how I don't know too much about this situation.

They would have to proceed under some analogous state law, which is uncertain, varies from state to state, and has not been tried yet for non-commercial activity in any state I have heard of. Anyone know different?

I do note, however, that Motown, between 1964 and 1972, did mention a copyright notice on their albums and singles (including the aforementioned Temptations Lp). And this was before they (and the other labels) were mandated to put the "P"-in-a-circle on all sound recordings. Another company that put copyright notices on their releases was Audio Fidelity (remember them? who owns their masters now?). And, of course, RCA Victor (as in "(C) by Radio Corporation of America, 19xx" and "(C) 19xx RCA, New York, N.Y. - Printed in U.S.A."), in their case dating back to 1954. And Columbia put copyright notices on the covers of their 1962-63 album releases.

A RIAA Christmas Tale

Once upon a time, in The Land Of Music Freedom, lived a wonderful application known by the name of Napster. Napster provided music sustenance for all those who desired it. Napster was not alone in this land, others existed and scurried about, but hardly anyone even paid attention to them because Napster was so sweet and kind and gentle. All was good and the people rejoiced and lived happily in the Land of Music Freedom.

Then one gray, cold blustery day, the evil RIAA appeared from the dark side of the land and stuck down Napster. One fell swoop and it was gone. No, the people cried. How can we live without our dear wonderful Napster? We pay for music over and over and over again, but just can't keep up with all the changing formats and higher prices. We need music. We must have music. What can we ever do?

Little by little all the others who lived in the Land of Music Freedom, formerly overshadowed by Napster, began to come out of hiding. First, it was Napster's cousins in P2P, but then others, not even related, started showing themselves. There was IRC and FTP and Websites from distant lands. There was IM and even Newsgroups.

They all appeared and showed themselves to be worthy inhabitants in the Land of Music Freedom. And the people rejoiced and all was good again.

Thank you RIAA. Merry Christmas to you and all.

And the RIAA wonders why they can't sell as much music as it use too???? When in the past 3 years have they had a line up like the one above. Not rocket science here folks??????

The reason that sales are slumping is that the RIAA has made some bad business choices. Besides sueing their consumers they have releases a lot of garbage and lost a large segment of their consumer base, which is the young adult and 30 something audience because of the emphasis on acts like britney spears and all of the boy bands... I'm 23 and let me tell ya, no one I know likes any of that crap.. it's always 10 year old little girls who buy that garbage.. You also have to consider that this age group has less income to spend on Cd's. Yeah, you may sell a lot of britney spears albums but at the same time they lose sales with over saturating the market with other kiddie acts..

Interesting Note -- Blood, Sweat & Tears was the only one in the Top 10 list above that won a Grammy (Best Album - 1969).

1970's Grammy winner for best new artist -- The Carpenters

W-B -- The underlying music and lyrics are still copyrighted for the old recordings, but the phonorecordings (the circle-p) are not.

Similarly, ASCAP and BMI represent the songwriter and original publisher, not the recording artist.

Another is flip flopping of artists...here today gone tomorrow and it seems as if last couple of years this trend has gotten much worse. I can remember when a person followed a group or artist throughout their career..now it seems their career lasts a week and the next week someone else is in their shoes and they are forgotten.

Moreover, in the olden days of '69 and thereabouts artists used to be developed and nurtured. Now they're manufactured and / or anointed. Why else would someone like, say, Hilary Duff (quick -- hand me the barf bag) have a(n alleged) "music" career today?

And as for the aforementioned Ms. Spears (per 'Justin42980'): I think some people give her too much credit for this whole "debasing of our culture" thing. Having said that, though, I do believe she is the ultimate symbol of the media's steady, ongoing devaluation of women into mere sex object-bimbos as manifested over the last few years (as witness the likes of Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson). But I digress . . .

As for my own record collection (vinyl, I might add), I have the following on that 1969 list: #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8. (And the "Santana" copy I have, I might add, is the original pressing where, on the label, Jimmy Zack is miscredited as writer of "Evil Ways" -- and Aaron Copland(!!!!) is miscredited as writing "Jingo." (Which I would attribute to someone at the time assuming that Santana had somehow conjured up a jazzed-up, rockified version of the 5th movement of Copland's "Statements.")

The RIAA cannot sue you in federal court for statutory damages over these recordings, but that is not the same as them being public domain. (At least not in the U.S.)


Sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, were generally protected by common law or in some cases by statutes enacted in certain states but were not protected by federal copyright law. In 1971 Congress amended the copyright code to provide copyright protection for sound recordings fixed and first published with the statutory copyright notice on or after February 15, 1972. The 1976 Copyright Act, effective January 1, 1978, provides federal copyright protection for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2047.

- http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.html

Under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, effective January 1, 1996, copyright was restored for certain unpublished foreign sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, and for certain foreign sound recordings originally published without notice. For further information, request Circular 38b, "Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

- http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html


Here are some interesting readings on the Internet:

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1994-04/0545.html
http://www.r-vcr.com/music/copyright/opinion.htm

* The La Cienega provision affirms that distribution before 1978 of a phonorecord would not for any purpose constitute a publication of the underlying work:

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856145.html
http://www.copyrightextension.com/page04.html
http://www.schleimerlaw.com/ELF298.htm

In other words, many recordings were published before 1978 without copyright notice, which threatened to put the songs in the public domain under U.S. law. The courts and Congress dealt with the recording industry's situation by declaring that publication of a record is not publication of the underlying song, and applied it retroactively of course. Of course, they want it both ways: If publication of a recording does not publish the underlying work, how can distribution of a pre-1972 recording be an infringement of federal law since it does not publish the underlying song?

Interesting that common law was preempted for some material, but not musical recordings:

http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html

Anyway I can't read the article. Salon wouldn't be the e-zine I would subscribe to. Why post subscription-only links?