[78-L] Motown on 78 and weird Filipino labels

[Kristjan Saag]

I wrote:
>> It doesn't make sense calling issues of recordings that have
>> become Public Domain "pirates". CD issues of pre 1959 (US)
>> recordings may be "pirates" in the US, but not in Europe (yet).
>> Piracy is a crime and shouldn't be associated with fully legal,
>> though unauthorized, issues.

Mike Biel wrote:
> I fully understand and actually agree with your position, but these
> terms are being used as descriptive of their category not their
> legality.  As you indicate, because of our weird copyright law,
> practically no recordings are P.D., so our industry even considers
> licensed issues or licensed reissues in other countries to be "parallel
> imports" if brought into the U.S. by a commercial firm.  /snip/

> And until a recording has been put thru the courts, you cannot say that it 
> is not
> criminal--remember our BIG surprise when the New York Supreme Court
> declared against Naxos because EMI had licensed non-American P.D.
> recordings to Capitol/Angel.  My opinion is that EMI committed fraud
> because admittedly in their country they had no more rights to those
> P.D. recordings than they would have to Tower Bridge, but those
> unauthorized P.D. reissues on Naxos -- legal pirates -- became illegal
> pirates in New York, and essentially the whole U.S.  Copyright status in
> the home country means nothing in the U.S.  ONLY U.S. law applies in the
> U.S.
---
Somehow I don't like the idea that the guy who claims the longest copyright 
term also can claim the right to call all issues who no longer need his 
authorization, "unauthorized" and "pirates". Which also leads to the 
somewhat odd categorization: "legal pirates" and "illegal pirates".
Naxos made the mistake issuing those EMI recordings in the US without 
checking if there was a US license involved. So I'd say: the European issues 
were not "unauthorized" - because they didn't need any authorization. The US 
issues were, because they needed authorization. Thus they became "pirates".
What's weird is that a record company, by selling licenses to PD recordings, 
can make them non-PD elsewhere.
As for a recording being criminal or not...your example reminds me of some 
old Eastern European joke from the Communist days when everyone was a 
criminal as long as he hadn't been able to prove the opposite in court.
It's not that bad over there, is it? Not even for sound recordings?
Kristjan