This is a response to the statements concerning copyrights in recent
postings from Robert Perry and Matthew Caulfield.

As an initial matter, there is some confusion of the terminology in
both of these recent postings; "mechanicals" refers to the compulsory
license which must be obtained by a person making a sound recording
(whether phonograph record, compact disc or piano roll) from the
composer for the rights to perform the original song.

Mechanical rights have nothing to do with the rights which attach to a
particular "performance" of a given song; for example, Harry Connick,
Jr. would need to obtain a mechanical license from the holders of the
copyrights to George and Ira Gershwin's music to record "Someone to
Watch Over Me"; a wholly different set of rights attaches to Mr.
Connick's performance of the song as embodied on a sound record.

Of interest to player piano buffs is the fact that the copyright
statute's term for compulsory licenses for sound recordings,
"mechanicals", had its origin in the player pianos (i.e,
_mechanical_ music).

With respect to Mr. Caulfield's statements that "there were no
mechanical music copyrights under U.S. (Federal) law until the
enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976"; this is not exactly correct.
Federal statutory protection for sound recordings first arose under
legislation enacted in 1971.

However, the remainder of Mr. Caulfield's statement, that there was
no comprehensive (i.e., federal) remedy for infringement of sound
recordings is correct; and, as noted by Mr. Caulfield, holders of
rights in sound recordings could (and can) assert various state law
remedies for infringement.

The next portion of Mr. Caulfield's statement is (respectfully)
incorrect; the Copyright Act of 1976 does not extend "grandfather
protection for all existing sound recordings until the year 2048."

Rather, the aforementioned Act of 1971 provides copyright protection
for sound recordings that were "fixed" (i.e., first embodied in a sound
recording) on or after February 15, 1972.  Sound recordings "fixed"
prior to February 15, 1972 are not eligible for federal copyright
protection, but do remain the subject of common law copyright or state
law protections.

See Forward v. Thorogood, 985 F.2d 604, 605, n. 1 (1st Cir. 1993);
Firma Mlodiya v. ZYX Music GmbH, 882 F.Supp. 1306, 1316 n. 14 (S.D.N.Y.
1995); Dowling v. U.S., 473 U.S. 207, 211 n. 4 (1985)(dictum).

The foregoing only addresses the issues of federal copyright law as
pertaining to sound recordings, and does not address the state law
protections which attach to sound recordings (and which, in states like
New York and California, are formidable).

Regardless, Bob's proposed course of action cannot be recommended.
Without sounding "preachy", re-editing old rolls is neither ethically
proper, nor recommended from a "historic preservation" standpoint.

Older recordings should remain inviolate, irrespective of their
intrinsic artistic merit.  To the extent such recordings require
"re-editing" to sound better, the putative roll artist is better off
starting from scratch and making a new roll of the song.  In my humble
opinion, a "re-edited" or "enhanced" historic roll represents the worst
of all worlds; it is neither a historic document nor a wholly original
performance.

I close by stating that no criticism is intended or implied towards
either Mr. Perry or Mr. Caulfield; the former asked in good faith
(with an obvious desire to stay on the "right" side of things), the
latter answered in an attempt to illuminate a confusing subject.

Best regards.

Tim Baxter
Atlanta, GA