So which one is it?
This: FYI
We found out from our lawyers today that it is legal to reserve the rights to record a conference in a public setting.
Father Beck was within his legal rights to do so.
Or this?
No. Based on what is posted, if you record a conference in a public setting, you retain the legal rights to your recording. The words spoken are in the public domain. You can't copyright a speech that is made in public. A recording, however, is a different matter. Each person who records a conference owns the legal rights to his own recording. Likewise, if a transcription is made of a talk, the transcriber owns the transcription and can put restrictions on the distribution of the transcription.
Because if the latter is right, everyone has a right to record and has legal rights to his own recording of such things. That seems more accurate, but I'd like a clarification.
I'm not sure what the discrepancy is supposed to be.
Is the confusion from the sentence: "Father Beck was within his legal rights to do so."?
I am not sure what the OP meant with that statement. I take it that Fr. Beck can record the talk, but so can all attendees.
e.g. If 100 people attended the talk, including Fr. Beck, and all 100 recorded the talk, then each of those 100 owns the rights to his own recording. But Fr. Beck can't stop attendees from recording it. Do I have this right?
I agree with Zeitun; I sometimes wonder why there aren't more recordings of the typical new SSPX sermons, or at least/especially the most liberal ones.