LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2003

ARSCLIST October 2003

Subject:

Re: Arhoolie (et al) & copyrights--was: discogs andArhoolie

From:

James L Wolf <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:51:19 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

  I think this point of keeping items in print to maintain copyright has
some merits, but I 'd like to add one other factor. Under current law,
copyright holders have the right to publish or suppress. This makes
sense only up to the point where commercial value comes into play.
Meaning that while money can be generated, it makes sense that the
copyright holder have control over who makes that money, even if that's
nobody.
    The problem is that the duration of commercial viability has no
relation whatsoever to the duration of copyright. Louis Armstrong c.1928
recordings may still be moneymakers in 100 years, but by then
(hopefully) the state "copyrights" on his sound recordings will have
expired. Conversely, records put out in 2003 may have commercial value
for a year or less, and then nothing ever again.
   Until recently, the solution to this problem had been a form of
compromise over terms of copyright, first by making the holder apply for
an extension to go past the first 7, 14, or 28 year term. With state
laws for recordings, these sorts of compromises were never included, and
now with Sonny Bono's ghost and Disney determined to eliminate any real
barriers to eternal copyright (held by corporations of course) these
compromises are gone entirely. Thus, as some Supreme Court justices have
noted, corporations now hold much of the cultural heritage of our
country hostage (and incommunicado) so that they can continue to profit
from the less than one percent of that heritage that they can make money
off of.
   The solution is to return to the saner laws of the past, or to forge
new compromises which take into account commercial viability as a test
for extended copyright protection. I'd be willing to let the corps hold
onto Armstrong et al. as long as they continued to make that stuff
available and as long as they let go of all the stuff that they don't
need any more, which they only hold onto so as not to establish any
"precedents" which might hurt them somewhere down the road. As I've said
before, this can only happen through the Legislative branch, and the
sooner that concerned institutions pool their resources and make the
pitch to Congress, the sooner something good might happen.
   Until the recent fights over Bono's extension and RIAA's draconian
anti-piracy measures, I don't think Congress was that aware of the other
sides (other than the corporations')  to the issue of copyright and
public domain. Now I do think that they are more aware and would be much
more open to proposals for solutions that would at least accommodate all
sides, if not satisfy them entirely.

   This is my personal opinion and has no relation to any official
Library of Congress policy or position. Please don't confuse it for an
official Library statement. But I should say that a lot of jobs at the
Library (including mine) would be a great deal easier if copyright laws
were relaxed, so I'm especially unable to be neutral or disinterested on
this subject.

James

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/24/03 12:37PM >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Or do we license all music ever made to a central database. They make
it
> available to everyone under different deals. A listening library pays
a
> yearly license fee, a consumer gets to download it for $?? a radio
station
> pays a different fee, and internet listener another and after 75
years
it's
> P.D. and free. (I currently like 75 years, 50 is too short and US law
is
> ridiculous!)
It's interesting to read this, coming as it is from an operation that
specializes
in the reissuing of old sound recordings. To me, though, it points out
the
need
for a different approach to the copyright terms on sound recordings.
Tom's
idea
on a term seems to be based on the age of the material they have
already
issued...
which seems logical when you think about it. However, it leaves
everything
<75
years old still protected, whether or not Arhoolie or someone else has
it in
their catalog and thus needs protection, and thus inaccessible to
anyone who
doesn't happen to have a copy of the original issue!

I still think that the best approach would be one which would be based
on
whether
the copyright owner had the material available to the public. There
would
have to
be a lot of fine points defined as to "available" and other
limitations, but
this
would at least remedy the current situation whereby the original owner
can
refuse
to (re)issue a recording and, as well, refuse to allow anyone else to
do so.
In
this scenario, a reissuer such as Arhoolie would acquire an effective
copyright
to any dormant material they reissued...but only for the duration of
the
availability
of their reissue. There might be problems if two different people
happened
to
reissue the same dormant recording(s) effectively simultaneously and
without
knowledge of the other project.

What are other thoughts on this approach?
Steven C. Barr

NOTE: This refers ONLY to the actual copyright on the sound recording,
and
not
to publisher or composer rights/royalties since they latter are covered
by
compulsory license.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager