--- On Sat, 8/28/10, Haudy Kazemi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
When all is said and done, future generations of media historians and media archaeologists may depend almost entirely on what was at the time unauthorized copies and duplications made by enthusiasts that used whatever tools they could to preserve text, audio, video, and software; tools that may have removed copy protection like Macrovision or DRM in its many forms allowing the (unauthorized) preservation to take place.
+++++++++++++++++++
Its not in the future, already I have supplied organizations like the New York Philharmonic, Indianapolis Symphony, Boston Symphony, etc. with lacunae in their collections. Many others have done the same. All from my "Illegal" copies.
Yet, in support of my own research, I was denied access to a fairly recent performance by the National Symphony. I went through channels. I offered a substantial amount of money to pay for a copy. My request was reviewed by the musician's committee, and denied. Under the law, it was their right to do so.
So, if I find some collector recorded the work in question (in-house) and is willing to sell a copy of his illegal recording...of course I would buy it. I know well the law, I used to teach the copyrights in my classes. As a musician I am well aware of the Union rules. Yet, had I been at that concert, I could have heard (once) the work in question. So, should one who could not attend that concert be denied the opportunity to hear the performance for a fair price. The laws say yes.They are based on the history of how music was used and how musicians make their living. Things have changed. It would seem that there is much to be said for revisiting the entire structure and rationale of those laws and put them in a workable form. Again, I find the current system irrational and unenforcible.
Karl
|
