Karl Miller wrote:
> What an amazing list! and, what a potential legal problem it would be to
> issue those...and how sad it is that copies may never be offered for
> sale to the public.
> Thanks for sharing the information.
In all seriousness, I wonder whether rights and obligations might be
compromised to make them accessible. For example, it may be legitimate
to offer the recordings within a museum through listening rooms having
access to a central server. While such access usually entails
prohibition against recording, is that necessary? That is, if the
library simply notified patrons that copying is illegal, prohibited or
discouraged, would that suffice legally? It certainly would not keep
copies from being made and circulated.
Of course, it all depends on one's purpose. I ask only about compliance
with the law. However desirable, compensation of the artists, producers
and others is effectively impossible. From all indications, it would
also be negligible financially. I am asking in all seriousness: Given
that there is no prospect of monetary profit, who benefits from
suppressing dissemination of a recording of acknowledged historic
There is a corollary: Is it necessary for a library to participate in
that suppression? Or is it today simply a form of hoarding, of the
archive gloating over its unique possession?
[log in to unmask]