Hi Cary:

Your certainly more right than wrong with past behavior. However, I don't think the megaglomerates 
have ever been weaker, and whatever business models of witholding availability worked in the past 
don't anymore. So things might be changing.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cary Ginell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright (was: Virgin Sacrifice)


>I would seriously doubt that any of the major record companies would willingly donate their 
>material to anyone. They haven't built a tax break big enough to convince their attorneys that this 
>is a worthwhile endeavor for them. And forget about them doing anything for "the good of history." 
>The only historic thing about record companies is that they historically don't give a damn about 
>what's in their vaults unless it's worth a ton of moolah.
>
> Cary Ginell
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2009 7:31 pm
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright (was: Virgin Sacrifice)
>
>
> One non-lawyer's idea for a partial solution to get more material in the PD:?
> ?
> What if there were a mechanism where a record company could audit its vaults, figure out what is 
> obviously of no commercial value due to either being out of print for decades or having been in 
> print only a short time, and donate that into the public domain via the Smithsonian's commercial 
> operations or an LOC-maintained convert-and-stream website or something similar? The record 
> company should get some kind of blanket legal release, in case some ancient contract turns up 
> which indicates someone else needed to sign off on the transaction, and I would suggest the record 
> company should get a tax break for any material they turn over with a high-quality digital 
> transfer, which can then be immediately available for download. I'd also recommend that the RIAA 
> or some other association of record companies be given the opportunity to set up a tax-advantaged 
> non-profit to build and maintain this uber-download server for all the newly-public-domain 
> material, thus removing this burden f!
> rom any US government agencies and the taxpayers.?
> ?
> This may be naive, but I think this plan could work because there is a sizable percentage of 
> material in the vaults that has not enough potential commercial value to ever be in print again, 
> but which has some niche following or collector value out there. The calculation on the record 
> companies' part would be, the best use of this material is set it free and get a tax writeoff. 
> Done over a period of years, it could be more lucrative than any commercial attempts at a 
> very-long-tail download-only reissue program, so therefore it makes business sense to set the 
> material free.?
> ?
> For what's left after that, material of obvious commercial value and material "in reserve" with 
> potential commercial value, I think copyright laws should be changed where there is very iron-clad 
> protection, and I don't really care how long-term, but only if the material is in print in a 
> modern, widely-used consumer format. If it's out of print for more than XX years (I'd recommend 5 
> or 10), then the copyright should expire.?
> ?
> Given the entrenched interests involved, I am writing a pipe dream here, but a non-lawyer can 
> still dream.?
> ?
> -- Tom Fine?
> ?
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Brylawski" <[log in to unmask]>?
> To: <[log in to unmask]>?
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:54 PM?
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright (was: Virgin Sacrifice)?
> ?
> I have a lot to say about Mike's post, and then I promise I'll take a break.?
> ?
> First, the FBI does enforce copyright, or at least blatant piracy for?
> profit. I think that there are many "federal offensives" in the?
> various copyright laws.?
> ?
> Second, it was LC's National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB), not?
> ARSC, which commissioned the study of out-of-print recordings. As I?
> wrote earlier, it's free for the taking at?
> http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub133/pub133.pdf. (Yet I point out,?
> in all fairness, the study was carried out by two ARSC members, Tim?
> and Steve Smolian.)?
> ?
> ARSC does not have a lobbyist now officially. We don't have the?
> financial resources.?
> ?
> Regarding Mike's comment: "I turned to Tim Brooks who happened to be?
> standing right?
>> behind me, and whispered a question "This is to buy us off and stop our?
>> complaints, isn't it?" and he gave a knowing nod." Tim is entitled to his opinion and he and I > 
>> have discussed this a lot, but I think that it's too cynical to think that this limited license 
>> to > stream-only pre-1925 materials will convince Congress to maintain no public-domain laws, and 
>> also > dismissive of the influence of ARSC's efforts thus far (led by Tim!) to inform Congress of 
>> the > sound recording anomaly. The license is only to stream materials which, if in any other 
>> format, > would already be public domain. It is my expectation that the streaming site will build 
>> a demand > for FULL access to the recordings and could actually promote changes in the law. The 
>> NRPB study of > the state of audio preservation, written by Rob Bamberger, will be published this 
>> summer. It > includes a full chapter (25% of the study) on how copyright laws impedes 
>> preservation and access. > This study was commissioned by Congress.?
> ?
> That said, this is an uphill battle. I encourage all readers to see if?
> their congressional representatives are on the Judiciary Committee,?
> and to write to them to tell them how you feel about these issues.?
> ?
> Finally, it is a new website, one only partially managed by ARSC,?
> which spells out these issues in full. It was created by the new?
> Historical Recording Coalition for Access and Preservation:?
> www.recordingcopyright.org.?
> ?
> Sam?
> ?
> ------------?
> Sam Brylawski?
> Editor and Project Manager?
> Encyclopedic Discography of Victor Recordings?
> University of California, Santa Barbara?
> http://victor.library.ucsb.edu?
> ?
> ?
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Michael Biel<[log in to unmask]> wrote:?
>> From: "Schooley, John" <[log in to unmask]>?
>>> I fear that copyright laws will exist in the future on paper only,?
>>> and be rarely enforced.?
>>?
>> There is a basic misunderstanding here about WHO enforces the law. The?
>> police, FBI, prosecutors, and other "arms-of-the-law" do not enforce the?
>> law. The courts do. The copyright holders do. The copyright law does?
>> not give any enforcement powers to legal authorities, only the right of?
>> those who have had their rights violated to take the case to court.?
>>?
>>> Except, of course, by libraries, archives, universities, and?
>>> other institutions whom we might hope would attempt to?
>>> preserve some of the material. Due to legal fears, they will stick to?
>>> the letter of the law long after the public has abandoned it, and any?
>>> efforts to preserve recordings will be severely hampered as a result.?
>>> I can't find the link right now, but I read an article recently that?
>>> looked at what happens when laws are not repealed or changed, but simply?
>>> no longer enforced. The example they used was...pornography. There are?
>>> still obscenity laws on the books across the country, but the police?
>>> aren't breaking down the doors of people who view porn online.?
>>?
>> You are comparing apples and oranges. The obscenity laws are COMPLETLY?
>> DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAWS from copyright laws. The POLICE NEVER enforced?
>> copyright laws. This argument is completely misleading.?
>>?
>>> Communities didn't pass laws that said pornography was no longer?
>>> prohibited, changes in the culture (and technology) led to the point?
>>> where law enforcement just doesn't concern itself with it anymore. The?
>>> same thing has already happened as far as copyright law is concerned.?
>>> The RIAA lawsuits, though well-publicized, are few in number,?
>>?
>> The RIAA on its own initiative stopped initiating the mass suits over a?
>> year ago, that's why you aren't hearing about them. But I think the?
>> figure of the number of suits they "settled out of court" was around?
>> 35,000. Only 3 or 4 were ever taken to court.?
>>?
>>> and totally ineffective compared to the vast amount of file-sharing?
>>> going on.?
>>?
>> Oh really. Have you noticed that all the major file sharing sites are?
>> either closed or charging??
>>?
>>> But copyright laws aren't going to be overturned or repealed through?
>>> any sort of legal process, people will simply continue to ignore them,?
>>> and law enforcement will decide it has more important things to worry about.?
>>?
>> Law enforcement doesn't decide. It is not an episode of Cops where they?
>> are the ones who initiate the investigations and arrests. The industry?
>> does. As long as there are willing starlets in Hollywood and?
>> congressional staffs willing to sleep with them, the MPAA and by?
>> extension the RIAA will have control over our copyright laws. I am?
>> being sarcastic here, but as was discussed at the copyright committee?
>> session at ARSC, the industry spends MILLIONS OF DOLLARS lobbying?
>> Congress.?
>>?
>>?
>> But we ARE fighting back. ARSC now has a lobbyist. The laws won't just?
>> go away, we have to WORK at it -- pay attention to the ARSC Copyright?
>> Committee web page, I mean it, PAY ATTENTIION TO THAT PAGE -- and back?
>> up what is being accomplished. Everyone who has been commenting on this?
>> should have been at the meeting. When the audio of that meeting goes on?
>> line, LISTEN TO IT.?
>>?
>>> Unfortunately, most museums, libraries, and archives will remain?
>>> hamstrung by their legal departments and prohibited from making?
>>> their collections available online, for example.?
>>?
>> This IS changing. One thing that was not discussed at that meeting but?
>> was revealed the day before during the tour of the National AV Center at?
>> Culpepper, is that the record industry has another trick up its sleeve.?
>> They are about to silence most of our bitching by goosing up the?
>> statistics of the percentages of ancient recordings available from the?
>> rights holders.?
>>?
>> Roger Kulp wrote:?
>>>> A sizeable chunk of,if not most rock,jazz,R&B,country,and?
>>>> 78 era classical has been issued on CD somewhere at one point?
>>>> in time in the past 25 years or so.Most of it on small vanity?
>>>> labels,in limited distribution and quantity.?
>>?
>> ARSC did a study of the percentages on a decade-by-decade basis of what?
>> is available from the rights holders and what is available from the?
>> labels Roger describes. The numbers of both were low, but the numbers?
>> from the rights holders was almost invisible. The point iws not to be?
>> happy with that status quo but to show that the rights holders have not?
>> done right by their heritage, and that the work that has been STARTED by?
>> those other labels is important and must now be legalized in the U.S.?
>> But read on:?
>>?
>> Sony has given permission -- and is sponsoring the effort -- to LC to?
>> digitize AND FREELY STREAM TEN THOUSAND ACOUSTICAL RECORDINGS THEY?
>> CONTROL, which includes Victor and Columbia. The transfers are about to?
>> begin, the first thousand recordings have already been selected, and at?
>> least these (if not the full ten thousand) will be on-line by the end of?
>> the year. The transfers of the discs will be quickly done -- only a?
>> minor amount of time will be spent selecting styli and adjusting speed?
>> -- but the discs will still be there to be re-transferred if there is?
>> real need. While our group was stammering open-mouthed at the?
>> announcement, I turned to Tim Brooks who happened to be standing right?
>> behind me, and whispered a question "This is to buy us off and stop our?
>> complaints, isn't it?" and he gave a knowing nod.?
>>?
>> It is becoming evident that Congress did not know that they had?
>> restricted rights to the early recordings. This has been a surprise to?
>> every legislator who has been told. They had no idea that there were?
>> restrictions to pre-rock recordings because all they were told was about?
>> rock records and Mickey Mouse. As they have been informed one-by-one of?
>> problem by our lobbyist, there now IS a chance that the law will be?
>> changed. As I said, READ THE ARSC COPYRIGHT COMMITTEE PAGE and follow?
>> the links. Is that too much to ask??
>>?
>> Yes the situation reprinted below is the current situation, but it is?
>> hopefully about to change if we help and support the movements that ARSC?
>> and their allied organizations are working towards.?
>>?
>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>>?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>> So, we will end up with a?
>> situation like we have currently, but worse. When an interested party?
>> wants to hear a particular recording, if they can't afford to purchase?
>> it (if there are even copies available for purchase) they are better off?
>> breaking the law and downloading it online if they can, rather than?
>> using "legal" methods and trying to access a copy at a library or?
>> archive. If they try follow the law and avoid any illegal action, it?
>> just ends up being more trouble than it is worth. To hear the recording?
>> legally, they would have to visit the collection that holds it in person?
>> (perhaps having to fly in from another state), and then could only?
>> listen to it on site. In most cases they wouldn't even be allowed to?
>> make a copy for themselves. Or, they could just find it online?
>> somewhere for free. The public has already decided that this isn't a?
>> tough choice...?
>>?
>> -Schooley?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>> -----Original Message-----?
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List?
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine?
>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:38 AM?
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Virgin Sacrifice?
>>?
>> Hi Jack:?
>>?
>> Your situation is somewhat unique, perhaps so unique that there is not?
>> even a niche market for it in the modern download world. However, you?
>> raise a good point -- all the material that is currently out of print,?
>> sometimes called "long-tail content." I've argued numerous times on this?
>> list and in other forums that all of it should eventually be available?
>> as downloads. There is, however, some cost involved with digitizing old?
>> material and some masters are forever lost. The biggest block, though,?
>> to getting the more obscure stuff online is copyright laws. Stuff stays?
>> copyright in the US far too long, especially if it's out of print. I've?
>> argued that there should be a requirement for copyrights to last beyond?
>> what the rest of the world finds reasonable, that the material should?
>> have to be in print in a common consumer format or the copyright?
>> expires. If you didn't have the copyright laws, much much more variety?
>> of material would be online for legal download, put there by fans and?
>> collectors or a guy willing to sell his amateur transfers for a quarter?
>> or a dime a song. It would be great for consumers because it would?
>> probably drive download prices down, as well as offering a "longer tail"?
>> of obscure sub-genre stuff than is now legally available.?
>>?
>> Your point illustrates the main weakness of the current music business?
>> model, and it was also touched on by Mike Biel about record stores in?
>> the years before they all collapsed -- a lack of variety is widely toxic?
>> to the business. It causes a general dissatisfaction among the more?
>> mainstream consumers ("who cares, there's nothing new or interesting?
>> there, just the same old?
>> stuff") and stymies those who want to "go deep in the stacks" and really?
>> learn about a genre or artist. A sure way for a stores buyer traffic to?
>> dry up.?
>>?
>> Finally, my point wasn't about unique collections like what yours?
>> obviously was (since you were able to sell it). Hence my sentence about?
>> Black Patty and Shaded Dog disks and McIntosh equipment. My point was?
>> about what most of us have for collections, myself included. Roomfuls of?
>> heavy and mostly worthless stuff, shelves of common records and CD's,?
>> boxes of common and/or not-good-condition 78's, with a subset of a small?
>> amount of the volume that's truly valuable. As time goes on, many of us?
>> will find that even this subset won't raise enough dough for our?
>> survivors to dispose of the mass of dumpster fodder. And I think these?
>> dreams of libraries, universities and archives suddenly springing up to?
>> collect and preserve all this are pipe dreams, given likely economic?
>> conditions and general cultural disinterest in anything "old" going?
>> forward.?
>>?
>> -- Tom Fine?
>>?
>> ----- Original Message -----?
>> From: "Jack Palmer" <[log in to unmask]>?
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>?
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 11:59 PM?
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Virgin Sacrifice?
>>?
>>?
>>> Tom,?
>>> I certainly qualify as an old man. I'm even older than Mike! But?
>> even if I was willing to?
>>> download the music only I could not obtain the artist and the music I?
>> want. It is only available?
>>> from old 78s. Most of it has never been released on CD or even LP.?
>> So where does that leave me??
>>> Either look for the old records or forget the music I want to hear??
>> So my choice is looking for?
>>> the records. And I enjoy it. I have met so many interesting people?
>> and traveled across the?
>>> entire US looking for the music. I can't travel anymore due to health?
>> problems but I still check?
>>> out several mail order lists and on line listings. I feel I am doubly?
>> blessed. I get to hear the?
>>> music and I also have the original artifact that the music was issued?
>> on. You have to be a record?
>>> collector (of any age) to know what it is like. Jack?
>>>?
>>> ----- Original Message -----?
>>> From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>?
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>?
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:41 AM?
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Virgin Sacrifice?
>>>?
>>>?
>>>> Hi Mike:?
>>>>?
>>>> No offense, but your attitude about downloads shows your age. There?
>> are definitely a few "kids"?
>>>> who want a houseful of dusty objects, but I respect just as much the?
>> person who is collecting the?
>>>> MUSIC, not the THING, in which case an iPod full of downloads is more?
>> MUSIC in a more convenient?
>>>> place than ever existed before. Now if only that music were in full?
>> CD quality or better instead?
>>>> of lossy-compressed ...?
>>>>?
>>>> Since we can't take either one with us, it might be more merciful on?
>> those we leave behind to?
>>>> leave a single computer drive and iPod vs. a house of moldy things to?
>> be disposed of. On the?
>>>> other hand, if it's a house full of minty Black Pattys, Shaded Dogs?
>> and McIntosh amplifiers,?
>>>> perhaps the survivors will forgive the clutter as the cash rolls in?
>> from selling it! But this?
>>>> isn't usually the case. I think there are guys on this list who?
>> appraise giant piles of shellac?
>>>> and vinyl all the time and will report how worthless many acres of?
>> this stuff is, so mainly it's?
>>>> a burden on those left behind unless they share the love of the stuff?
>> or own a carting business.?
>>>>?
>>>> As for used bookstores, except for my strange inclination to collect?
>> first edition hardcovers of?
>>>> certain mainstream books about politics and journalism, I've had much?
>> better luck and saved tons?
>>>> of money using AbeBooks. So once again, the Internet wins. Aside from?
>> books about music and the?
>>>> record business, I've stopped buying altogether due to lack of space.?
>> Library trumps wallet?
>>>> nowadays.?
>>>>?
>>>> -- Tom Fine?
>>>>?
>>>> ----- Original Message -----?
>>>> From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>?
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>?
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:30 AM?
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Virgin Sacrifice?
>>>>?
>>>>?
>>>> From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>?
>>>>> Maybe it's an age thing, but I can't see any reason for physical?
>> stores?
>>>>> for music since Amazon took off. I haven't bought a book or CD from?
>> a?
>>>>> physical store in probably a decade now.?
>>>>?
>>>> To a certain extent that is similar to me, especially when I am home?
>> in?
>>>> Kentucky, far, far away from any record stores with just a small?
>>>> non-discount bookstore in town. Constantly when something is?
>> discussed?
>>>> in these forums or I otherwise hear about something available, I?
>> check?
>>>> on Amazon and a couple of other places and ZIP, I click and buy. The?
>>>> problem is not being able to combine shipping in the marketplace?
>> area,?
>>>> which raises the price considerably when buying several things that?
>> the?
>>>> same vendor offers.?
>>>>?
>>>> But that being said, when visiting Leah in NYC we always try to drop?
>>>> into Acadamy Records, Book-Off, Strand Books, and a neat remainder?
>> book?
>>>> place we found in the Village, and we usually leave these places with?
>>>> too many things to carry, so I usually drive there. Then there are?
>> the?
>>>> special events like the semi- and annual sales at places like the?
>>>> ARChive of Contemporary Music that Leah and I hit this afternoon. We?
>>>> crawled out with almost 100 one dollar LPs, almost 50 two dollar?
>>>> LaserDiscs, and some 50 cent 78s including two Chaillapin Opera?
>> Discs,?
>>>> Jazz at the Philharmonic Vol 4 on Disc album 504, Artie Shaw plays?
>> Cole?
>>>> Porter on Musicraft album S2, King Cole Trio Capitol album B8 with an?
>>>> extra disc, and Tetrazzini on the vinyl Heritage Series 15-0001, and?
>>>> some other stuff including two Hoffnung books. (The sale continues?
>> thru?
>>>> Sunday, so if you're in the NYC area you might want to check it out?
>>>> http://www.arcmusic.org ) And then there's the Jazz Record Bash on?
>> Fri?
>>>> and Sat, and everybody will be there. And then there's the Antique?
>>>> Phonograph and Record shop in South Jersey we went to last Saturday?
>>>> while in the Phila area and got a couple dozen 78s there.?
>>>>?
>>>> There is nothing like being able to handle and inspect the records,?
>>>> including the ones you don't buy, which can't be done on the internet?
>>>> nor in mail auctions. While 78 collectors have been using mail?
>> auctions?
>>>> since the 1930s, most of these collectors have also gone thru tens of?
>>>> thousands of records in stores, so they get to know what the details?
>> are?
>>>> in the actual records. I know I have looked at more than a million?
>>>> records over the years. This is an important learning experience for?
>>>> collectors. When the rock collectors started having access to mail?
>>>> auctions in the late 70s in Goldmine and other magazines like it, I?
>>>> noticed that the majority of rock collectors had never really gone?
>> thru?
>>>> piles of thousands of records, and usually knew nothing about the?
>>>> records themselves. Reading the articles in these rock collector?
>>>> magazines, looking at what they mistakenly called "discographies",?
>> and?
>>>> the auction lists themselves, showed how ignorant these rock?
>> collectors?
>>>> were, even the "experts". All too often they had never looked at any?
>>>> records that were not already in their collection. They didn't know?
>>>> labels, pressing plant styles, matrix numbers, etc. Obvious?
>> conterfeits?
>>>> were snapped up like the real things by them if they ventured out to?
>> a?
>>>> record show.?
>>>>?
>>>>?
>>>>> And downloads trump even that because not only are they convenient,?
>>>>> they are near-instant gratification. Now if only full 44.1/16-bit?
>>>>> downloads would go down to 99 cents or less per song and be?
>>>>> commonplace, we'd finally be at a reasonable "new paradigm."?
>>>>?
>>>> So if these "collectors" now stick to just downloading things, that?
>>>> might leave the real artifacts for us real collectors. I'm not?
>>>> interested in paying for vapor, which is all a download is. We did?
>> use?
>>>> some free streams as source for some of the music in Leah's?
>> documentary?
>>>> because most of the music was added while I was in New York and my?
>>>> records were in Kentucky. I do buy plenty of CD reissues of 78s, so?
>> I?
>>>> am not a purist who insists on having the 78 even if it is impossibly?
>>>> rare. But if the reissue is on a CD or a download, I will go for the?
>>>> CD. You are not a record collector if you go for the download. (In?
>>>> Leah's documentary, Kurt Nauck discusses the difference between music?
>>>> lovers who just want to listen to the music, and record collectors?
>> who?
>>>> want the record and also might listen to the record.)?
>>>>?
>>>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>>>>?
>>>?
>>?
>