On 16/11/2010, Michael Biel wrote:
> George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>> Anybody who really needed the access and who was not diligent enough
>>> to take what they needed while it was there, has shown too much
>>> trust. Those who skipped their bound paper volumes of the Gramophone
>>> showed too much trust.
> From: Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
>> George, your note sent shivvers down my spine.
>> So now... we're back to books! clark
> I think Sir Compton is rolling around in frustration at what seems to
> be a thoroughly inept management at his beloved institution. Is there
> something about British Management Techniques that reminded me of BP
> Oil's Tony Hayward while reading the inept and mystifying postings of
> The Gramophone's Online Editor Martin Cullingford and Tech Dept Head
> John Duncan who do not seem to have a clue as to how to handle public
> comments. Grant it, eleven people didn't die when Haymarket Consumer
> Media seemingly blew up, and although the results have been annoying
> to us, our way of life has not been destroyed like has happened to
> tens of thousands of people and wildlife in the Gulf. I was able to
> live without access to the archive of The Gramophone before, and
> although the loss of it has dashed the hopes of my writing a couple of
> specific articles that might have entertained ARSC Journal readers or
> even readers of The Gramophone (if the editors have ANY sense of
> history), I can live without it and go on ignoring that journal like
> most of us always have.
>> There does not seem to be a very good reason, but try to see
> Reading this is chilling. Again copyright holders are the villains. As
> one who was not much interested in the issues newer than 1960 and
> really was interested mainly in the 1920s thru the war years, what in
> blazes IMAGE rights problems do they have in these older issues?????
> There are practically no images here. Trademarks??? Is THAT it? I
> would think that with the CD industry almost dead (and I find it hard
> to figure out how it can continue to support The Gramophone with
> advertising now) that the trademark holders would LOVE to have their
> trademarks paraded in front of the public in any way possible! And
> that really should hold true for even the current advertisers. They
> should love CIRCULATION INCREASE. After all, it is FREE!!!!!! If they
> pay maybe 5000 Euros for an ad and this enables MORE people to see it,
> WOW!!! WHOOPIE!!
> So what is it? Photographers? If the photos are publicity photos for
> the labels or artists, they usually are printed for publicity and
> increased publicity is a gain. If they were purchased photos, when do
> the copyrights run out on the old stuff so we can get those issues
75 years after the death of the photographer.
> Could it be their writers? If so, a correctable OCR screws the
> writers even more than does the .pdf.
> This makes no sense, and Cullingford and Duncan are making themselves
> look silly. They keep changing the reasons why it was done, and go for
> long times without addressing the issues. This has been going on since
> May and still in November their instructions still say: "Go to My
> Archive -- View the items you've bookmarked, download PDF version of
> pages and view the latest issue online if you're a subscriber."
> There's no PDF downloads, and they were disabled in May.
>> ----- there is no way. It was too good to be true.
>> From this and other experiences I have learnt to grab what there is
>> while it is there. Do you really think that Billboard will stay up?
>> Do your research on it as a first priority. Kind regards, George
> I have been mystified as to why Billboard is on-line. I assumed that
> The Gramophone wanted people to know they were out there, and that is
> why they did it themselves, but Google is doing Billboard. What's in
> it for Billboard?
> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]