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  November 2010

ARSCLIST November 2010

Subject:

Re: Gramophone Archive - help

From:

Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:27:44 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

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
>> http://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/about-the-site/view-as-pdf-not-working
> 
> 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
> back?

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]  
Regards
-- 
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager