I GUESS I'VE JUST BEEN TOLD OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's 10:30 PM and Sue said it's time for supper. I left my
company, in the PRIVATE sector, at noon as we have no orders an no
work for my employees. I took Sue to see True Grit and the movie was
great. It reset my thoughts regarding how tough we think WE have it .
My reply may add a bit of levity to the list----------- from
someone who has little time after working in the private sector to
Cheers, Ken Fritz
On Jan 10, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Michael Biel wrote:
> On 1/10/2011 7:35 PM, Ken Fritz wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Is this via an earmark
> Do you know what an "earmark" is??? This is so far away from being
> an earmark that to use this word is laughable.
>> or outright theft from the taxpayer
> You are again so far off the mark. We are being GIVEN access.
> ACCESS. That is not a theft. The recordings are being DEPOSITED.
> That is how LC gets pretty much everything in it, such as books,
> films, records, etc etc etc. Getting a deposit of MASTERS is
> phenomenal, and this deposit is being handled pretty much like all
> deposits have been handled since perhaps 1818.
> Do the copyrights of the millions of BOOKS in LC get turned over to
> the government when the books are deposited in the Library? NO, of
> course not.
> If the BOOKS need to be restored, rebound, digitized, or otherwise
> restored, is there any problem with this being an expense of the
> Library? Of course not.
> If the original book publisher should somehow need to use a
> deposited copy for some reason such as needing to do a new edition
> but not able to work with their own file copies would they be
> denied access? Of course not.
> When RCA does a Toscanini issue and needs to use an NBC recording
> at LC for the master is there any difference? The NBC recordings
> were physically donated but no rights were conveyed to LC. IF NBC
> has the rights to a recording it is there. If they do not and
> someone needs to use the recording, LC and NBC guides them to
> whoever has the rights, but the rights had not been given to LC.
>> who is too busy watching the mainstream media and newspapers
>> covering up the shenanigans of our elected officials?
>> There must be a pro taxpayer website that reports this kind of
>> egregious waste. If so, I bet they can't find the time to post
>> all the crap that goes on in DEE CEE.
> You, sir, are FULL OF CRAP and are showing your absolute ignorance
> of how libraries and archives work. I doubt you have ever
> researched in a research facility like LC.
> > It's hard to keep my posting on this site free from political
> opinions when this type of thing comes to light.
> > Mad and getting madder, Ken Fritz
> Frankly, I would regard your comment as stupid and getting stupider.
> On the other hand, Tom's suggestions are reasonable and well
> thought out, although they probably would have squelched the deal.
> Instead of the use-it-or-lose-it aspect, I would suggest compulsory
> licensing. If it is not active in the Universal catalog they MUST
> allow the recording to be licensed to anyone with a minimum
> reasonable fee that would cover their royalties and LCs restoration
> costs. It is the compulsory part that is the main difference from
> what is the usual procedures on other collections.
> Because there is a provision for a public ACCESS website, the
> initial digitalization is for it, not for Universal alone. LC has
> been undertaking a project of 10,000 pre-electric Sony masters
> which will probably be the first things on that web site
> (originally promised for last year). The engineering for this is
> minimal restoration, and I suppose that will be the type of work
> that will be initially be done here. More extensive restoration
> would be done for items licensed, either from Sony masters of the
> Universal deposit.
> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>> Hi Karl:
>>> I agree with you. The American taxpayers shouldn't be Universal's
>>> transfer and mastering engineer, and archivist/storage facility
>>> for that matter. I think the deal should be done this way:
>>> 1. The Universal masters transfer to the LOC and become the
>>> property of the US taxpayer, including all outstanding copyright
>>> ownership. There should be a tax writeoff of some sort on this in
>>> order to encourage all the vaults of the teetering megaglomerates
>>> to be preserved.
>>> 2. The LOC agrees to transfer this material to digital format
>>> within a reasonable timeframe. One possible funding mechanism is
>>> described below.
>>> 3. Universal then gets a limited time (I'd argue the max time be
>>> 2 years after digitization of a given piece of content) to
>>> commercialize anything the LOC has transferred, paying a
>>> mastering charge and royalty on sales to the US Treasury. In
>>> other words, they get one bite on the apple, but they may keep
>>> something in print commercially as long as the copyright on the
>>> new version lasts. If they take it out of print, I think
>>> everything should revert back to the US taxpayers. Universal
>>> could choose to make its "claim" and then sub-license material to
>>> Mosaic or other boutique labels, but the material must remain in
>>> print and royalties be paid to the Treasury in order for
>>> Universal to have its exclusive bite of the apple.
>>> 4. Anything not chosen to be commercialized by Universal should
>>> be put in the public domain by the LOC. There may have to be a
>>> download charge of some sort in order to pay performance or
>>> publishing royalties, where these are still due. If none of these
>>> royalties are due, then the material should be widely available
>>> for free to its owners, the US taxpayers. Obviously, the way to
>>> do this is via a free download site. All of this could be
>>> supported by the royalties from what Universal chooses to
>>> commercialize. I can see that the LOC might need to charge a
>>> small amount to support all of this, rates akin to Amazon and
>>> iTunes downloads would seem reasonable (ie market prices). The
>>> goal of the PD element is not to get something for nothing as
>>> much as to get all this stuff back in print and readily available
>>> to be enjoyed.
>>> One taxpayer's views ...
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Miller"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> On 1/10/2011 11:14 AM, Karl Miller wrote:
>>>> If you read the article below you will not that Universal will
>>>> retain copyright ownership to their recordings.
>>> --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> That is the same deal that the NBC collection is under.
>>> Same as most of the unique recordings held at LOC and other
>>> institutions...yet as we approach copyrights in perpetuity, the
>>> rationale for spending taxpayer money for this sort of activity
>>> seems questionable to me, especially when there will not be
>>> reasonable access and even more so when the copyright owner has
>>> stated upfront that they plan to use the digitized recordings for
>>> their own profit.
>>> Will LOC get a cut of the profit from the sale of the recordings
>>> they have digitized?
>>> For me, there are substantive ethical questions on both sides of
>>> the argument, but it seems to me that there is room for
>>> questioning the use of public funds for this purpose.