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  January 2011

ARSCLIST January 2011

Subject:

Re: Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal Music Group.

From:

Ted Kendall <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:52:29 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (276 lines)

"The best thing government can do is ease up the copyright laws so more of 
the abandoned material can legally and
cheaply find its way into mass-availability, that's the surest way to 
preserve these things."

Hear, hear.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal 
Music Group.


> Uh Dave, I don't think UMG is covered in this merger. Vivendi still owns 
> and controls UMG as far as I know. GE bought a majority stake in 
> Universal's television production and movie studio years ago. That was 
> then merged with NBC and the whole package sold to Comcast (Kabletown for 
> us fans of "30 Rock") after GE got into deep trouble from its financing 
> unit. The UMG masters on the Universal Pictures movie lot should have been 
> moved out when the two entities were separated. I believe Vivendi owns a 
> minority stake in Comcast now, although they might have sold their 
> interest in NBC-Universal at some point.
>
> However, your statement about what happens to knowledgable people when the 
> merger consultants start cutting payroll is absolutely true. I've seen 
> decades of corporate memory and heritage erased time after time, and not 
> just in the music biz. One of the huge downsides of rampant 
> mega-glomeration (aside from that it violates old-school notions of 
> antitrust law and erases viable competition and thus destroys industries 
> and companies as it enriches the deal-maker bankers who midwife these 
> disasters) is that it inevitably erases the heritage and culture of the 
> absorbed company.
>
> Now, while all that is unfortunate, it's not the responsibility of the 
> American Taxpayer to pick up the pieces and clean up the elephant poop 
> when these megaglomerates implode. The best thing government can do is 
> ease up the copyright laws so more of the abandoned material can legally 
> and cheaply find its way into mass-availability, that's the surest way to 
> preserve these things. Things get lost to history due to bad business 
> decisions, it's been ever thus.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal 
> Music Group.
>
>
>>I held off commenting on this thread, though I followed it closely. In 
>>light
>> of what just happened to NBC Universal under the terms of the Comcast
>> merger, I think what the LoC was able to work out was best case scenario.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NBC-Universal-now-apf-3953093694.html?x=0&.v=4
>>
>> I've been through this process, and I can say that it is terribly
>> demoralizing. These companies employ plenty of people like us --  
>> specialists
>> in media matters -- and a phrase like this:
>>
>> "We aren't a family of two favorite sons, rather one filled with talented
>> people and companies all tied for first."
>> really means "We don't care about your legacy. Your job descriptions are
>> being changed to fit our standard and if you cannot fit into our
>> redesignated roles then you will have to take the tin parachute we give 
>> you
>> and make a jump for it." As massive as UMG is -- or was, before the
>> Universal vault fire -- and as we know it to be, it is of no more 
>> substance
>> than a Kuiper Belt object in the universe of the company that results 
>> from
>> this merger. Assets that seem to be of more expense to store than their
>> potential to generate revenue will be divested or discarded. That not all 
>> of
>> UMG's pre-1960 holdings were wiped out in Hollywood is reason to rejoice,
>> but for them to have been removed to a location where they can be 
>> properly
>> catlogued and accessed is even better. If this hadn't been done before 
>> the
>> merger, then that material would probably have been moved into deep 
>> storage
>> with no staff to attend to it or junked. That there might be "junk" in 
>> the
>> collection, as Tom suggest, is no reason to disdain it -- it had to be 
>> all
>> or none in this case; cherry picking was not an option.
>>
>> Uncle Dave Lewis
>> Lebanon, OH
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Tom Fine 
>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> Another topic I didn't even touch on, but worthy of some debate because
>>> there are two good sides to the argument is SHOULD the LOC accept what
>>> amount to vault-dumps? Should the American Taxpayer accept the cost of
>>> in-perpetuity preservation of all the junk in these vaults? And, one 
>>> man's
>>> junk is another's "forgotten genius" so who determines what we accept 
>>> the
>>> responsibility and cost to preserve? This is one of my pet issues --
>>> preservation vs. accumulation and collecting vs. accumulation. I see
>>> accumulation as a fool's errand, but then one needs to figure out a way 
>>> to
>>> make sure and not discard what a reasonably segment of the population 
>>> may
>>> reasonably wish to preserve, and that's a moving target as interests and
>>> tastes evolve. However, I think if you just do vault-dumps into 
>>> Culpepper,
>>> it will quickly become clogged, unmanagable and a red herring in future
>>> budget battles. I think most Americans like the idea of historic
>>> preservation but few want to dedicate very much of their tax dollars to 
>>> it
>>> in this day and age. Furthermore, it's impossible to do a decent job 
>>> once
>>> you clog up an "attic" too much. This is a topic that I think deserves a 
>>> lot
>>> of thought and conversation in our organization and others.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Miller" <
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:58 AM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the 
>>> Universal
>>> Music Group.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> I find your suggestions to be highly imaginative and worthy of serious
>>> consideration. From my perspective, libraries and archives need to 
>>> redefine
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the 
>>> Universal
>>> Music Group.
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 5:07 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> 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]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 5:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the 
>>> Universal
>>> Music Group.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the 
>>> Universal
>>> Music Group.
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 11:56 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager