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
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
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
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
>> 2. The LOC agrees to transfer this material to digital format within
>> a reasonable timeframe. One possible funding mechanism is described
>> 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.