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:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:15:22 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (247 lines)

One thing that has made legitimate reissues so expensive and slow in the
past has been the cost of researching the recording contracts at the record
company end.  It's not clear how the arrangements with the LOC protect the
companies from contracty quirks.  There's little point in clearing stuff for
reissue, only to find a lawsuit on your corporate doorstep as a result.  

Steve Smolian

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 6:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal
Music Group.

Hi Mike:

Your proposal is OK too, the only problem with it is that it's a lot more
oversight and steps to keep everything in print. But it could work. I think,
though, if anything is commercially exploited (ie charging you and me for
either CD or download by a private company), then the LOC needs to be
reimbursed all their costs for that material, including on-going archiving
costs. What I don't want is "corporate welfare", which this seems to be in
that the American Taxpayer is now Universal's personal Iron Mountain and
mastering facility. If we get fully reimbursed, then it's a win-win as long
as there is a mechanism for all of this material to be widely accessable (in
print, either for sale or not). The business incentive for the megaglomerate
is that, no matter what the LOC charges for archiving and transfer it's
probably easier to deal with single-source outsourcing and control of the
master material than the current system where things are scattered around
the globe in some cases.

Also, regarding an earlier comment from you, I too noticed the part in the
article about Bing Crosby and wondered also if that meant fewer masters were
destroyed in the Universal movie-lot fire. This is possible, but one would
think the metal parts to "White Christmas" wouldn't be stacked up on a movie
lot in a forgotten corner with all the B-sides and non-hits. It's possible
that the metal parts for the last Bing Crosby "Master of the Century" or
other of that type reissue were never returned to the "nest" of other Decca
metal parts. Since I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone at
Universal as to what exactly burned up on that movie lot, I still assume the
worst until proven otherwise.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal
Music Group.


> 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.
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --- 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.
>>>
>>> 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

April 2020
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