Speaking of the calypso,there was that excellent Bear Family box a few years ago.Where did they source it from,the 78s,the metal parts,or where?
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal Music Group.
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 11:41 AM
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It's likely everyone at the company has heard of Bing Crosby and Louis
Armstrong. But the calyso, the artists in the Sepia Series, May Questel,
the countless other musical nooks and cranies so important to readers of
this list as well as future collectors and likely unknown names to the
discard deciders? Should they be Dr. Mengeled? Should the future be denied
access to the things we may not value today but that they will, in their
time, a phenomenon we've seen time and again?
I see this as a major rescue effort. That we are to be taxed for doing so,
should this prove to be the case, is no different from putting paintings in
a museum, most of which are stored in a basement.
Does an artist retain ownership of the image when the painting is acquired by a museum? If so, should that be the case? Also, these days if you want to use an image of an art work owned by some museums, you have to pay the museum.
As one contributer to this thread mentioned, transfer of copyrights might have been a "deal breaker." I believe that as long as libraries and archives are willing to devalue their contribution to society, they will continue to lose support. For me, libraries are one of the more noble enterprises of civilization. For me, they should not allow themselves to become the storeroom and caretaker for a for-profit organization.
I realize that what I am suggesting is indeed a shift in focus for libraries and archives. But I sincerely believe that libraries need to begin looking at some of the basics if they are going to insure their own longevity.