________________________________
From: Tom Fine <tflists@BEVERAG



________________________________
From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:57 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] CBS News on LOC efforts to preserve video history

 If the taxpayer is to pay for preserving these items, there should be universal access to them!

-- Tom Fine

I agree. As I wrote some years ago...http://www.loc.gov/rr/record/nrpb/pdf/MillerStudy.pdf

Karl

COPYRIGHTS 

Libraries are often expected to preserve recordings in which the content of the
recording is owned by another organization. Consider the broadcast recordings held in
the Library of Congress. Public money is being used to preserve and maintain the
assets of organizations like the Boston Symphony. However, libraries, subject to the
copyrights, rarely have the right to provide reasonable access to the public. 

Some of these recordings feature unpublished concert performances, of substantive
historic importance, by our nation's most significant musical organization. Under the
copyrights, the ownership of the audio of these recordings most likely resides with the
performing organization. Since the library does not own the content of these recordings,
they must limit access to on-site listening. As a researcher, because I do not have the
financial resources to travel to a library that holds such a unique recording, I am not
able to study it. I have written many organizations including the Boston and National
Symphonies and, even with the offer of paying money, been refused permission to
obtain a copy of a live performance I needed for study. Further, even if I did have the
resources to travel to the holding library, without permission for a copy, I would not be
able to share the recording with my students. What good is preserving history when it
cannot be reasonably accessed for research, or used in the process of teaching? 

History belongs to the people. If we believe there is history to be found in recorded
sound, we must provide a means of making it reasonably available. Unless there are
matters of national security or propriety involved, the public should be provided
reasonable access to intellectual property held and preserved in our publicly funded institutions. It is not unreasonable to argue this point under the notion of eminent
domain. The rights of ownership need to be balanced with the public's right to
reasonable access. There must be some changes to our copyrights, which address
these issues.