LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  February 2018

ARSCLIST February 2018

Subject:

Re: question about the use of media format to enforce copyright

From:

"Mustazza, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:17:28 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Thanks very much, John. Yes, I should have been more precise and not said “copyright”—thanks for this important clarification. I’ve found some evidence in my research that professors and archivists who wanted to record and distribute poetry found it difficult to navigate the recording and distribution processes, including claims that parts manufacturers would try to limit whom they sold recording materials to. 

These early archive producers claimed commercial labels (like Victor) would refuse to record and distribute poetry, so they were the ones that needed to do it. The two main archives I’m looking at started in 1931 at Harvard and Columbia and were recorded on aluminum transcription discs (including poet like T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound). 

There is a lot packed into that claim, and I am working to pick it apart. Thanks again. 

--Chris



On 2/2/18, 11:49 AM, "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List on behalf of John Haley" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

    Hi, Chris,
    
    In the US, sound recordings could not be copyrighted under federal law
    until February, 1972.  While various court cases have tried to change that,
    that remains the law.  There is what we call "state law copyright" in a few
    states, notably NY and CA, that provides some kinds of protection for
    pre-1972 recordings, inconsistently and without a lot of clarity.
    
    Your topic is interesting, but I have never thought of the record industry
    in past decades as being a monopoly.  Nothing ever prevented start-ups in
    the record business, or small independent labels and products, and the
    marketplace was actually quite competitive, as it remains today, although
    the number of major labels is now much smaller thanks to massive
    consolidation.  Where the major labels did have some control over the
    marketplace was in the area of distribution.  You could "make your own
    record," you just didn't have an avenue available to get it into wide
    distribution.  But there have always been exceptions.  Read the Wiki on Tom
    Lehrer, who made his own records, which became huge hits, undeterred by the
    "powers that be" in the record business at the time.
    
    Perhaps I am misunderstanding your topic.
    
    Best,
    John Haley
    
    
    
    On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
    wrote:
    
    > Interesting assertion. One might also make the assertion that going to
    > 16-inch discs was also driven by length of recording time that could be
    > captured on one disc. I heard that half-hour programs were at least
    > sometimes recorded on two discs and that the first disc would run
    > outside-in and the second inside-out. The reason for that, I was told, was
    > that the opening and closing of the show would have the highest fidelity
    > (since the linear velocity is highest at the outside of a disc).
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Richard
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 2018-02-02 9:16 AM, Mustazza, Chris wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, everyone –
    >>
    >> I’m currently working on my dissertation, which is titled The Birth of
    >> the Poetry Audio Archive, and focuses on how early sound recording shaped
    >> the art of poetry. One my chapters is on American record labels’
    >> relationship to poetry recordings, especially as it relates to the material
    >> process of cutting a record and pressing it to shellac. I’m interested in
    >> record companies’ monopolies on sound recording at the time, and how their
    >> view of what poetry to record—and not record—informs later periods of
    >> poetry recording.
    >>
    >> I came across the text below on Wikipedia—about record labels using
    >> changes in format to dissuade copyright infringements, and I was curious if
    >> anyone here could recommend any good books or articles on this topic.
    >> Thanks so much for any advice!
    >>
    >> --Chris
    >>
    >>  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound#Early_later
    >> al,_vertical_and_double-sided_stereo:
    >>
    >> “The development of acetate, bakelite, and vinyl, and the production of
    >> radio broadcast transcriptions helped to solve this. Once these
    >> considerably more quiet compounds were developed, it was discovered that
    >> the rubber-idler-wheel driven turntables of the period had a great deal of
    >> low-frequency rumble - but only in the lateral plane. So, even though with
    >> all other factors being equal, the lateral plane of recording on disc had
    >> the higher fidelity, it was decided to record vertically to produce
    >> higher-fidelity recordings on these new 'silent-surface' materials, for two
    >> reasons, the increase in fidelity and the incompatibility with home
    >> phonographs which, with their lateral-only playback systems would only
    >> produce silence from a vertically modulated disc.
    >> After 33-1/3 RPM recording had been perfected for the movies in 1927, the
    >> speed of radio program transcriptions was reduced to match, once again to
    >> inhibit playback of the discs on normal home consumer equipment. Even
    >> though the stylus size remained the same as consumer records at either 3
    >> mils or 2.7 mils, the disc size was increased from 12-inches to the same
    >> 16-inches as those used in early talking pictures in order to prevent the
    >> practice even further. Now, not only could the records not be played on
    >> home equipment due to incompatible recording format and speed, they
    >> wouldn't even fit on the player either, which suited the copyright holders.”
    >>
    >> --
    > Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
    > Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
    > http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
    > Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
    >
    

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 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
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