a. Until the appeal is adjudicated, it would appear the 'first-sale'
doctrine will no longer be available for digital content; whether books
or recordings. If there is no longer a first sale doctrine, then there
will be continued copyright in the work even though the law currently
ends copyright after life of composer/author + xyears. That basically
kills the need for copyright if content is digital.
b. Evaluation of a collection has to be done by an independent
person/company, not the donor or the donee. I suspect it would be up to
that person or company to decide how value is determined, and be able to
support it. It wouldn't matter what the valuation is unless the IRS took
the donor to court for fraudulent valuation deduction.
Thus: maybe the IRS will let us know if asked.
c. Much of what is online in Canada Virtual Gramophone, I was told by
their agent, was free to use, and used in my uncles updated edition,
Pioneers in Brass by Glenn D. Bridges (on CD-ROM.) And if the decision
in a. above is correct, no first-sale nor thus, end of copyright, there
would be no copyright in the work as it does not have any limit;
therefore not part of copyright law. The Supreme court must decide if it
wants to have perpetual copyright in everything digital or
not....otherwise digital does not fall under copyright law...currently.
My opinion as former Law Librarian and follower of copyright since
1960s...and reviewer of books on copyright for librarians. I really
don't thing Capital or anyone can have it both ways.
A reminder, Google copied books, illegally, and the Supreme Court asked
parties to settle. The authors did not settle, and so the judge decided
(AFTER WRITING THAT IT WAS INFRINGEMENT,) declared it was FAIR USE;
totally reversing himself. So I suspect the Supreme Court may decide for
the publishers of the content as well...another reason to self-publish,
and tell the corporations to go to hell.
On 7/5/2019 3:40 PM, David MacFadyen wrote:
> I have a three-part question, grounded in the complexities of assigning any *financial* worth to digital music collections.
> I’m a professor at UCLA, and have—over several decades—aggregated / edited a collection of Russian/East European tracks that numbers something like 2.5million in total, on all kinds of formats.
> I will donate this to a library or museum; I have no intention of selling anything.
> When it comes to any possible financial evaluation or assessment that’s needed by a US library, at least three issues arise.
> 1. Does the recent Redigi case before the Supreme Court now mean that digital music archives may not be assigned any fiscal worth? https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/03/06/redigi-v-capitol-supreme-court/
> 2. Does anybody have experience in the evaluation of digital music prior to a donation? I’ve done plenty of research myself, but find lots of diverse, if not contradictory opinions online.
> 3. This is all from Russia, where piracy is so bad, a good deal of music is distributed for free. It helps to promote live shows. Nonetheless, even if we’re dealing with countless amateur and underground works that were never for sale, is there an inherent copyright complication in assigning them monetary value prior to the same donation?
> Russia and the US *should* observe the Berne Convention in identical ways. They, of course, do no such thing.
> David (MacFadyen)
> Los Angeles
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.