Karl Miller wrote:

> What an amazing list! and, what a potential legal problem it would be to
> issue those...and how sad it is that copies may never be offered for
> sale to the public.
> Thanks for sharing the information.
> Karl

In all seriousness, I wonder whether rights and obligations might be 
compromised to make them accessible. For example, it may be legitimate 
to offer the recordings within a museum through listening rooms having 
access to a central server. While such access usually entails 
prohibition against recording, is that necessary? That is, if the 
library simply notified patrons that copying is illegal, prohibited or 
discouraged, would that suffice legally? It certainly would not keep 
copies from being made and circulated.

Of course, it all depends on one's purpose. I ask only about compliance 
with the law. However desirable, compensation of the artists, producers 
and others is effectively impossible. From all indications, it would 
also be negligible financially. I am asking in all seriousness: Given 
that there is no prospect of monetary profit, who benefits from 
suppressing dissemination of a recording of acknowledged historic 

There is a corollary: Is it necessary for a library to participate in 
that suppression? Or is it today simply a form of hoarding, of the 
archive gloating over its unique possession?

[log in to unmask]