Ideas, being abstract concepts, are always public domain.  The problem is the cultural artifact embodies an elixir of idea and form that are inseparable; interpretation changes and often can be discussed, but not completely grasped unless the original, or reasonable facsimile thereof, is presented. 


In effect, every artist is, in part, a cultural historian.  But, how do you distinguish transcription for educational use from reproduction purely for profit? I don't think there is any good acid test. This argument will continue until there is consensus as to what is more important in a society: culture and education or rights of personal and corporate inheritance and making money.


RA Friedman 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List on behalf of Karl Miller 
	Sent: Thu 5/31/2007 8:47 AM 
	To: [log in to unmask] 
	Subject: [ARSCLIST] Why preserve

	"Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:    ***Well, I forget whom I am quoting...but the applicable quotation is,"Those who are ignorant of history are thus condemned to repeat it"...
	  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason. George Santayana.
	  Yes, but how does one get a society to believe that being informed of history is of value? Would some examples help? Should we have things like a book "Lessons not learnt from History."
	  Oddly, it seems that copyright extension could be a way of telling us that ideas of the past have "value."