Hmm, interesting tale, but I wonder if it may be out of date by now.

I’m not a library person, and this may be only a California thing, but a studio and duplication facility where I worked thru the 80s and 90s and 00s at one point had customers sign a form so that we (the studio) couldn’t get sued for working with copyrighted material. The boss took it to an extreme by making people sign even if we were duping their own CDs or tapes, if they were commercial release copies!

I don’t know if that is still in effect, and the studio is out of business now (due to so many home recordists and streaming) but it is a thought…


Lou Judson * Intuitive Audio
415-721-8070 mobile

I'm just a simple sound engineer, nothing more, nothing less.
-- paraphrase of the Dalai Lama.

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From a retired head of the recordings collection at the University of was about 30+ years ago that we approached the University's Office of General Counsel on this question. They issued a position statement that they saw no difference between a pubic access dubbing facility and a photocopy machine.  So, I installed two dubbing facilities in the Fine Arts Library...when it was still the Fine Arts Library...not the Center for whatever it is that the Dean now calls it. We were told that we did not need to monitor those dubbing facilities and that if a patron choose to violate the law, it was up to them and that we, the Library, could not be held liable in the event of that violation,