Interesting article! This guy recently authored a biography of Louis Armstrong, btw.
Sent from my iPad -- Peter [email protected] Begin forwarded message: > From: ʞɐıuzoʍ ǝʌǝʇs <[email protected]> > Date: March 15, 2013, 6:44:27 AM PDT > To: undisclosed-recipients: ; > Subject: Copyright Protection That Serves to Destroy (Journal) > > Copyright Protection That Serves to Destroy > > By TERRY TEACHOUT wsj > > What is a library? Until fairly recently, the answer to that question was > simple: It's a storehouse for books and manuscripts. The fact that books are > increasingly "printed" on something other than paper doesn't change the > fundamental purpose of libraries. They are our collective memory. Fortunately > for posterity, a well-made book isn't hard to preserve. But in 1877, Thomas > Edison invented a new way to preserve the past. He called it the phonograph, > and it took a long time for librarians to figure out that the echoes of > speech and music that Edison and his successors etched on discs were as > important a part of our collective memory as the words that Johannes > Gutenberg and his successors printed on paper. > > Nowadays most people understand the historical significance of recorded > sound, and libraries around the world are preserving as much of it as > possible. But recording technology has evolved much faster than did printing > technology—so fast, in fact, that librarians can't keep up with it. It's hard > enough to preserve a wax cylinder originally cut in 1900, but how do you > preserve an MP3 file? Might it fade over time? And will anybody still know > how to play it a quarter-century from now? If you're old enough to remember > floppy disks, you'll get the point at once: A record, unlike a book, is only > as durable as our ability to play it back. > > The Library of Congress recently issued a 78-page document called "The > Library of Congress National Recording Preservation Plan" whose purpose is to > ensure that our descendants will be able to listen to the sounds of the past > long after we're dead and gone. It contains 32 recommendations, most of > which, I suspect, will be filed and forgotten. Given the present state of the > economy, I can't imagine that anyone on Capitol Hill sees the preservation of > sound recordings as a top priority. But Congress can do one important thing > that will help to save our sonic history without costing a cent: We need to > straighten out America's confused copyright laws, and we need to do it now. > > In Europe, sound recordings enter the public domain 50 years after their > initial release. Once that happens, anyone can reissue them, which makes it > easy for Europeans to purchase classic records of the past. In America, by > contrast, sound recordings are "protected" by a prohibitive snarl of federal > and state legislation whose effect was summed up in a report issued in 2010 > by the National Recording Preservation Board of the Library of Congress: "The > effective term of copyright protection for even the oldest U.S. recordings, > dating from the late 19th century, will not end until the year 2067 at the > earliest.… Thus, a published U.S. sound recording created in 1890 will not > enter the public domain until 177 years after its creation, constituting a > term of rights protection 82 years longer than that of all other forms of > audio visual works made for hire." > > Among countless other undesirable things, this means that American record > companies that aren't interested in reissuing old records can stop anyone > else from doing so, and can also stop libraries from making those same > records readily accessible to scholars who want to use them for noncommercial > purposes. Even worse, it means that American libraries cannot legally copy > records made before 1972 to digital formats for the purpose of > preservation—not unless those records have already deteriorated to the point > where they may soon become unplayable. > > That's crazy. > > As part of its preservation plan for sound recording, the Library of Congress > has made three common-sense recommendations for copyright reform: > > • "Bring sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, under federal > copyright law." > > • "Enable recordings whose copyright owners cannot be identified or located > to be more readily preserved and accessed legally." > > • "Revise section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 in order to > facilitate preservation and expand public access to sound recordings." > > These recommendations are discussed in detail in "The Library of Congress > National Recording Preservation Plan," which you can read online by searching > for that title. > > Yes, intellectual property rights have become a sensitive issue in the age of > instantaneous digital distribution, and rightly so. But copyright law was > never meant to allow such rights to be restricted indefinitely. A time > eventually comes when all books pass into the public domain. That's part of > what makes a great book classic—the power to reprint or quote from it at > will. Each time we do so, we fertilize our own culture, thereby helping to > preserve it for future generations. Why can't we treat sound recordings the > same way? > > > > > > (contributed to Woz by Richard Doherty) _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
