Copyright and Archiving

[Daniel A]

However, magnetic tapes - which would make up for a large part of these recordings - will inevitably become unplayable after some time due to magnetic or binder deterioration, which means they have to be transferred at some point in order to be saved.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

However, magnetic tapes - which would make up for a large part of these recordings - will inevitably become unplayable after some time due to magnetic or binder deterioration, which means they have to be transferred at some point in order to be saved.

Yes, I read that King Records of Cincinatti had a full time employee doing nothing but running tapes in order to preserve them. But I've never heard of anyone else doing this, so I wondered if that was an eccentricity of Syd Nathan.

That problem affects the record industry even more than the academic institutions, since most of the masters are on tape. How do they do it?

MG

[Claude]

Many big labels are progressively archiving their analog tapes on hi-resolution digital formats.

For the tapes that are not being preserved in digital archives and which continue to degrade, the best sounding copies will be the orginal LPs and the CD reissues that were produced when the tapes were still in good condition.

[Larry Kart]

Potentially interesting information (technical, legal, historical, etc.), much of it relevant to what we've been talking about I think, from the somewhat different but obviously related field of film preservation:

http://www.afi.com/about/preservation/abou...eteriorate.aspx

http://www.cinemaweb.com/access/pre_stmt.htm

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mail...5/msg00092.html

http://www.filmpreservation.org/preservation/fpg_8.pdf

[Adam]

But I doubt that masters would be preserved well without the incentive to preserve them for the sake of future sales.

I think you're wrong there. Look at the enormous effort that goes into preserving ancient texts. This is not done for the sake of future sales.

The real difficulty is that the amount of material has increased exponentially over the last fifty or sixty years. And who shall say what is worth preserving for the next thousand?

MG

I would be glad to be wrong in my remarks! Good point about the efforts to preserve old texts, and not merely for the sake of future sales!

Who'll say what's worth preserving? Good question...

The people who do work to preserve ancient texts, though, are always on the hunt for grants to support the preservation & work, and most of them have regular jobs at universities to support their livelihood. Lots of items stay in vaults for years and years and years before money gets found to do any preservation work.

Not a perfect example, and from another medium, but I know several people who do film preservation. Andy work they do never removes the ownership from the copyright holder. The copyright holder still owns it, must approve the preservation, and approve screenings of the preserved (and potentially restored) prints. It can be a real hassle to screen a "preserved/restored" film sometimes. But the UCLA Film & Television Archive, or the Academy of Motion Pictures Archive, will do the work of restoration, and will store the preserved films. I still can't screen those films without getting permission from the copyright holder and paying the rental fee.

Tangentially, the difference between preserving engraved stone blocks, such as cuneiform tablets from the middle east (or books on vellum from the middle ages, or whatever), versus storing digital media which needs to be transferred to a different format every decade or less, is quite different. Those tablets, or Dead Sea Scrolls, or whatever, can sit in a case (at proper humidity & temperature) for 200 years and be all right. The digital media will be damaged in 200 years probably, and tape media always decays. A constant effort to copy media requires greater funds than ancient texts. Heck, I can store some papyrus scrolls in urns in a cave in the desert for 2000 years and we could still read them. Let's try that with some DA88 tapes, nitrate film negative, and 24 track tape from 1970.

The answer, of course, is to return to recording everything on stone tablets.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yes, tapes do appear to be a problem. But in Europe and the US, they've never been anything other than an alternative medium for merchandising. I can't think of any European or American records that were issued ONLY on tape. So libraries and other academic institutions should generally have vinyl copies. We're not talking here about preserving the masters, only the public copies that were issued for the consumer trade.

As far as other parts of the world are concerned, much African music has only been issued on tape, particularly since the '80s. Some material has been coming out on CD for a few years, but the CD market in those countries is very small, so only the most popular records are being issued on CD. Pretty well throughout Africa (except perhaps South Africa), vinyl was knocked out by piracy in the late '70s. But, of course, all that material will remain in copyright for several decades.

How long can I expect my 700 odd African tapes to last before I can't listen to them?

MG

[Neal Pomea]

I found this quote on the U.S. Copyright Office Web site about protection for sound recordings, which I believe applies to masters.

"Note: Sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, were generally protected by common law or in some cases by statutes enacted in certain states but were not protected by federal copyright law. In 1971 Congress amended the copyright code to provide copyright protection for sound recordings fixed and first published with the statutory copyright notice on or after February 15, 1972. The 1976 Copyright Act, effective January 1, 1978, provides federal copyright protection for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2047."

What particular state laws do you think apply to masters before 1972 that are being preserved by Universal (the label named as spending a lot of money)?

Do masters made before 1972 even qualify for being the subject of compulsory licensing? I am just asking.

This section of the law on compulsory licensing appears to apply http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#115

This clause applies: "A person may not obtain a compulsory license for use of the work in the making of phonorecords duplicating a sound recording fixed by another, unless:

(i) such sound recording was fixed lawfully; and (ii) the making of the phonorecords was authorized by the owner of copyright in the sound recording or, if the sound recording was fixed before February 15, 1972, by any person who fixed the sound recording pursuant to an express license from the owner of the copyright in the musical work or pursuant to a valid compulsory license for use of such work in a sound recording."

That's a complicated set of conditions. There were copyrights for musical compositions in the jazz genre from early days, but I don't think that was the case for some other genres like country music until there was a publishing industry (Acuff-Rose).

Edited October 25, 2006 by It Should be You

[medjuck]

Seems to me there are 2 separate issues: one is the right of archives to make copies and the other is copyright in general. I presume everyone including Chuck thinks it's ok to copy music for archival reasons whether it's pd or not. And I doubt if any copyright holders would complain. This is just bureaucrats (and I hate using the word) following the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

As to copyright in general: I like Chuck's idea of a compulsory license fee though I'm not sure I really understand it and the devil is in the details.

And despite what Chuck writes, I don't buy the imports because they're cheap. I onlly buy them when the music isn't available from any other source. Sony's finally making some of their Ellington material available through Mosaic. But until recently you could only find much of it by buying the Classic series and those Chronogical cds are certainly not cheap.

[Chuck Nessa]

And despite what Chuck writes, I don't buy the imports because they're cheap. I onlly buy them when the music isn't available from any other source. Sony's finally making some of their Ellington material available through Mosaic. But until recently you could only find much of it by buying the Classic series and those Chronogical cds are certainly not cheap.

My point about this is: I know of many, many reissues cancelled by US copyright owners 'cause the "cheapies" were issued. I can personally attest to 4 cancelled Uptown projects. All from far superior sources and extra material. I also know, from "industry sources" of projects cancelled by EMI, Sony/BMG and Universal.

The "cheapness" deal was about inexpensive "Andorran" reissues and cheap JSP/Proper issues. What some may not consider is the US companies recording Armstrong, Morton, etc have some contractual obligations to the estates of the artists. The EU "50 year" folks and other outright thieves do not have this obligation/expense.

[medjuck]

And despite what Chuck writes, I don't buy the imports because they're cheap. I onlly buy them when the music isn't available from any other source. Sony's finally making some of their Ellington material available through Mosaic. But until recently you could only find much of it by buying the Classic series and those Chronogical cds are certainly not cheap.

My point about this is: I know of many, many reissues cancelled by US copyright owners 'cause the "cheapies" were issued. I can personally attest to 4 cancelled Uptown projects. All from far superior sources and extra material. I also know, from "industry sources" of projects cancelled by EMI, Sony/BMG and Universal.

The "cheapness" deal was about inexpensive "Andorran" reissues and cheap JSP/Proper issues. What some may not consider is the US companies recording Armstrong, Morton, etc have some contractual obligations to the estates of the artists. The EU "50 year" folks and other outright thieves do not have this obligation/expense.

Were any of these ever announced? And even if they were what are the chances they'd actually appear? If someone in Europe issues a reasonable sounding "A Drum Is a Woman" should I wait for Sony to bring out their version? I'm 63 years old. I probably won't be alive when that happens.

Edited October 25, 2006 by medjuck

[Claude]

What I don't understand is why the European "50 years" reissues are openly imported into the US and sold by the major online stores, although they are illegal in the US.

In Europe, the movie industry has successfully stopped imports of US DVDs (which come out when the films are still shown in european cinemas). The RIAA could take a similar action directed towards the conflicting european CD imports, so that they at least dissappear from the websites of the major stores.

The RIAA could do the same effort to stop the european imports. Although this will not stop these reissue from being sold elesewhere, the US market alone should be enough to make a legit reissue profitable.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Claude

[Daniel A]

Could anyone please post a link to the US law which regulates the 70 year protection, thanks.

[AllenLowe]

"Does ALL have a huge temp/humidity vault prepared to store and preserve this stuff?"

well, my aunt has one, but she won't give me access to it -

but all seriousness aside, Chuck, how about places like the Jazz Record Mart, which carries tons of that stuff? Should we boycott them?

Edited October 25, 2006 by AllenLowe

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

What I don't understand is why the European "50 years" reissues are openly imported into the US and sold by the major online stores, although they are illegal in the US.

In Europe, the movie industry has successfully stopped imports of US DVDs (which come out when the films are still shown in european cinemas). The RIAA could take a similar action directed towards the conflicting european CD imports, so that they at least dissappear from the websites of the major stores.

The RIAA could do the same effort to stop the european imports. Although this will not stop these reissue from being sold elesewhere, the US market alone should be enough to make a legit reissue profitable.

Doesn't the movie industry have a certain technological advantage in that US DVDs won't play on European players? So I'm told, anyway.

MG

[David Ayers]

If anybody is interested in the BL Sound Archive and what it is trying to do, it has a website here.

[Claude]

Doesn't the movie industry have a certain technological advantage in that US DVDs won't play on European players? So I'm told, anyway.

The region coding is not really significant anymore. Many DVD players can easily be made region-free by the users or by the stores that sell them. It isn't even illegal, as region coding has nothing to do with copyprotection, and is not protected by law. The DVD player makers are obliged by the DVD license to implement region code restrictions, but that doesn't bind the resellers or the buyers of these players.

Many stores in Europe were selling US DVDs, until the movie industry decided to go after them. Copyright is only exhausted nationally or regionally, that's why the rightholders can prohibit unauthorized imports of legit DVDs. That's independent from the region coding, which is just a technical usage restriction without any legal significance.

So the legal situation between DVDs and CDs is rather similar. But of course there is much more money involved with parallel imports of Hollywood movies than with old public domain music.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Doesn't the movie industry have a certain technological advantage in that US DVDs won't play on European players? So I'm told, anyway.

The region coding is not really significant anymore. Many DVD players can easily be made region-free by the users or by the stores that sell them. It isn't even illegal, as region coding has nothing to do with copyprotection, and is not protected by law. The DVD player makers are obliged by the DVD license to implement region code restrictions, but that doesn't bind the resellers or the buyers of these players.

Many stores in Europe were selling US DVDs, until the movie industry decided to go after them. Copyright is only exhausted nationally or regionally, that's why the rightholders can prohibit unauthorized imports of legit DVDs. That's independent from the region coding, which is just a technical usage restriction without any legal significance.

So the legal situation between DVDs and CDs is rather similar. But of course there is much more money involved with parallel imports of Hollywood movies than with old public domain music.

Thanks for explaining that Claude.

MG