The Massive Treasure Trove Of Historic Jazz Recordings That Almost No One Has Heard... Thanks To Copyright
from the revisiting dept
Last summer, we wrote about how the National Jazz Museum had acquired a massive collection of old jazz recordings from the 1930s that most didn't even know existed, and how it was being blocked due to copyright. The ABA Journal has now done a more in-depth article about the collection, the copyright issues and the wider problems this represents. It's a really excellent and complete article that touches on a variety of issues from orphan works, state copyright laws pertaining to older sound recordings, copyright extension and the cultural impact of locking up such content:The collection is, in a word, historic. "It is a wonderful addition to our knowledge of a great period in jazz," says Dan Morgenstern, director of the Institute of Jazz Studies at Rutgers University in Newark, N.J. And, Morgenstern says, "the sound quality of many of these works is amazing. Some of it is of pristine quality. It is a cultural treasure and should be made widely available."The museum is rushing to digitize the collection (much of which has deteriorated or was destroyed), but the only way to hear it is to make an appointment at the museum. They insist they're going to try to tackle the copyright issues to release the music, but it's clear that's going to be an incredibly difficult task. What's really unfortunate is how all of these works should be in the public domain, if we just went by what the law said when they were made. Yet, thanks to copyright maximalism, the world and our culture suffers completely unnecessarily.
The question, however, is whether that will happen anytime soon. And if it doesn’t, music fans might be justified in putting the blame on copyright law. "The potential copyright liability that could attach to redistribution of these recordings is so large--and, more importantly, so uncertain--that there may never be a public distribution of the recordings," wrote David G. Post, a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. "Tracking down all the parties who may have a copyright interest in these performances, and therefore an entitlement to royalty payments (or to enjoining their distribution), is a monumental--and quite possibly an impossible--task."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution is easy
First, they'll have to find who to issue the apology to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a travesty, none the less, and a great argument for shorter copyright terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once Again
Bingo. Accidentally share the thing on the torrents. Then if the copyright police come after you, you've identified the copyright holder!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You bunch of thieves
Next thing you know they'd want to steal it by making something of their own that sounds like it might once have been sort of the same as a little bit of the middle of one of the pieces and then the walls of civilisation will come crumbling down, the seas will boil and a plague of locusts (lawyers) will be on the land.
THINK before you act you freeloading bunch of sons of.....
Sincerely
- A Recording Industry Executive
(P.S. This is not just because there's a small chance that somewhere 15 years ago we might possibly have acquired a portion of the rights of a bit of this stuff. Besides even if it was how would I know? We don't pay attention to that sort of thing unless we can sue someone for it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You bunch of thieves
Thank you Recording Industry Executive for being the sane voice in this bedlam of whiners complaining about trivialities like "culture".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“The potential copyright liability that could attach to redistribution of these recordings is so large—and, more importantly, so uncertain—that there may never be a public distribution of the recordings,” wrote David G. Post, a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. “Tracking down all the parties who may have a copyright interest in these performances, and therefore an entitlement to royalty payments (or to enjoining their distribution), is a monumental—and quite possibly an impossible—task.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Quietly Whispers
"Here TAM, Here TAM, Here Tam"
*Puts Troll bait on Troll Trap
"Here TAM, Here TAM, Here Tam"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything will fall into Public Domain (along with abolishing private property) if the Lower Classes rose up against the Capitalists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jazz collection solution
You allow only those sites through with which you've had long relationships. Anyone else has to prove themselves then they're added to the list.
Regarding the Jazz recordings: Find copyrights that have expired, given permissions, or can be bought; produce them and work over the remainder as time allows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jazz collection solution
You make it sound so simple - and it really should be - but it's not. In a lot of cases, even just determining if something is still covered is difficult and expensive (if not impossible).
In some cases, filmmakers seeking rights for old songs to use in documentaries and such have spent months and thousands of dollars trying to determine the copyright status of the work, and eventually given up since they were getting nowhere. In another case (trying to dig up the link) a congressional research committee was asked to determine the copyright status of audio works released before a certain date - they returned a nearly 100-page report that in the end basically said "inconclusive"
So unfortunately, it really isn't that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jazz collection solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jazz collection solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jazz collection solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jazz collection solution
While this seems like a practical solution, the point is that after 70+ years these recordings should already be in the public domain. There is no reason for the public to have to pay more to be able to enjoy, share, and build on these works when they should already be a part of our culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not allowing our shared cultural heritage to be "shared" because of greed and avarice seems like a really good candidate for some really bad law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the best way to experience jazz:
I'd love to get down there but I've got a concert slated for 3 pm followed by some light book reading around 7 pm. How's Friday looking?
This whole situation couldn't be more ridiculous if it tried. (Like, by wearing the Phillie Phanatic outfit, for example.)
You would think that out of interest of preserving history someone would ease up on the copyright issue. (Of course, I keep thinking that and keep getting disappointed.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The end of the Public Domain...
January 1, 2028: Disney is sued out of existence by the collective heirs of the Grimm Brothers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a jazz baby....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orphan works
A major reason why these bills stalled was opposition from organizations representing professional photographers, whose works are usually published without any attribution or copyright notice. “That’s why the photographers’ refrain is that their photos are orphans from the moment they are put in the stream of commerce,” says Ralph Oman, who teaches at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., and serves on the council for the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law. “They fear that if orphan works become the preferred means of finding photos, they won’t get new work,” Oman says.
Photographers are not the only ones fretting about the legislation. “Visual artists and textile creators are worried that their works may not be easy to search, making it hard to identify the copyright owners of these works,” says Dale Cendali, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in New York City and vice-chair of the Copyrights Division in the IPL section. “They are worried that if orphan works legislation passes, they will be put in a worse position than if there were no legislation.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Wall St. Journal online 10/07/2008 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/web-firms-bid-for-copyright-clarity-left-hanging?dist=msr_1
"the ongoing effort among Internet firms to tap the value of copyrighted work"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Critics, however, argue that it would unnecessarily weaken the rights of copyright holders without offering any real help to organizations hoping to use the works. "
Here is the problem. IP should not be about the privileges of IP holders. No one is entitled to a govt imposed monopoly. No one. IP should be about what's in the public interest.
"The conflict highlights the ongoing effort among Internet firms to tap the value of copyrighted work"
What about the fact that it allows the public, those who should be the beneficiary of any law, to also better tap the value of these works. What, the public should never be allowed to tap the value of these works? If not, these laws should be abolished. Laws should serve the public, not the IP privilege holders. No one is entitled to a monopoly.
"while shortchanging authors unaware of their weakened protections, according to Lessig. "
But it's OK for the public to get shortchanged when these laws get retroactively extended. But when 'authors' (or, rather, big corporate privilege holders) may face a loss of their unowed privileges, to the public benefit, that's a problem.
""the consequences will be far-reaching, long-lasting, perhaps irreversible and will drastically affect what it means to create and own intellectual property.""
and that's the problem with these laws. They're all about the privilege holders, not about the public. That's mainly why I want them abolished. No one is entitled to a monopoly. These monopoly laws should be granted only to the extent that they help benefit the public. But they're intended beneficiaries are those who own IP. Abolish them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights will affect the music lovers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]