Re: [ARSCLIST] Public's rights....was offlist archival question from ARSC list member

[Karl Miller <karl.miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Brock-Nannestad <pattac@xxxxxxxx> wrote:    
****In rights there are moral rights and commercial rights. Only the latter may be licensed or assigned for a pre-defined number of years. Moral rights have no term.

****As to performance: that is an event in time that has a certain duration. After that it only lingers in the memory of those present. If it has been transmitted by radio, the listeners would also have their vision-deprived memory. So, there is really not a case of "right to know" - you could have bought a ticket, if you wanted to share the memory, or listened to the radio. If it has been recorded by those who have a right to record it may go into the draft - produced - released stream as per above. If it has been recorded without permission this clandestine recording cannot be made use of commercially, and it may not be modified based on moral grounds. Time seems to be a great means of converting clandestine and forbidden to something acceptable and welcome, and we should in the common interest welcome past infringements while cracking down on present infringements. This is not really a double standard, because those individuals who take the risk are for this very reason
 very careful not to create a commercially infringing situation. And proof that this clandestine recording is really what it purports to be can only be given by witnesses to the live event, to spectacular mishaps that were written up in reviews or by comparison to simultaneous, authorised recordings. But authorised only means that the 
recording is not clandestine - it does not say anything about publishing it as an object.
   
  But what if a broadcast or concert took place before you were born. If a recording survives, should you be denied the opportunity to hear it even if the musican would prefer that it not be heard. 
   
  I am reminded of a particular Horowitz concert which was released by Columbia. The release was advertized as recorded live. However, some places were "touched up." These edits were fairly well known in collector's circles as several unauthorized in house recordings were done. It was only a few years ago when the "unedited" versions were released.
   
  Of course one can fault Columbia for false advertizing when they stated that the original release was a documentation of the concert...well most of it was...and I won't go into all of the mess with the Stravinsky recordings and their "authenticity." Were it not for the inhouse unauthorized recordings and the subsequent "honest" release, historians would be left with the notion that the recital was note perfect. 
   
  And then we have the Joyce Hatto scandal...
   
  I am reminded of those who have recorded the sounds of their environment as a way of preserving the sounds of a point in history...say, for example, the sounds of taking a walk down the streets of a city. Maybe we need to commission a group of individuals to make illegal inhouse recordings so we can document performance history.
   
  And on the subject of saving recording sessions...thinking about this I was reminded of all of the sketches that visual artists have left behind and all of the drafts that writers have left us. These can be as treasured as the final works. It made me wonder why musicians might be more protective of their "sketches" and "rough drafts..." their recording session outtakes.
   
  Karl