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

[Karl Miller <karl.miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" 
> George Brock-Nannestad 
wrote:
> ----- "remain" means that it once was in the public domain, but not ephemeral
like a performance, and the "right to know" must apply, and governments acts to
the common good. So, obviously they ought to be able to do the same for other
forms of human expression. I think that we are in agreement!
-------- 
> I am reminded of the National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress.
It would seem that some case could be made for an equivalency between such a
assignment of worth and the notion of preservation for the common good?
>
Except that, to my knowledge, the recordings in the LOC Registry are
NOT exempted from the Millennium Copyright Act...and, as such, cannot
be reissued in the US (or, possibly, made available in any sonic form
by the LOC? I don't know here...) without the express permission of (and
substantial payment to) the owners of the copyrights on the originals!

But that is my point. In the same way some buildings are designated as having historic worth and that their preservation can be seen as being for the common good, perhaps a similar notion could be applied to information (in this case recordings) that need to be preserved (and perhaps made available) and that such preservation and availability could be seen as serving the common good. Such a notion could lead to a scenario which would moderate notions of ownership, not unlike what happens with historic landmarks. 
   
  Karl