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

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "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.
>
Well, as a member of the volunteer Heritage Oshawa committee...which works
to designate buildings as "historic" in the city...I can say that having
one's home (or a building one still uses on a private basis) "designated"
does not allow the public access to same unless one elects to provide
that access. In fact, if designation did "moderate" the ownership of
the structure in question, there would be a lot more refusals of
designation!

In fact, we are currently involved in a "brouhaha" with a few of the
residents of a small area we wish to turn into Oshawa's first
"Designated Historic Area!" There is (are?) a lot of local politics
involved...but there is also a violent (not physically) objection
on the part of a few of the more "right wing" residents, who feel
that designation would restrict their rights to do what they please
with their properties (already infringed by any number of local
ordinances/by-laws/usw.)...

The US recording industry, having fairly recently been handed
pseudo-eternal terms of copyright for their "merchandise," are
unlikely to be enthusiastic about any lessening of that situation.
In fact, the most likely outcome MIGHT (not "would") occur would
be intra-industry collaboration to issue a CD "box set" containing
all of the LOC-designated material (at least that way some of it
might "see the light of day, eh...?)...

Steven C. Barr