Interesting article on tape vaults

[Daniel A]

The Coles/Pearson thread inspired me to do some Googling, and this article came up:

Labels Strive to Rectify Past Archival Problems

Some of it is rather scary...

[Brownian Motion]

This paragraph really jumped out at me:

The vaults of modern jazz labels of the '50s and '60s, originally aimed at a more sophisticated LP listeners, have been luckier. The famous modern jazz vaults of Blue Note, Prestige, Riverside, Pacific Jazz and others are mostly intact, a condition largely due to the beliefs of the original owner of the importance of the music, and the respect accorded the material by the companies which later bought the catalogue.

[Chuck Nessa]

PLEASE tell me why any company should spend money to preserve "original sources" after the Euro 50 year limit.

[Jazzmoose]

Keep hammering, Chuck; you're beginning to convince me. I understand the reason for the expiration of patents (to promote futher development, etc.) but I really don't understand how this applies to recordings, novels, etc. It's easy to say they should do it because of the importance of the material, but I'm sure we all agree that's pretty naive.

[Claude]

What Euro 50 year limit?. There is a (World minus USA) 50 year limit.

[Chuck Nessa]

Sorry for my ERROR. I guess I'll start destroying my master tapes in 13 years or leave instructions for my kids.

Boy, society wins at all costs.

Thanks WORLD!

Please tell me again about the stupid companies not protecting their masters.

What a load of CRAP.

Understand, my interest is "art before commerce" and "people before corporations", BUT we have a huge problem here.

Edited June 28, 2004 by Chuck Nessa

[Claude]

This ia a classic example of market failure. Even if the copyright duration was extended endlessly, tape masters would still be thrown away or never reissued if the rightholder thinks it isn't worth investing money in preserving or reissueing them.

On the other hand, public radio stations are keeping recordings in their vault and preserving them appropriately most of the time. At least in Europe, they are actually spending a lot of money in keeping the vaults in shape because they consider it a cultural heritage. Even the many recordings which most people would consider to have more entertainment than cultural value (pop and jazz music).For them, destroying the vaults for economic reasons would be a decision to be debated politically, while a private rightholder can destroy his tapes whenever it pleases to him.

Chuck and others are argueing that recordings that enter the public domain (after 70 years in the US and 50 years elsewhere) are not being reissued in the best manner because the there is no economic incentive anymore for the rightholder to spend money in restoration and reissue.

But a more important problem in my view is that many recordings from the 50's or 60's are not being reissued despite copyright protection and because of copyright protection. Think about Blue Note's "500 CD sold per year or out of the catalogue" policy, which prevents us from easy access to many great recordingsby less known artists, like Gil Melle, Jutta Hipp or others. We jazz fans are a much to small consumer public to make sure the music is always available for purchase. Exclusive copyright together with the rules of the market don't work here, while the public domain at least gives anyone interested a chance to make the music available, for example through less expensive means of distribution like internet downloads.

Last week I heard Lawrence Lessig (http://www.lessig.org) at a conference in Brussels, where he spoke about the copyright duration and the flaws of the market. The situation is even worse when it comes to literature (70 year protection after the death of the author, throughout the world). There are internet projects that compile huge collections of public domain books and make them available for download on the internet. They can't however touch the thousands of OOP books that are still protected by copyright. Even if they wanted to ask permission of the rightholders, it would cost enormous time and money to investigate who the rightholder actually is and where he can be contacted. In these many cases, copyright prevents the books which are not commercially interesting from being available.

So with copyright duration, there are clearly two sides of the medal. Giving longer rights to the owners of music recordings does not solve the problem of music being unavailable or even destroyed. The Billboard article gives examples of tapes that were dumped although the label still had many years of exlusive rights on them. It is too easy to blame european (and other non-US) legislation for the lack of incentives to reissue such material. The US alone is a big market already, and there the protection has been extended to 70 years instead of 50. Has this improved the situation on the reissue market? We still have to get many albums in Japan.

If the labels don't want to spend money on preservation of old tapes and discs, they should give them to the artists or donate them to public archives or non-profit associations which are interested in them for cultural and not economic reasons, and which may choose to make them available to the public. Relying on longer protection and the rules of the market won't help the jazz community.

Edited June 28, 2004 by Claude

[wolff]

Claude, you make some very good points. My interest and curiosity is towards, when the dust settles, what will things be like. Good or bad, in favor or against, things are changing quickly, and nothing is going to stop it.

Do you think the outcome will be positive? IMO the outcome will be very, very negative, unless the original owners of the performances and albums get a handle on things and figure out a way to compete with the PD labels.

They could liscense the tapes and art work at reduced fees.

I feel many original labels are counting on SACD(I know SONY is) or even newer formats to keep the re-issue income coming in. I think they did not forsee the public domain issue.

Edited June 28, 2004 by wolff

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck and others are argueing that recordings that enter the public domain (after 70 years in the US and 50 years elsewhere) are not being reissued in the best manner because the there is no economic incentive anymore for the rightholder to spend money in restoration and reissue.

This is NOT my primary concern. I'm saying (and this is the heart of the matter) the incentive to preserve "primary sources" is being removed by the arcane copyright laws. These laws were written when the human lifespan was around 50 years and before any electrical storage media existed. This issue needs to be examined again for the creators, audience and future generations.

Written words copied to paper may be a completely accurate duplicate of the original, but this is not the case with recorded music. Let's move into the 20th century!!!!!!!! Oh, we're beyond that? Damn, we missed an opportunity.

When I'm dead, will Classics, Frog, Fresh Sounds, whoever have my original multi track masters? Who will have them and why will they preserve them at all - let alone at the proper temperature and humidity.

Damn, I am tired of this crap.

[BruceH]

When I'm dead, will Classics, Frog, Fresh Sounds, whoever have my original multi track masters? Who will have them and why will they preserve them at all - let alone at the proper temperature and humidity.

Actually, I was kind of hoping I would have them.

(Just kidding.)

[ajf67]

I'm saying (and this is the heart of the matter) the incentive to preserve "primary sources" is being removed by the arcane copyright laws.

Chuck, you hit the nail on the head, and I keep coming back to this thread because this is very troubling. I don't know the answer but there has to be one if we want these things to survive, because without a profit motive corporations won't bother.

[wolff]

Damn, I am tired of this crap.

Do not get tired, get angry or creative.

If more people really knew what the record industry will like in a few short years, I'd hope they would want to do something.

Number one: All of your CD's need a sticker saying something like: This CD is from master tapes and original label, artist and owner of label get royalties. Beware copied public domain issues that pay no royalties, etc,. etc.....

Edited June 29, 2004 by wolff

[Guest ariceffron]

Sometimes the archivists and producers know of tapes, but the company just chooses to sit on them. "Exploitation is a whole other part of this," said a producer. "I know one label that has 40 reels of Sonny Rollins tapes recorded live in clubs in the Village during the '60s. They (the jazz division) know they're there. And Rollins has told people about them. But they're still sitting there."

IS IT RCA VICTOR>! WHOA

[ajf67]

From Chuck:

Written words copied to paper may be a completely accurate duplicate of the original, but this is not the case with recorded music.

From Claude:

At least in Europe, they are actually spending a lot of money in keeping the vaults in shape because they consider it a cultural heritage.

If we are going to fix this issue, we are going to have to convince people here that these tapes are more than a piece of property, and that they are parts of our cultural heritage. But, the companies that own them (and probably smaller owners too) are going to resist any added burdens being put on their ownership of master tapes. Plus, with these recordings under private ownership, there is no way to assure their proper treatment. One solution might be to find some way for the owners to want to give them over to an organization whose role it is to watch over these recordings.

Recognizing that the current owners are not likely to simply turn tapes over without some compensation, what about creating a foundation to review tapes and recommend their purchase and inclusion in a national music archive? Don't know how this would be created, funded, run, or anything, but I thought it might be something to raise as an idea. Perhaps a group of musiscians that have some public clout could be convinced to advocate for this cause.

[ajf67]

Just wanted to send this thread to the top again because I think it's so important.

[alankin]

[...] I'm saying (and this is the heart of the matter) the incentive to preserve "primary sources" is being removed by the arcane copyright laws. These laws were written when the human lifespan was around 50 years and before any electrical storage media existed. This issue needs to be examined again for the creators, audience and future generations.

Written words copied to paper may be a completely accurate duplicate of the original, but this is not the case with recorded music. Let's move into the 20th century!!!!!!!! Oh, we're beyond that? Damn, we missed an opportunity.

When I'm dead, will Classics, Frog, Fresh Sounds, whoever have my original multi track masters? Who will have them and why will they preserve them at all - let alone at the proper temperature and humidity.

Damn, I am tired of this crap.

Good points, Chuck.

How long do you think copyright should last, though? The current human life-span or...?

[Rooster_Ties]

I think 100 years sounds like a pretty good, round number. Anybody else think so??

I would think that it'd be hard to argue with a number that's way higher than that. What's the point in having 150 years??? Or 200???

Chuck??