CDR-R "Fade" Puts Historical Recordings In Jeopardy

[CobraPilot]

"Historical Recordings Fade Fast"

http://nashville.metromix.com/home/article/study-audio-recordings-of/2214258/content

[hech54]

That story is chocked full of stupid.

[Moontrash]

That story is chocked full of stupid.

i agree...i think the guy they asked to be interviewed on this story is one of those who's trill using a rotary telephone

i have 9 year old cd-r's that still scan and play fine lol

[hech54]

It's not even "our" personal history of CD-R longevity....the guy contradicts himself here:"

Those old analog formats that remain are more physically stable and can survive much longer than contemporary digital recordings, the study warns. Still, the rapid change in technology to play back the recordings can make them obsolete.
Recordings saved by historical societies and family oral histories also are at risk, Brylawski said.
"Those audio cassettes are just time bombs," Brylawski said. "They're just not going to be playable.

And what the hell is this supposed to mean?

many historical recordings already have been lost or can't be accessed by the public.

Is he talking about online downloadable/streaming material that became corrupt on the site or actual
physical recordings(CD-Rs)? After all...he did just say this:

I think we're assuming that if it's on the Web it's going to be there forever

This guy is a scatterbrain.

[lordsmurf]

This has been discussed at length in the Myths, Misinformation, Misconceptions forum at The Digital FAQ.
See http://www.digitalFAQ.com/forum/showthread.php/study-audio-recordings-2455.html

The real stupid appears to come from the unqualified AP writer, and not the actual study.
The AP writer used information out of context.

A non-stupid story on the study appeared in the Hollywood Reporter:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/music/news/e3i677c428c4dc16c2c88f0120ecd1a8437

[jagabo]

The best article I've found on that study:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/report-copyright-laws-put-americas-sou...ge-at-risk.ars

And I suppose the actual report is the best (I haven't read it):
http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub148abst.html

[jman98]

That arstechnica article is inaccurate in at least one area. It states that old cylinder recordings from 1909 have the same copyright restrictions as a recording from 2009 and that is completely untrue. Everything in the USA made in 1922 or earlier is in the public domain.

As a potential point of interest to those following this thread, some of you may be interested to know that in the UK the term of copyright is fixed at 50 years. Despite many attempts by British musicians to have this extended it remains 50 years. So right now all recordings prior to 1960 are currently in the public domain in the UK. Various small labels have re-issue programs where they take old music and release it on CD once it's 50+ years old. So while in the USA our messed up quasi-permanent copyright law does indeed have a negative effect on sound preservation, the UK does not operate under the same restrictions.

[yoda313]

So right now all recordings prior to 1960 are currently in the public domain in the UK.

Does that apply to video as well as audio? Does that mean in two years the first 007 DR NO would be in public domain? Or is that not part of the same copyright issue? Or is it different when ported overseas to the US? Does the copyright get USified and go into our terms?

[jman98]

Films may be covered by the "author's life + 70 years" part of UK copyright law, but that does NOT apply to sound recordings which are fixed at 50 years after release or date of creation if unreleased.

Films like Dr. No may also be covered by US copyright law. There is nothing that I know of to prevent a film or recording from having copyrights in different countries and I've seen some things that suggest that this is exactly what happens.

[yoda313]

Thanks jman98.

Though that would mean that a movies soundtrak under uk law would be public domain when the movie would not be? Is that a correct reading of it? (once it hits that time limit I mean)

[jagabo]

That arstechnica article is inaccurate in at least one area. It states that old cylinder recordings from 1909 have the same copyright restrictions as a recording from 2009 and that is completely untrue. Everything in the USA made in 1922 or earlier is in the public domain.

Those weren't Ars' words. I suspect the authors of the paper know more about US copyright law as it pertains to audio recordings than you and I. See page 115 of the document, Section 4, Copyright and Access:

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub148/contents.html

The term of legal protection for U.S. sound recordings, in comparison
with that for all other copyright-protected works, is unprecedented
in length—from the beginnings of recorded sound in the nineteenth
century until 2067

This is the first I've heard of a special clause for audio recordings too.

[jman98]

jagabo - While I certainly am willing to admit that I am not a lawyer, I have no way to know if the people who wrote that paper know anything at all about copyright. To claim that ALL recordings from the beginning of the recorded sound era are still covered under copyright until 2067 is entirely without precedent. I've never heard anybody make such claims before. So while I suppose it could be correct, just because some guy or guys I don't know said so in that paper doesn't necessarily make it so.

However, if you can cite ONE, just one, example involving a sound recording made prior to 1922 that is still protected by US copyright law, I'll concede the point to you. If you cannot cite even one such example then what they said is just so much nonsense in my opinion.

[jagabo]

If you're so interested I suggest you go do the reading. But from what I've gathered audio recordings weren't covered by federal copyright law until 1972. Prior to that data they were covered by various state laws -- some of which had no limit on the duration of copyright. The 1972 federal copyright amendment called for a 95 year copyright term for published works, 120 years for unpublished works, for new recordings. Recordings made before 1972, which previously enjoyed longer copyright terms under state laws, were allowed to continue those terms until 2047. The Sony Bono act later extended that to 2067.

[jman98]

See here:
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
The 95 year term you refer to is not retroactive.

Again, all it takes is someone to submit ONE verifiable example of a sound recording prior to 1922 that's still under copyright and I'll concede the point that it's possible for recordings since the dawn of recorded sound to still be under US copyright.

[jagabo]

Your own link states:

Sound Recordings Published in the United States... Fixed prior to 15 Feb. 1972...
Subject to state statutory and/or common law protection: Fully enters the public domain on 15 Feb. 2067

It's not a matter of the law being retroactive. It's a matter of federal law not taking precedence over state law until 95 years after the introduction of the federal law. For sound recordings recorded before 1972, if the state law provided protection in perpetuity, the ferderal law doesn't take precedence in 2067.

[jman98]

I concede. What I read failed to make clear, at least to me, that they were speaking of films and not sound recordings. Based on other sources, it does seem that every recording ever released in the USA is quite possibly under copy protection until 2067. That is absolutely insane, but the point of this article was certainly not to debate the sanity of this. I find it interesting that the recording industry was able to get protection that Hollywood could not (films prior to 1922 are in the public domain in the USA).

[jagabo]

I find it interesting that the recording industry was able to get protection that Hollywood could not (films prior to 1922 are in the public domain in the USA).

Don't worry. No film made after Mickey Mouse will ever become public domain.

(In case it's not clear to anybody -- that's a sarcastic remark.)

[lordsmurf]

These laws will eventually fail, as they counter the spirit of original intent for said laws.

I'm glad to see archivists/historians being strong in an area where consumers generally buckle under from fear, misunderstanding, and misplaced thoughts that the system is "right" in some way. It took the digital era to really shed light (in a broader way) on issues that many of us have been aware of since the analog-only era.