Slashdot Mirror

There are myriad number of issues you might not find addressed on this thread and will not be able to guess at. Archivist are professionals in long-term storage in various environments; some of them have been at it for over 25 years already. Society of American Archivists (SAA) members have a certification process. You should be able to find contacts and relevant publications here:http://www2.archivists.org/

Nicholson Baker's erroneous argument that libraries are gleefully destroying newspapers and other older documents has been refuted again and again.

Thank you for pointing out the sensationalist content of the original poster.

As someone else mentioned the works themselves are beyond copyright, but the photographic reproductions carry the copyright of the archival institutions which hold the original works. Archives and libraries purposely protect these reproduction copyrights so (1) it becomes difficult for other people or organizations to claim to hold the original work, (2) the holding archive can charge "use fees" for publication of these photographs, and (3) the "use fees" will fund the conservation efforts of the archives. Believe me, funds for conservation will rarely come from elsewhere.

It comes down to an academic necessity of being certain where your reproduced work exists and that you receive permission to publish that work.

Note that you can quote and translate out-of-copyright original works 'til your heart's content. You can quote and translate currently copyrighted works to the amount protected by fair use; beyond that get permission from the copyright holder. For photographic reproductions of works, the holding archive or library holds the copyright and you will need to receive permission from them to publish or reproduce the image.

For more information regarding how records institutions work, consult the Society of American Archivists. International institutions include the International Council on Archives, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, and the International Records Management Trust.

Except that the Bush administration replaced the head of NARA with a more obedient, political appointee. Presumably that is to ensure that key records find ways not to be around when requested.

Sure, we have all the tapes. Yep, stored exactly as specified, retensioned, the whole nine yards. Yep, 68 degrees, 38% humidity. Oh? No, you mean 68 degrees Fahrenheit? Oops, sorry about that.

That's just with the physical medium. Giving records the wrong or mispelled descriptor (aka tag or keyword) will hide them in a database or catalog nicely. Or it will prevent them from being earmarked for longer storage, etc.

If you've got the best mousetrap, you need to find out more about how to make your product available to the archives community.

Some places to learn more:
The Society of American Archivists
The Association of Records Managers and Administrators
The Council of State Archivists

I will not label your bold analysis of copyright law as being completely wrong, but only because the submitter failed to mention whether they intended to perform any sort of accounting and payments to the copyright holder. Otherwise, yes, you are essentially completely wrong when you state that "This would clearly be infringing on the second copyright (on the song)...."

Shamelessly excerpted from the website of the Society of American Archivists:

"However, for copyright holders of nondramatic musical works, the exclusivity of the reproduction right and distribution right are limited by the compulsory license of section 115 of the Copyright Act. Often referred to as the 'mechanical license,' section 115 grants third parties a nonexclusive license to make and distribute phonorecords of nondramatic musical works. The license can be invoked once a nondramatic musical work embodied in a phonorecord is distributed 'to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner.' 17 U.S.C. 115(a)(1). Unless and until such an act occurs, the copyright owner's rights in the musical work remain exclusive, and the compulsory license does not apply. Once it does occur, the license permits anyone to make and distribute phonorecords of the musical work provided, of course, that they comply with all of the royalty and accounting requirements of section 115. It is important to note that the mechanical license only permits the making and distribution of phonorecords of a musical work, and does not permit the use of a sound recording created by someone else. The compulsory licensee must either assemble his own musicians, singers, recording engineers and equipment, or obtain permission from the copyright owner to use a preexisting sound recording. One who obtains permission to use another's sound recording is eligible to use the compulsory license for the musical composition that is performed on the sound recording. The mechanical license was the first compulsory license in U.S. copyright law, having its origin in the 1909 Copyright Act. It operated successfully for many years, and it continued under the 1976 Copyright Act with only some technical modifications. However, in 1995, Congress passed the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act ('Digital Performance Act'), Public Law 104-39, 109 Stat. 336, which amended sections 114 and 115 of the Copyright Act to take account of technological changes which were beginning to enable digital transmission of sound recordings. With respect to section 115, the Act expanded the scope of the mechanical license to include the right to distribute, or authorize the distribution of, a phonorecord by means of a digital transmission which constitutes a 'digital phonorecord delivery.'"

The Archivist of the United States was replaced by the Bush junta without any consultation with any professional organization of archivists or historians. Nor has the process been open for public discussion and input. The Archivist of the United States is responsible for NARA which has some of these responsibilities.

• Ensuring adequate documentation of the government's actions and decisions;
• Holding government officials and agencies accountable for public service;
• Safeguarding the rights and privileges of individual citizens as well as many groups and communities of interest in society; and
• Preserving the cultural heritage and historical memory of government for the best interests of all citizens.

All that data you once could get as a result of FOIA? Goobye to that. If it's shredded, burned degaussed or left to rot, it's not there to request. Even apathy can take its toll: physical media like tapes pass on to entropy in as little as 5 years as well as cheap CD-Rs. The data formats themselves are a separate matter.

This is a turn in the wrong direction as many expensive mistakes and scandals can be avoided by keeping decisions and data in daylight. Data, especially, has a strong economic benefit if it can be re-used without a lot of red tape.

Finland and Sweden have a good example in that the right to public information is part of their respective constitutions. In the case of Sweden this goes back to 1766. Historians might find some interesting analogies between today's situation with the U.S. and UK as compared with the situation in Sweden back then leading up to the change in the constitution.

Not everyone agrees with Nicholson Baker though, not even the Society of American Archivists, but it sure is fascinating. Even more so than the current trendy paranoia about privacy.

Ironically, Baker's Vox is probably one of those books most of you are afraid of getting caught with. It's so naughty, Monica gave it to Bill, and we all found out, thanks to the pre-existing police state (but of course we had a benevolent dictator for 8 years).

If you're a perv, be a perv. If you're into homemade bombs, be into homemade bombs. If you still read Beverly Cleary even though you're a 45 year old single man... okay, I want you locked up!!

As an archivist-in-training (currently on leave from a grad program), I couldn't but help comment on this discussion. Archivists, as a whole - even those who work for NARA - are mostly a progressive bunch, who seek to ensure access to information rather than restrict it. We have our own set of professional ethics, namely the Code of Ethics for Archivists published by the Society of American Archivists. Archives do not fundamentally exist to be hidden - they are a source of information to be preserved and to be accessed. However, in certain cases, restrictions on records exist to protect the creators. For example, medical records, if cited by a scholar, must often not name the patient in any identifiable way. However, we often ask donors to think about the restrictions they place on their records so that the records will, eventually, be available. I suggest that you look at the position statements made by the SAA and judge for yourself. Granted, not all archivists agree on them, but the SAA is a fairly tight knit organization and the position it sets forth often represent the majority of its members.

As an archivist-in-training (currently on leave from a grad program), I couldn't but help comment on this discussion. Archivists, as a whole - even those who work for NARA - are mostly a progressive bunch, who seek to ensure access to information rather than restrict it. We have our own set of professional ethics, namely the Code of Ethics for Archivists published by the Society of American Archivists. Archives do not fundamentally exist to be hidden - they are a source of information to be preserved and to be accessed. However, in certain cases, restrictions on records exist to protect the creators. For example, medical records, if cited by a scholar, must often not name the patient in any identifiable way. However, we often ask donors to think about the restrictions they place on their records so that the records will, eventually, be available. I suggest that you look at the position statements made by the SAA and judge for yourself. Granted, not all archivists agree on them, but the SAA is a fairly tight knit organization and the position it sets forth often represent the majority of its members.

As an archivist-in-training (currently on leave from a grad program), I couldn't but help comment on this discussion. Archivists, as a whole - even those who work for NARA - are mostly a progressive bunch, who seek to ensure access to information rather than restrict it. We have our own set of professional ethics, namely the Code of Ethics for Archivists published by the Society of American Archivists. Archives do not fundamentally exist to be hidden - they are a source of information to be preserved and to be accessed. However, in certain cases, restrictions on records exist to protect the creators. For example, medical records, if cited by a scholar, must often not name the patient in any identifiable way. However, we often ask donors to think about the restrictions they place on their records so that the records will, eventually, be available. I suggest that you look at the position statements made by the SAA and judge for yourself. Granted, not all archivists agree on them, but the SAA is a fairly tight knit organization and the position it sets forth often represent the majority of its members.

This might be funnier if it weren't true.