------------------------------
The Old-Time Radio Digest!
Volume 2003 : Issue 175
A Part of the [removed]!
ISSN: 1533-9289
Today's Topics:
ADMINISTRIVIA: Copyright, copyleft, [ Charlie Summers <listmaster@lofcom. ]
Re: enforcability of Contracts [ hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed]; ]
Quick question about copyrights! [ "Gary Dixon" <argy@[removed]; ]
CD life [ Alan Chapman <[removed]@verizon. ]
Whats Free and What Do You Have To P [ Frank Coopersmith <fc90030@[removed] ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:27:56 -0400
From: Charlie Summers <listmaster@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: Copyright, copyleft, copywrong
Folks;
You know, ever since I got back from Cincinnati, I've been a little
crankly to the wife and child, and even the cat. Seems the list managed to
yet again divide itself arbitrarily by what media is used to listen to the
OTR shows, instead of rejoicing that we're listening to the shows in the
first place. Then while this is happening there are suggestions that the
dealers who are primarily responsible for the programs we all listen to
existing at all are horders and generally bad people. And, ah yes, the
discussions about the virtues and evils of "Amos N Andy" arises from the
ashes once again as well. So far, I've pretty much kept my distemper here in
the [removed] now comes _another_ debate-without-a-resolution, and I'm
afraid I simply can't subject my poor family to any more growling.
You will find in this issue a number of postings dealing with the
copyright issue. Whether facinating, interesting, or just plain frightening,
they all have one thing in common; they are written by lay persons, not
attorneys specializing in this very complex area of the law. (Some posts note
that, and some do not, but you need to assume _all_ are non-authoratative.)
Honestly, I think we need to stop this now.
If you have a serious question on copyrights, the ONLY way to get an
authoratative opinion is to contact a lawyer specializing in this area of the
law. It might be fun to speculate on what the law means with all its
complexity, and there's an entire subset of this hobby that seems to do
little else, but it's all pretty meaningless. Blanket statements like, "it's
all PD" or, "it's all copyright" are misleading and silly, and can even be
dangerous to those who take them to heart. Each program is a different and
seperate entity onto itself, with seperate possible situations. And this
doesn't count the underlying copyright issues (music, story, etc.), trademark
issues, and all the other conditions that make blanket statements impossible,
even by those who claim to own license to this series or that. All this
guessing, in some cases with the aura of authority even when painfully and
obviously innacurate, provides a serious disservice to those who have
legitimate questions which _should_ be taken to qualified members of the bar.
(And please note, I am intentionally discussing only the situation in the
United States, since that is the primary focus of this mailing list. As noted
elsewhere, things differ from country to country as well, increasing the
complexity yet again.)
Before this discussion of non-authoratative opinions about copyrights yet
again gets wildly out of control, let's stop it with this issue, please. If
you absolutely positively MUST respond on this subject, please don't mail it
to the list. We REALLY need to move away from all the recent disagreements
before I run out of antacids, and end up barking at the poor cat. I mean,
geez, don't we all love old-time radio?
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:24:19 -0400
From: hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Re: enforcability of Contracts
Ed Ellers raised a question in response to Harry Bartells recent posting
about unauthorized duplication of recorded material.
Exactly how can a union contract be enforced against someone (such as an OTR
dealer) who demonstrably is not a party to it?
It's quite likely Harry might like to respond to Ed's question himself, but
it's also quite likely that Harry (a man of few words) has made his point,
and has other things to occupy his time.
Seeing as how I also got involved in this debate, and am involved as a
performer whose work had been copied ,sold and distributed (without
permission or authorization), I can perhaps shed some light on the subject,
from the performers point of view.
But first, I need to make two things perfectly clear.
A) As far as I know, all surviving OTR performers support the OTR Hobby. All
surviving OTR performers are gratified that their work of years past is
still appreciated, collected, and enjoyed by old and young alike. That is
not the issue here. As far as I know, there is no movement underfoot to seek
legal redress for wrongs done 40/50 years ago.
B) I do not have a law degree. But I am familiar with many forms of Show
Business contractual arrangements and agreements, having signed many of them
in my 50 years in the Entertainment industry. And, I am not necessarily Pro
Union. I have seen too many Unions make a mess of the industry. (But not the
ones on the "creative" and artistic end).
That said, maybe I can clear up the question Ed raised.
The "Union" agreement (contract) that Harry referred to was between the
Performers union, and the "Producers" of the material. Undoubtedly, most
working performers belonged to three or four distinct unions. (They were
often referred to as Guilds or federations). Each had their own unique
language as it pertained to that specific Entertainment medium.
1)There was "Actors Equity" which covered work done by "Stage" performers.
2)AFRA: American federation of Radio Actors. (When TV came along, the AFRA
contacts were broadened to accommodate the work rules for live TV, and the
acronym became;
3)"AFTRA", The American federation of Radio and Television Artists.
4)Those who also wanted to work in the Motion Picture industry had to become
members of "SAG", the Screen Actors Guild.
OK! For purposes of this discussion (explanation), we will deal with the
Guild that was involved with the Radio Broadcasting medium. (But many of the
same philosophical points of view are common to all performing unions).
As I said earlier, their "Agreements" were basic work rules and pay scales
that governed what a "Producer" had to comply with, and rules that governed
how an actor was expected to comport himself whenever he was hired by the
"Producer". These agreements were hammered out by a committee representing
the "Producers" and one representing the "Performers" every time basic
bargaining agreements came up for renewal.
In the case of OTR, "Producers" were either the Networks, or in some cases,
Advertising Agencies. They all became signatories to a standard (basic)
union contract. And Actors had to join the union if they wanted to work for
those major producers.
HOWEVER!!! Their were other "contracts" that went beyond the basic union
agreements. The basic union agreement simply covered "minimum" day to day
obligations between the parties, (performers and producers) such as standard
work rules that protected both parties, and minimum pay scales. In other
words, it was an underlying agreement, and did not require a signed contract
every time a performer was hired to do a show. He just showed up when hired,
played his part, and expected a paycheck based on the pay scale for whatever
show he performed on. It worked quite smoothly.
HOWEVER #2: But!!! When an actor was hired to perform in a running role, or
staring role in a series, the "Producer's" and "Performers" often entered
into separate contractual agreements that embodied all the terms of the
standard union agreement, but had added covenants that again protected both
parties.
let's take a specific case. When NBC (the producer) hired me to play the
part of "Jughead" on Archie Andrews, this separate specific contract locked
me into playing that part for a 13 week period, and gave NBC the option to
renew again after that. It spelled out the pay scale, and certain publicity
and promotional activities that I would be expected to participate in. It
also gave them the right to record the program (without additional
compensation to me) but the contract specified that such use of those
recordings would only be used for promotional and publicity purposes. If NBC
had intended any other use,(rebroadcast of those recordings), then I would
be additionally compensated, since re-use of the recordings for that purpose
was not part of the basic weekly salary agreement I had signed.
Keep in mind that this was the era of "Live" delayed broadcasts for the west
Coast. Recordings of the initial broadcast for replay a few hours later had
not yet come into practice.
So, that said, lets get back to Ed's question.
Exactly how can a union contract be enforced against someone (such as an OTR
dealer) who demonstrably is not a party to it?
Simply stated, it can't. That's not the issue.
The contact that was violated was that secondary one between the Performer
and the Producer (NBC), and not necessarily the basic union agreements.
In this case, If a performer wished to seek legal redress, he would first
seek redress from NBC for the violation of that specific contractual
language covering the use of recordings. Then too, if recordings (copies) of
the show were obtained by outside sources illegally (OTR Dealers for
example) and they then made duplicates and sold to collectors, the performer
could possible seek a cease and desist order against the dealer, and perhaps
seek compensatory damages. (I'd leave that issue for the lawyers to figure
out).
Remember, we are talking theory and ethics here. And I have no doubt that
Dealers were not even aware that they were in violation, except maybe with
copyright laws protecting the "Producers" that did not directly concern the
actors. That is a side issue.
Now, lets concern ourselves with dealers who claim that they acquired the
rights to many programs, and sought to prevent other dealers from selling
copies of those shows.
Again, let's take the "Archie Andrews" show, because that's the one I am
most familiar with. There is a dealer who packages a nice boxed set of the
programs. I do not know if he acquired exclusive rights to do so. If he did,
he would undoubtedly have gone to "Archie Comics Publications" to get
permission. I know the sets are sold on the Archie Comic Book website. That
leaves me to believe that Archie Comics, who owns the rights to the
characters, had to be involved in some way. And perhaps NBC was also
contacted, and possibly the rights were obtained from them also. But if NBC
also granted the rights to that dealer, the legal beagles at NBC obviously
didn't research their files, and realize they were in violation of the
contractual agreements that I had with NBC over the years, and were not
legally allowed to sell, or give away rights to recordings of the show,
without my permission.
Do you see the distinction, Ed?
Not only are copies of the program sold in the boxed set, but my likeness
(photo) from the NBC publicity days is also used as a cover for the cassette
case without my authorization.
But all that is ancient history. And only marginally relates to the ongoing
flap in the recording industry (music, programs, etc) concerning free access
and downloading of material via the internet. Heck, Mp3 is not unique.
material has been "bootlegged" from OTR dealers for years when cassettes
were the principal distribution medium).
Existing OTR material is a unique case. Much is already in the public domain
I suppose. But lets say a dealer unearths some new stuff. Either by
obtaining the rights to it, or rescuing it from a garbage dump. If he
chooses to make it available to the OTR Hobby, he is not a bad person if he
desires to protect his investment in restoring and cleaning up the material,
or covering costs if money was exchanged to acquire those rights. But he is
now at risk because of free downloading. It's simply an ethical matter with
the very real possibility of adverse financial consequences to the dealer.
Why shouldn't their investment be protected, thereby encouraging them to
release more material not previously available.
And as far as the surviving OTR performers are concerned. Trust me. We are
not looking for our cut. :)
Incidentally, I have received some private negative response about my views
on this subject. It has been suggested to me that I might be alienating some
of the Mp3 crowd, which could possible result in hurting sales of my book
about OTR. Hey! If people don't agree with me, and can't see the logic of my
views, do what they will. I'm not a dealer or collector. I just happen to be
one of the "collectibles" who has a right to my opinion, and simply trying
to make peace in the HOBBY. What's wrong with protecting dealers who are an
important part of the hobby, and keep the new material flowing with some
respect for the right to earn a fair return on their investment. And in my
humble opinion, those "rights" don't include the unfair practice of copying,
and redistributing material, that a "producer" (dealer) has some vested
interest in, be it obtaining rights to the shows, or investing in the
restoration of them. It's just not ethical, and more than a trifle unfair.
Just for laughs, let's consider this very real scenario. I happen to have,
in my possession, (but temporarily misplaced) a very rare copy of the
"Archie" show that I personally paid to have recorded by a recording
facility outside of NBC. It has historical significance, because the
program, while being recorded, was interrupted by a News Bulletin. It may
well be the only copy in existence that documents that major news event.
lets assume that I decided to make copies of that program available to OTR
collectors. Do I do it for free? Or should I be allowed to charge a little
something for it? Or do I license a dealer to distribute it for me in return
for a royalty? How long do you think it would be before someone gets hold of
a copy and decides to spread it around for free, or even charge for copies
that they themselves make? There needs to be respect for other peoples
property, and an appreciation for some integrity between dealers and
collectors.
Long live OTR. I fully expect it will outlast me by many years.
Hal(Harlan)Stone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:29:33 -0400
From: "Gary Dixon" <argy@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Quick question about copyrights!
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
Hi!
I'm truly enjoying these radio [removed] I have a quick question
concerning copyrighted shows.
With so many collectors exchanging material over the years (and I admit that
I'm one of them)...just who holds the copyrights for licensing on these? When
I began collecting and trading during the early [removed] knew about Charles
Michelson and a few others.
But lately---there have been some rather vague references to owners or
archivists who have the broadcast or performing rights to some of these
shows.
Can somebody please clear the [removed] at least direct me to an accurate
source who can?
Thanks!
Gary Dixon
gary@[removed]
*** This message was altered by the server, and may not appear ***
*** as the sender intended. ***
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:29:46 -0400
From: Alan Chapman <[removed]@[removed];
To: Old-Time Radio Digest <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: CD life
KDKA wrote:
> ...I just read on the Storage by Sony web site:
> Q: How long will a CD-R or CD-RW disc be usable?
> A: Both CD-R and CD-RW discs have an expected life greater than 30
> years. Does that maybe lessen your fears and negate what you heard?
Actually, this increases my fears. If a major manufacturer is only
claiming 30+ years life, given manufacturers' pension for making the
most optimistic statements in their marketing literature (read:
hyperbole), there's a good likelihood that many CDs (particularly some
of the cheaper brands) won't even last that long.
Many of my reels are more than 60 years old and I have cassettes
approaching 30 years, most of which still play perfectly, and, with
proper storage, I expect them to last many more years -- probably longer
than the machines on which they are played. I realize that the quality
of the tape and proper storage have a lot to do with that (I've had
low-quality brand tape that didn't last).
It's possible that many of today's CDs, properly stored, will be perfect
in 60 or 70 or more years, but the jury is still out. I have no doubt
that CD technology will continue to improve and provide longer life.
I do like the convenience, sound quality, reduced storage space, etc. of
CDs, and I am acquiring and putting more of my listening material on
CDs. But, I am still using tape to archive -- call it a "belt and
suspenders" approach, if you like -- until there is more definitive
information.
Alan Chapman
alan@[removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:30:42 -0400
From: Frank Coopersmith <fc90030@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Whats Free and What Do You Have To Pay For
In all of the discussion on who owns what and who has a right to charge
for it one thing hasn't been mentioned. The OTR programs were largely
broadcast by privately owned business enterprises. (Radio Networks and
Stations) These enterprises were
paid for doing this. They spent money to project the programs into a
publicly owned
portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Indeed they had to obtain a
license from the government to do this. Once this was done the
programs were the property of anyone with access to the radio waves,
If Pavorotti is staying in a hotel, opens the window and starts singing,
any passer-by
with a portable tape recorder can legally tape his performance and do
with it what they choose.
If Pavorotti is singing in a show room at the hotel one must pay to gain
admission to here him and agree not to record the performance.
OTR was, "singing out the window of the publicly owned airwaves."
If you have the means of recording or recapturing it it is yours.
Frank Coopersmith
--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V2003 Issue #175
*********************************************
Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
including republication in any form.
If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
[removed]
For Help: [removed]@[removed]
To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]
To Subscribe: [removed]@[removed]
or see [removed]
For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]
To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]
To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]