[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Feaster" <pfeaster@xxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
It may be irrelevant, but one should remember that until 1975 a recording
was not considered sufficient to "fix" the sound for the purposes of
copyright in the U.S. An attorney in an appropriate field may have an
opinion on whether the law recognized a sound recording as evidentiary
earlier than that.
I'm no attorney, but the earliest successful use of a sound recording in
this sense appears to have been George Gouraud's introduction of a
phonograph cylinder into an international trademark dispute in November
1888 on behalf of the Jackson Manufacturing Company of Nassau, New
Hampshire. According to the *London Times *and other papers, the
cylinder was accepted by Mr. Justice Kay in the London High Court of
Justice as establishing a point of fact: the Chippewa pronunciation of
"Ko'-ko-ko," which had a bearing on the trademark. (Kay did finally end up
ruling against the Jackson company even so.) As far as the U.S. goes,
a precedent was set for the admissibility of phonograph recordings
of industrial noises as evidence by a case in Michigan -- Boyne City, G. and
R. Co. vs. Anderson (1906) -- discussed in the *Michigan Law Review *that

However, there also seems to be a hint in the discussion Mike Biel
quoted that the problem isn't that the Colbert blowup evidence is a
"recording" rather than something "written," but that it's a primary source,
so that referencing it would be forbidden "original research." In fact, I
see that they explicitly define all "audio and video recordings" as "primary
sources" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Even
a recording of an ARSC conference presentation would be a "primary
source" according to them. That's problematic too, but in a different way
than Milo Ryan's horror story. Other sources unacceptable for Wikipedia,
according to the above URL, include patent texts, official census reports,
and published experimental data.

Thus, it seems, Wikipedia doesn't want anything which can be demonstrably
PROVEN to be accurate...which might explain its less-than-impressive
repuation for truth and accuracy...?!

Steven C. Barr

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]