Comments on: Jeff Ubois on Erasing Televised History, Copyright-style http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/20/jeff_ubois_on_erasing_televised_history_copyright_style.html Musings of a techie lawyer Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:45:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding By: Annalee http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/20/jeff_ubois_on_erasing_televised_history_copyright_style.html#comment-563 Annalee Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:22:02 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=374#comment-563 What interested me most about Ubois argument was the fact that he was criticizing the fact that TV research is as inelegant and difficult as all research once was. He describes how he can't get digital copies of TV shows, and therefore would be forced to travel all over the country to view clips. This is precisely what all scholars dealt with until quite recently: you had to visit archives all over the world, and were unlikely to be able to xerox what you found (this is pre-digital cameras) because the manuscripts were too delicate. So what Ubois is really getting at -- aside from his brilliant points about certain lame interpretations of copyright law -- is the fact that TV archives *could* be more modern than traditional archives but they aren't. What's truly depressing about the answer is that unlike traditional archives, TV archives are so backward due to greed. We have the technology to preserve TV history in an accessible form, but we aren't. If archivists in the nineteenth century could have digitized their ancient manuscripts and put the online, no doubt they would have (and in fact their modern equivalents *are* doing it). So TV archives are in the pre-history of archiving, while libraries are digitizing their rare book rooms. Being a TV historian is like being a medievalist, essentially. But worse, because your manuscripts will start rotting in 20 years instead of 200. What interested me most about Ubois argument was the fact that he was criticizing the fact that TV research is as inelegant and difficult as all research once was. He describes how he can’t get digital copies of TV shows, and therefore would be forced to travel all over the country to view clips. This is precisely what all scholars dealt with until quite recently: you had to visit archives all over the world, and were unlikely to be able to xerox what you found (this is pre-digital cameras) because the manuscripts were too delicate.

So what Ubois is really getting at — aside from his brilliant points about certain lame interpretations of copyright law — is the fact that TV archives *could* be more modern than traditional archives but they aren’t. What’s truly depressing about the answer is that unlike traditional archives, TV archives are so backward due to greed. We have the technology to preserve TV history in an accessible form, but we aren’t. If archivists in the nineteenth century could have digitized their ancient manuscripts and put the online, no doubt they would have (and in fact their modern equivalents *are* doing it).

So TV archives are in the pre-history of archiving, while libraries are digitizing their rare book rooms. Being a TV historian is like being a medievalist, essentially. But worse, because your manuscripts will start rotting in 20 years instead of 200.

]]> By: JT http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/20/jeff_ubois_on_erasing_televised_history_copyright_style.html#comment-562 JT Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:36:09 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=374#comment-562 That's very disturbing. But not exactly new - see the heirs of MLK's suit against CBS News. But this does indicate a new level of chill. Put this together with the "Military Commissions Act" and you have a recipe for making America a third rate nation ASAP. That’s very disturbing. But not exactly new - see the heirs of MLK’s suit against CBS News.

But this does indicate a new level of chill.

Put this together with the “Military Commissions Act” and you have a recipe for making America a third rate nation ASAP.

]]>