|
|
Post by Kev Mulrenan on Jul 2, 2018 16:45:30 GMT
Can someone please tell me the archive status of these two shows?
Working on a possible discovery of reel to reel tapes from the 60's.
Don't get too excited yet; I may well find out the bloke's missis has junked them!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 2, 2018 17:52:55 GMT
Can someone please tell me the archive status of these two shows? Working on a possible discovery of reel to reel tapes from the 60's. Don't get too excited yet; I may well find out the bloke's missis has junked them! You might have better quality recordings. |
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jul 2, 2018 19:07:44 GMT
Weren't some recordings edited, too? So whatever you find, assume nothing!  |
|
|
|
Post by Stuart Monk on Jul 2, 2018 19:49:34 GMT
Hi, John.
The last proper Goon Show was broadcast at the end of January 1960 so it's almost guaranteed that any episodes in the collection will be repeats.
A few extracts from home recordings of 60s repeats have been used in the 13 box sets of Goon Shows issued by BBC Audio, but as John says your collection may have better sound quality to replace the extracts used, although it's unlikely they'd re-release the sets for a few added seconds. The man to ask is Keith Wickham, if you find the tapes still exist.
As for POTP I think the BBC Archive still has very few despite an appeal for a fairly recent POTP anniversary, when the BBC seemed only to be interested in recordings of 'key' pop history moments rather than pulling back a good collection of shows - just my opinion!
There are episodes out there in private collections but I don't know if there's a definitive list anywhere.
As always with music programmes, it's fair to say that most people recorded just the music they liked from POTP and as little as possible of the talking so complete episodes would be welcome in forums such as this - leaving them unheard in someone else's archive is just as bad as your guy's wife throwing them out!
Hope this helps!
Cheers,
Stuart
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Byers on Jul 8, 2018 10:51:33 GMT
"....leaving them unheard [unplayed?] in someone else's archive is just as bad as your guy's wife throwing them out!"
Aha - a reference to the 'dusty archives.' But copyright restrictions mean that we can never ever hear or share many recovered recordings. So I guess many home-taped recordings - including the thousands that I have - will never 'see the light of day.' Indeed even digitising tapes is a total waste of time. There is simply no processes by which anything can be legally shared or put back into the public domain. By which time the tapes have decomposed and/or the digital copies have bit-rotted away.
And offers to 'return' recordings to the Beeb are usually ignored - as mine have. And recently a mate of mine, at risk to himself, sent the BBC producer appealing for 'lost' recordings of Kenneth Williams a whole bunch of recordings that are known to have been wiped by the Beeb. He never got an acknowledgement. So the issue is - why bother in the first place?
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jul 8, 2018 15:35:03 GMT
"....leaving them unheard [unplayed?] in someone else's archive is just as bad as your guy's wife throwing them out!" Aha - a reference to the 'dusty archives.' But copyright restrictions mean that we can never ever hear or share many recovered recordings. So I guess many home-taped recordings - including the thousands that I have - will never 'see the light of day.' Indeed even digitising tapes is a total waste of time. There is simply no processes by which anything can be legally shared or put back into the public domain. By which time the tapes have decomposed and/or the digital copies have bit-rotted away. And offers to 'return' recordings to the Beeb are usually ignored - as mine have. And recently a mate of mine, at risk to himself, sent the BBC producer appealing for 'lost' recordings of Kenneth Williams a whole bunch of recordings that are known to have been wiped by the Beeb. He never got an acknowledgement. So the issue is - why bother in the first place? Is it totally illegal to do anything with it? There's a youtube channel for recovered audio for example. And there used to be tape trading sites that apparently were above board because the people there weren't multiplying or selling stuff. (I am not a legal expert so I say 'apparently'.) |
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on Jul 8, 2018 18:06:33 GMT
Aha - a reference to the 'dusty archives.' Not just *THE* dusty archives, many others are equally as black hole-like. For example on the net you'll find all sorts of lists of things held by university archives and they're just as much a closed shop, although some will loosen their grip if you are a researcher with the right credentials prepared to pay a humongous admin fee. There is simply no processes by which anything can be legally shared or put back into the public domain. By which time the tapes have decomposed and/or the digital copies have bit-rotted away. That's where youtube comes in. So if PandaBear5000 posts a bunch of stuff there's nothing to lead it back to someone with a real name. I'm not sure how much the BBC would care care when the target audience of some of the obscurer items must be infinitesimally small. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Byers on Jul 8, 2018 21:53:23 GMT
Uploading to YouTube for sharing is as illegal as uploading to p2p sharing sites.
Some of my collection are on BBC Transcription Discs. I haven't bothered to digitise them, because even possessing them is illegal. There was a debate about this on the BBC Transcription Disc group on Face Book.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jul 8, 2018 22:46:24 GMT
even possessing them is illegal. Is it? I'm still not a legal expert, but it sounds like a bit of a stretch. Does it say so on a label or in some sort of terms & conditions, or is that actually the law? I mean, I've had employers that wanted to invalidate my remaining holidays at the end of the year. Unfortunately for them, where I live the law states that I get to keep them. That can't be overruled or changed. So any other rule or agreement or rule that says otherwise is void. Well, it's probably already been debated at length. But people who took film prints from skips aren't thieves, are they? So why should transcription discs be different? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on Jul 9, 2018 1:44:24 GMT
Uploading to YouTube for sharing is as illegal as uploading to p2p sharing sites. So what? Many people upload stuff for free. Many others download them for free and enjoy listening to them. Nobody's ripping anyone off. Everyone wins. When it's something obscure (and often incomplete) and the BBC don't seem to want it, isn't it better that people get to hear it rather than it being lost again? |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Byers on Jul 9, 2018 4:17:46 GMT
Naming the process for p2p sharing is banned on this board - its illegal. And may ISPs block it. That is despite the fact that Archive.org uses it quite legitimately. But folk freely talk about uploading to YouTube which is still basically p2p sharing. And a lot of Beeb programmes uploaded there quickly get taken down. Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Tinkler on Jul 9, 2018 8:26:36 GMT
Surely Archive.org is supposed to be material that in only in the Public Domain anyway...
One thing about YouTube is that you can make commercial gain out of it (number of hits, advertising etc) which would be illegal for one, never mind you don't own any rights, copyright OR 3rd party... any commercial player will remove items from YouTube simply because if anyone should be making money out of it, it's them... whether the BBC, Disney etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on Jul 9, 2018 10:53:48 GMT
Surely Archive.org is supposed to be material that in only in the Public Domain anyway... One thing about YouTube is that you can make commercial gain out of it (number of hits, advertising etc) which would be illegal for one, never mind you don't own any rights, copyright OR 3rd party... any commercial player will remove items from YouTube simply because if anyone should be making money out of it, it's them... whether the BBC, Disney etc. Youtube accounts don't make the owner any money unless they choose to monetise it. When you choose to monetise your account you have to declare that you own all of the content. For a lot of people it's not worth the risk because you might lose the entire account just because of one questionable item. I've never done it with any of mine. Plus to get money from views it has to be something popular. Obscure radio shows that get about 20 views a year would definitely be a very unwise choice when trying to make money. I did upload a Monty Python clip once, just a few minutes long. The BBC themselves chose to have their own ads placed alongside it rather than stamp on it, which I thought was quite a refreshing attitude. |
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jul 9, 2018 11:21:45 GMT
Nah, it was changed recently and now you need a ton of subscribers and views before you're allowed to monetize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Byers on Jul 19, 2018 13:00:18 GMT
|
|
