Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

Sorry but you are mixing copyright laws again. The Teach Act does
specifically and explicitly exempt dramatic works, musicals and audiovisual
works and say that only "reasonable and limited portions" may be used.  Deg
and Michael will confirm that TEACH does NOT allow streaming entire
dramatic, musical or audiovisual .You can find this at pretty much any
university site on copyright that explains TEACH. There are in fact many in
the academic community who think TEACH is a Trojan horse  that is more
limiting than "fair use" since it so explicitly exempts plays, operas,
fiction films etc. I am pretty stunned that you are unaware of this because
it more or less obliterates your claim that TEACH would support streaming
full operas online.

Now 110  is face to face which absolutely allows entire films though limits
it to a classroom or a place "devoted to instruction."  It was put in place
specifically for films to be allowed to shown in an actual class because
without it it was not clear you could even use a film in a class at all as
it would probably have violated current copyright rules when video came
into use in the 70s.

I totally agree that "fair use" is flexible but FYI the history of
copyright is that "creative" works are much harder to justify and use
longer sections than non fiction. Basically factual works have always had
less protection than fiction works. I believe nearly every one of the GSU
pieces involved non fiction and even there the judge accepted the majority
because they did not exceed 10% ( her rule not mine) and she said 5 others
probably did violate "fair use" and none was even close to an entire work.
If "fair use" for classes covered entire works being made available online
why is the only case to address this issue have a ruling that rejects this?

I would hardly consider anything from Duke authoritative or accurate since
they are the folks who said streaming Citizen Kane was OK because it
"transformed" it from "entertainment " to "educational" but refused to
answer if the same rule allowed Catcher on the Rye to be digitized and
posted online for classroom use. They are hardly an unbiased source.

We have an actual case ( and it is on appeal by the publishers who don't
like the 10% as too much) which deals with the specific issues and sorry
but it states pretty clearly you can't stream/post an entire work .
Generally court rulings have more validity than speculation.




On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Carla Myers  wrote:

>  Hi, Jessica
>
> I think we need to agree to disagree here! I’ll leave you and everyone
> else with a few thoughts…
>
>
>
> In Maxtone-Graham v. Burchael (803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir.)) Justice Kaufman
> states that:
>
> “There are no absolute rules as to how much of a copyrighted work may be
> copied and still be considered a fair use. In some instances, copying a
> work wholesale has been held to be fair use, Sony Corp.; Williams & Wilkins
> Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345
> , 203
> Ct.Cl. 74 (1973), aff'd (per curiam), 420 U.S. 376
> , 95 S.Ct. 1344, 43 L.Ed.2d 264
> (1975), while in other cases taking only a tiny portion of the original
> work has been held unfair.”
>
> I use this quote to illustrate that looking at the overall history of fair
> use lawsuits there generally are no defined percentages assigned to how
> much of a work can be copied under this statute. In the Georgia State case
> Judge Evans did use a 10% of a work as a measure for many of the readings,
> however in her ruling she also states that:
>
> “the Guidelines establish numerical caps on how many words a teacher may
> copy and still stay within the safe harbor. This brightline restriction
> stands in contrast to the statutory scheme described in § 107, which
> codified a multi-factorial analysis in which no factor is dispositive.
> Thus, the Guidelines’ absolute cap, which would preclude a use from
> falling within the safe harbor solely on the basis of the number of words
> copied, is not compatible with the language and intent of § 107.”
>
> Judge Evans’ 10% test can be a bit confusing in light of this particular
> statement! You can find some expert exlpinations of both the case and her
> decision in these resources:
>
>
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/05/12/the-gsu-decision-not-an-easy-road-for-anyone/
>
>
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2010/10/01/going-forward-with-georgia-state-lawsuit/
>
> http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO1204.pdf
>
>
>
> Here’s a link to the text of 17 U.S.C. § 110(2):
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110. While it does forbid the
> use of “a work produced or marketed primarily for performance or display
> as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital
> networks, or a performance or display that is given by means of a copy or
> phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired under this tit

Re: [Videolib] What the copyright law does and does not sayŠ.. (was: Re: Libraries that stream their own titles)

[Jessica Rosner]

Let me update that is a dorm room, starbucks etc a place "DEVOTED" to
instruction as 110 states it must be.
I see your note above but how can you seriously argue that whatever place a
student happens to be is a place "devoted" to instruction it may be
somewhere where they can access a transmission but it is not devoted to
instruction and it is not "face to face"

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Jessica Rosner 
wrote:

> Deg a dorm room/ starbucks is not a "physical place of instruction". you
> want to update 110 go for it but that is not what it says. It is called
> "Face to Face" not watch it online when you have time for a reason.
>
> Just curious if the GSU appeals decision comes down and upholds and
> either further restricts ( as I expect it will) the portions that can be
> used will you or anyone else here accept it as a legal decision that
> clearly states that only small portions of copyrighted works can put online
> even limited to students for classes.
>
> I sometimes feel like it Alice in Wonderland. Apparently there is no legal
> ruling on copyrighted material online except for the one we don't believe
> says what it says.
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Deg Farrelly 
> wrote:
>
>>  I have stayed out of this discussion (For good reason)…. But I will
>> contribute here to correct a misstatement:
>>
>>
>>  On 9/30/14 2:15 PM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu" <
>> videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  "Face to Face" is again VERY explicit and says it covers films shown in
>> a
>> physical classroom with the instructor present.
>>
>>
>>
>>  The law does NOT say a PHYSICAL classroom, nor WITH THE INSTRUCTOR
>> PRESENT.
>>
>>  When in doubt, read the law:
>>
>>
>>  Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 <
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106>, the following are not
>> infringements of copyright:
>> (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the
>> course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational
>> institution, in a *classroom or similar place devoted to instruction,*
>> unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the
>> performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a
>> copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person
>> responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not
>> lawfully made;
>> (2) except with respect to a work produced or marketed primarily for
>> performance or display as part of mediated instructional activities
>> transmitted via digital networks, or a performance or display that is given
>> by means of a copy or phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired
>> under this title, and the transmitting government body or accredited
>> nonprofit educational institution knew or had reason to believe was not
>> lawfully made and acquired, the performance of a nondramatic literary or
>> musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or 
>> *display
>> of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in
>> the course of a live classroom session*, by or in the course of a
>> transmission, if—(A) the performance or display is made by, at the *direction
>> of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of
>> a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated
>> instructional activities* of a governmental body or an accredited
>> nonprofit educational institution;
>> (B) the performance or display is directly related and of material
>> assistance to the teaching content of the transmission;
>> (C) the transmission is made solely for, and, to the extent
>> technologically feasible, the reception of such transmission is limited
>> to—(i) students officially enrolled in the course for which the
>> transmission is made; or
>> (ii) officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their
>> official duties or employment; and
>>
>>  (D) the transmitting body or institution—(i) institutes policies
>> regarding copyright, provides informational materials to faculty, students,
>> and relevant staff members that accurately describe, and promote compliance
>> with, the laws of the United States relating to copyright, and provides
>> notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be
>> subject to copyright protection; and
>> (ii) in the case of digital transmissions—(I) applies technological
>> measures that reasonably prevent—(aa) retention of the work in accessible
>> form by recipients of the transmission from the transmitting body or
>> institution for longer than the class session; and
>> (bb) unauthorized further dissemination of the work in accessible form by
>> such recipients to others; and
>>
>>  (II) does not engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to
>> interfere with technological measures used by copyright owners to prevent
>> such retention or unauthorized further dissemination;
>>
>>
>

Re: [Videolib] What the copyright law does and does not sayŠ.. (was: Re: Libraries that stream their own titles)

[Jessica Rosner]

Deg a dorm room/ starbucks is not a "physical place of instruction". you
want to update 110 go for it but that is not what it says. It is called
"Face to Face" not watch it online when you have time for a reason.

Just curious if the GSU appeals decision comes down and upholds and either
further restricts ( as I expect it will) the portions that can be used will
you or anyone else here accept it as a legal decision that clearly states
that only small portions of copyrighted works can put online even limited
to students for classes.

I sometimes feel like it Alice in Wonderland. Apparently there is no legal
ruling on copyrighted material online except for the one we don't believe
says what it says.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Deg Farrelly  wrote:

>  I have stayed out of this discussion (For good reason)…. But I will
> contribute here to correct a misstatement:
>
>
>  On 9/30/14 2:15 PM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu" <
> videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>  "Face to Face" is again VERY explicit and says it covers films shown in a
> physical classroom with the instructor present.
>
>
>
>  The law does NOT say a PHYSICAL classroom, nor WITH THE INSTRUCTOR
> PRESENT.
>
>  When in doubt, read the law:
>
>
>  Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 <
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106>, the following are not
> infringements of copyright:
> (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the
> course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational
> institution, in a *classroom or similar place devoted to instruction,*
> unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the
> performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a
> copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person
> responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not
> lawfully made;
> (2) except with respect to a work produced or marketed primarily for
> performance or display as part of mediated instructional activities
> transmitted via digital networks, or a performance or display that is given
> by means of a copy or phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired
> under this title, and the transmitting government body or accredited
> nonprofit educational institution knew or had reason to believe was not
> lawfully made and acquired, the performance of a nondramatic literary or
> musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or *display
> of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in
> the course of a live classroom session*, by or in the course of a
> transmission, if—(A) the performance or display is made by, at the *direction
> of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of
> a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated
> instructional activities* of a governmental body or an accredited
> nonprofit educational institution;
> (B) the performance or display is directly related and of material
> assistance to the teaching content of the transmission;
> (C) the transmission is made solely for, and, to the extent
> technologically feasible, the reception of such transmission is limited
> to—(i) students officially enrolled in the course for which the
> transmission is made; or
> (ii) officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their
> official duties or employment; and
>
>  (D) the transmitting body or institution—(i) institutes policies
> regarding copyright, provides informational materials to faculty, students,
> and relevant staff members that accurately describe, and promote compliance
> with, the laws of the United States relating to copyright, and provides
> notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be
> subject to copyright protection; and
> (ii) in the case of digital transmissions—(I) applies technological
> measures that reasonably prevent—(aa) retention of the work in accessible
> form by recipients of the transmission from the transmitting body or
> institution for longer than the class session; and
> (bb) unauthorized further dissemination of the work in accessible form by
> such recipients to others; and
>
>  (II) does not engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to
> interfere with technological measures used by copyright owners to prevent
> such retention or unauthorized further dissemination;
>
>
>  I have highlighted in bold portions of the law, but that may not
> transfer to the list.  So let me repeat a few key phrases here – with some
> additional comment
>
>  *"In a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction" – *Given that
> instruction now routinely occurs online, in LMS shells, and asynchronously
> it could well be argued that online is "a similar place devoted to
> instruction"
>
>  "*at the* *direction of, or under the actual supervision of an
> instructor as an integral part of a class session offered 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles (Carla Myers)

[Andrew Horbal]

Hi Scott,

It would be interesting to attempt a comprehensive survey of the people 
responsible for classroom management at a set of institutions (the membership 
of CCUMC, maybe?) about how long they think it will be before they no longer 
support the use of physical media. I'd be happy to work on something like this 
if you'd like to pursue it further!

Andy

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of scott spicer
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:02 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles (Carla Myers)

While I enjoy the back and forth on streaming fair use interpretation (and by 
all means please continue), I would also be interested in shifting the 
discussion somewhat to the future of educational media/independent film 
distribution.

This is more of a pragmatic than legal interpretation issue.  Just a 
provocation here...

Like many campuses, I suspect, we are likely looking at a 1 to 3 year window (5 
tops) before we are facing an issue of essentially institutional obsolescence.  
What is institutional obsolescence?  I define it as the point at which 
standalone VHS/DVD players are no longer available or supported in most campus 
classrooms (regardless of whether "the machine or device necessary to render 
perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no 
longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace," (Sec. 108c(2)) - 
though VHS is can't be too far away despite arguments to the contrary).
I used to think that the transition from VHS to DVD acquisitions bought us some 
time.  However, with players being proactively pulled from classrooms upon 
remodel or replacement refresh, and a high likelihood that laptops will soon no 
longer come with built-in DVD players (try buying any Macbook with one 
built-in, I've bought 2 in the last nine months - not possible), I am starting 
to think that all physical formats will be institutionally obsolete at the same 
dreaded time.  With a campus our size (3 sub-campuses in one location, ~50k 
students) it is simply not feasible for the Libraries to get into the classroom 
management business nor are we going to start checking out players 
(realistically, what instructor is gonna be shlepping around VCR's/DVD 
players/Thunderbolt peripherals?).  Sure a very few media intensive departments 
may decide to start supporting their own classrooms with a few players, but I 
am betting the coverage will be spottier than AT&T.

We don't currently have a great solution for this, so we need to be considering 
options and I am optimistic deeper campus conversations will start soon enough. 
 That said, I wonder how long it is until other campuses are in the same boat?  
When will we be at a point of critical mass when physical media is no longer 
institutionally viable - truly institutional obsolete?  To be sure, we will 
still have the lingering [at that point] "legacy media" digitization question, 
but I think it will be interesting to see if the calculus changes undershort 
the pressure.  Will the educational media/independent (and theatrical film 
shortly thereafter for that matter) become a purely digital, licensed 
distribution model (see: Ambrose).
Dennis, I wouldn't be reaching for the grapefruit margarita just yet.  The 
Empire may strike back.

Best,
Scott


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:58 PM, 
mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu>>
 wrote:
Send videolib mailing list submissions to
videolib@lists.berkeley.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list/listinfo/videolib@lists.berkeley.edu

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at

videolib-ow...@lists.berkeley.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of videolib digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Libraries that stream their own titles (Carla Myers)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:58:46 +
From: Carla Myers mailto:cmye...@uccs.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>>
Message-ID:

<4797094fac10a249a80d43c889b7b7abb6596...@uccs-ex4.uccs.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi, Jessica
I am not aware of any statute in that law that explicitly states ?go ahead and 
stream films!? However I can think of no statue in the law that states ?you 
absolutely cannot stream films.?

Again, everything comes down 

Re: [Videolib] videolib Digest, Vol 82, Issue 65

[Deg Farrelly]

IF it's routine!

Pour me a Johnny Walker Black, on ice.

-deg


On 9/30/14 3:49 PM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu"
 wrote:

>deg,
>
>That means we can have that class at Max's Tavern! ;-)


VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] What the copyright law does and does not sayŠ.. (was: Re: Libraries that stream their own titles)

[Dennis Doros]

deg,

That means we can have that class at Max's Tavern! ;-)

Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com

Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here

!


Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
 and Twitter
!


See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
 and like them on Facebook

AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Deg Farrelly  wrote:

>  I have stayed out of this discussion (For good reason)…. But I will
> contribute here to correct a misstatement:
>
>
>  On 9/30/14 2:15 PM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu" <
> videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>  "Face to Face" is again VERY explicit and says it covers films shown in a
> physical classroom with the instructor present.
>
>
>
>  The law does NOT say a PHYSICAL classroom, nor WITH THE INSTRUCTOR
> PRESENT.
>
>  When in doubt, read the law:
>
>
>  Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 <
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106>, the following are not
> infringements of copyright:
> (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the
> course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational
> institution, in a *classroom or similar place devoted to instruction,*
> unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the
> performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a
> copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person
> responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not
> lawfully made;
> (2) except with respect to a work produced or marketed primarily for
> performance or display as part of mediated instructional activities
> transmitted via digital networks, or a performance or display that is given
> by means of a copy or phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired
> under this title, and the transmitting government body or accredited
> nonprofit educational institution knew or had reason to believe was not
> lawfully made and acquired, the performance of a nondramatic literary or
> musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or *display
> of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in
> the course of a live classroom session*, by or in the course of a
> transmission, if—(A) the performance or display is made by, at the *direction
> of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of
> a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated
> instructional activities* of a governmental body or an accredited
> nonprofit educational institution;
> (B) the performance or display is directly related and of material
> assistance to the teaching content of the transmission;
> (C) the transmission is made solely for, and, to the extent
> technologically feasible, the reception of such transmission is limited
> to—(i) students officially enrolled in the course for which the
> transmission is made; or
> (ii) officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their
> official duties or employment; and
>
>  (D) the transmitting body or institution—(i) institutes policies
> regarding copyright, provides informational materials to faculty, students,
> and relevant staff members that accurately describe, and promote compliance
> with, the laws of the United States relating to copyright, and provides
> notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be
> subject to copyright protection; and
> (ii) in the case of digital transmissions—(I) applies technological
> measures that reasonably prevent—(aa) retention of the work in accessible
> form by recipients of the transmission from the transmitting body or
> institution for longer than the class session; and
> (bb) unauthorized further dissemination of the work in accessible form by
> such recipients to others; and
>
>  (II) does not engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to
> interfere with technological measures used by copyright owners to prevent
> such retention or unauthorized further dissemination;
>
>
>  I have highlighted in bold portions of the law, but that may not
> transfer to the list.  So let me repeat a few key phrases here – with some
> additional comment
>
>  *"In a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction" – *Given that
> instruction now routinely occurs online, in LMS shells, a

[Videolib] What the copyright law does and does not sayŠ.. (was: Re: Libraries that stream their own titles)

[Deg Farrelly]

I have stayed out of this discussion (For good reason)…. But I will contribute 
here to correct a misstatement:


On 9/30/14 2:15 PM, 
"videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu"
 
mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu>>
 wrote:

"Face to Face" is again VERY explicit and says it covers films shown in a
physical classroom with the instructor present.


The law does NOT say a PHYSICAL classroom, nor WITH THE INSTRUCTOR PRESENT.

When in doubt, read the law:


Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 
, the following are not 
infringements of copyright:
(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of 
face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a 
classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a 
motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of 
individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under 
this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had 
reason to believe was not lawfully made;
(2) except with respect to a work produced or marketed primarily for 
performance or display as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted 
via digital networks, or a performance or display that is given by means of a 
copy or phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired under this title, 
and the transmitting government body or accredited nonprofit educational 
institution knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made and acquired, 
the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and 
limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount 
comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live 
classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission, if—(A) the 
performance or display is made by, at the direction of, or under the actual 
supervision of an instructor as an integral part of a class session offered as 
a regular part of the systematic mediated instructional activities of a 
governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution;
(B) the performance or display is directly related and of material assistance 
to the teaching content of the transmission;
(C) the transmission is made solely for, and, to the extent technologically 
feasible, the reception of such transmission is limited to—(i) students 
officially enrolled in the course for which the transmission is made; or
(ii) officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their official 
duties or employment; and

(D) the transmitting body or institution—(i) institutes policies regarding 
copyright, provides informational materials to faculty, students, and relevant 
staff members that accurately describe, and promote compliance with, the laws 
of the United States relating to copyright, and provides notice to students 
that materials used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright 
protection; and
(ii) in the case of digital transmissions—(I) applies technological measures 
that reasonably prevent—(aa) retention of the work in accessible form by 
recipients of the transmission from the transmitting body or institution for 
longer than the class session; and
(bb) unauthorized further dissemination of the work in accessible form by such 
recipients to others; and

(II) does not engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to interfere 
with technological measures used by copyright owners to prevent such retention 
or unauthorized further dissemination;


I have highlighted in bold portions of the law, but that may not transfer to 
the list.  So let me repeat a few key phrases here – with some additional 
comment

"In a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction" – Given that 
instruction now routinely occurs online, in LMS shells, and asynchronously it 
could well be argued that online is "a similar place devoted to instruction"

"at the direction of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an 
integral part of a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic 
mediated instructional activities" - This is not a requirement that the 
professor be present, but that the professor supervises or directs the 
activity.  And of course, the rest of it….

"in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of 
a live classroom session"  -  Live classroom sessions would typically include 
an entire work, thus it would appear that an entire work can be used.


The law ALSO makes frequent reference to "digital networks" and "transmission" 
--- an indication that the use of Blackboard and other tools for streaming are 
included in Section 110.


deg farrelly
ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian
Arizona State University Libraries
Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
602.332.3103

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of i

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

OOPS that went way too early so start again
sigh. There is a court ruling in which a school which put up works for
students and while it does not 100% rule out ever using an entire work it
says more than 10% would be the cut off point, it rejects 5 of the pieces
not merely for being more than 10% but for being the "heart of a work" yet
you say there is nothing written that says you can't use an entire work.
For the record opera is far more protected than most works in terms of
 "Fair  Use.You literally have it backwards. Creative works are given MORE
copyright protection not less than non fiction work and Opera more still
because you have music rights involved.


The fact that an item is not available free online is totally irrelevant as
is the fact that it might or might not be on Netflix. As for "not readily
available" ( even if I thought the law covered that and I don't) are you
saying that you can't buy retail copies and it can not be licensed from any
company? Again just because it is not $3.00 does not mean it is not
available the pricing issue applies ONLY to replacing lost or damaged
copies not to being able to stream something.

However the real problem is that like many you are mixing three totally
separate parts of copyright law "fair use" " Face to Face" and the Teach
Act to justify something none of them applies to.

First I am totally stunned you are unaware that The Teach Act expressly
forbids the use of entire creative works and specifically mentions musical
productions. Even Michael will back me up on that. You are simply dead
wrong. TEACH specifically says that you may only use  REASONABLE and
LIMITED portions" ( my emphasis) of "dramatic literary (plays). Musical
 (like operas) or Audio Visual works ( fiction films)"t The entire work is
in now way covered under TEACH Feel free to  look it up

"Face to Face" is again VERY explicit and says it covers films shown in a
physical classroom with the instructor present.


"Fair Use" is of course the catch all for I think it is fair so I will use
it. Pretty much ignore it's entire legal history of using portions to
create new works . What exactly is transformative about your showing them
to students? What new work have you created using the least amount of
material?

Again I still don't get why people are so willing to illegally stream
entire films but I would sincerely doubt they would digitize and post
entire books.


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Jessica Rosner 
wrote:

> sigh. There is a court ruling in which a school which put up works for
> students and while it does not 100% rule out ever using an entire work it
> says more than 10% would be the cut off point, it rejects 5 of the pieces
> not merely for being more than 10% but for being the "heart of a work" yet
> you say there is nothing written that says you can't use an entire work.
> For the record opera is far more protected than most works in terms of use.
> First it is as you noted a 'creative" work these are given far more
> protection than factual works and music has its own seperate protection.
>
> The fact that an item is not available free online
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Carla Myers  wrote:
>
>>  Hi, Jessica
>>
>> I am not aware of any statute in that law that explicitly states “go
>> ahead and stream films!” However I can think of no statue in the law that
>> states “you absolutely cannot stream films.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, everything comes down to performing a thoughtful and thorough fair
>> use analysis in which you consider all of the facts of the situation. I
>> agree that streaming a film online for purely entertainment purposes would
>> most likely not be a fair use. However if you’re thinking of streaming a
>> film, be it a documentary or a popular film, to a password protected campus
>> content management system (like Blackboard) you could have a strong case
>> for fair use, especially when the subject of the film is directly related
>> to the course topic and will be utilized as part of class instruction
>> activities. For example…
>>
>>
>>
>> Say I’m teaching an online class on the history of opera.  As part of my
>> instruction I want my students to view five different operas from five
>> different time periods so that they can compare and contrast operatic
>> styles over the ages. First I’m going to check to see if any performances
>> of the operas in question can be found freely available online, e.g. they
>> are already legally streamed by the rightsholder. If that’s the case then
>> I’ll post links to those websites so that my students can go watch them
>> there (this also generates traffic to these websites, which the
>> rightsholders appreciate!). If they are not freely available online I’ll
>> next check to see if they are available through another online avenue such
>> as  Amazon.com. If they are available there, even if it will cost the
>> student $3.99 to watch each film, then I’m going to send them there to
>> purchase access. If I’ve done my

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles (Carla Myers)

[scott spicer]

While I enjoy the back and forth on streaming fair use interpretation (and
by all means please continue), I would also be interested in shifting the
discussion somewhat to the future of educational media/independent film
distribution.

This is more of a pragmatic than legal interpretation issue.  Just a
provocation here...

Like many campuses, I suspect, we are likely looking at a 1 to 3 year
window (5 tops) before we are facing an issue of essentially institutional
obsolescence.  What is institutional obsolescence?  I define it as the
point at which standalone VHS/DVD players are no longer available or
supported in most campus classrooms (regardless of whether "the machine or
device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no
longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial
marketplace," (Sec. 108c(2)) - though VHS is can't be too far away despite
arguments to the contrary).

I used to think that the transition from VHS to DVD acquisitions bought us
some time.  However, with players being *proactively* pulled from
classrooms upon remodel or replacement refresh, and a high likelihood that
laptops will soon no longer come with built-in DVD players (try buying *any*
Macbook with one built-in, I've bought 2 in the last nine months - not
possible), I am starting to think that all physical formats will be
institutionally obsolete at the same dreaded time.  With a campus our size
(3 sub-campuses in one location, ~50k students) it is simply not feasible
for the Libraries to get into the classroom management business nor are we
going to start checking out players (realistically, what instructor is
gonna be shlepping around VCR's/DVD players/Thunderbolt peripherals?).
Sure a very few media intensive departments may decide to start supporting
their own classrooms with a few players, but I am betting the coverage will
be spottier than AT&T.

We don't currently have a great solution for this, so we need to be
considering options and I am optimistic deeper campus conversations will
start soon enough.  That said, I wonder how long it is until other campuses
are in the same boat?  When will we be at a point of critical mass when
physical media is no longer institutionally viable - truly institutional
obsolete?  To be sure, we will still have the lingering [at that point]
"legacy media" digitization question, but I think it will be interesting to
see if the calculus changes undershort the pressure.  Will the educational
media/independent (and theatrical film shortly thereafter for that matter)
become a purely digital, licensed distribution model (see: Ambrose).

Dennis, I wouldn't be reaching for the grapefruit margarita just yet.  The
Empire may strike back.

Best,
Scott



On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:58 PM, 
wrote:

> Send videolib mailing list submissions to
> videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list/listinfo/videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> videolib-ow...@lists.berkeley.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of videolib digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Libraries that stream their own titles (Carla Myers)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:58:46 +
> From: Carla Myers 
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> Message-ID:
> <4797094fac10a249a80d43c889b7b7abb6596...@uccs-ex4.uccs.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi, Jessica
> I am not aware of any statute in that law that explicitly states ?go ahead
> and stream films!? However I can think of no statue in the law that states
> ?you absolutely cannot stream films.?
>
> Again, everything comes down to performing a thoughtful and thorough fair
> use analysis in which you consider all of the facts of the situation. I
> agree that streaming a film online for purely entertainment purposes would
> most likely not be a fair use. However if you?re thinking of streaming a
> film, be it a documentary or a popular film, to a password protected campus
> content management system (like Blackboard) you could have a strong case
> for fair use, especially when the subject of the film is directly related
> to the course topic and will be utilized as part of class instruction
> activities. For example?
>
> Say I?m teaching an online class on the history of opera.  As part of my
> instruction I want my students to view five different operas from five
> different time periods so that they can compare and contrast operatic
> styles over the ages. First I?m going to check to see if any performances
> of the operas in question can be found

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

sigh. There is a court ruling in which a school which put up works for
students and while it does not 100% rule out ever using an entire work it
says more than 10% would be the cut off point, it rejects 5 of the pieces
not merely for being more than 10% but for being the "heart of a work" yet
you say there is nothing written that says you can't use an entire work.
For the record opera is far more protected than most works in terms of use.
First it is as you noted a 'creative" work these are given far more
protection than factual works and music has its own seperate protection.

The fact that an item is not available free online

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Carla Myers  wrote:

>  Hi, Jessica
>
> I am not aware of any statute in that law that explicitly states “go ahead
> and stream films!” However I can think of no statue in the law that states
> “you absolutely cannot stream films.”
>
>
>
> Again, everything comes down to performing a thoughtful and thorough fair
> use analysis in which you consider all of the facts of the situation. I
> agree that streaming a film online for purely entertainment purposes would
> most likely not be a fair use. However if you’re thinking of streaming a
> film, be it a documentary or a popular film, to a password protected campus
> content management system (like Blackboard) you could have a strong case
> for fair use, especially when the subject of the film is directly related
> to the course topic and will be utilized as part of class instruction
> activities. For example…
>
>
>
> Say I’m teaching an online class on the history of opera.  As part of my
> instruction I want my students to view five different operas from five
> different time periods so that they can compare and contrast operatic
> styles over the ages. First I’m going to check to see if any performances
> of the operas in question can be found freely available online, e.g. they
> are already legally streamed by the rightsholder. If that’s the case then
> I’ll post links to those websites so that my students can go watch them
> there (this also generates traffic to these websites, which the
> rightsholders appreciate!). If they are not freely available online I’ll
> next check to see if they are available through another online avenue such
> as  Amazon.com. If they are available there, even if it will cost the
> student $3.99 to watch each film, then I’m going to send them there to
> purchase access. If I’ve done my homework and cannot find them readily
> and/or legally available online I would next consider fair use…
>
> 1.   Purpose: educational, especially if they are directly tied to my
> class pedagogy and we will be providing comment and criticism on them.
>
> 2.   Nature of the work: operas, which are highly creative.
>
> 3.   Amount used: here’s where you want to carefully consider how
> much of the work students must view in order to effectively teach a
> subject. With teaching an opera history class I think I would have a strong
> argument for streaming the entire work, especially if we are comparing and
> contrasting operatic styles over the ages. If I was teaching a class
> looking at operatic arias then I would probably only want to stream the
> arias from each opera, rather than the entire work.
>
> 4.   Effect on the market: I would say negligible as online access is
> not readily available. This is an online class which has students from
> across the state and perhaps even across the county participating in it, so
> placing physical copies on print reserve for the students to use is not a
> viable option.
>
> In a situation such as this I think I would have a strong argument for
> posting a streaming copy of the film to a password protected content
> management system such as Blackboard.
>
>
>
> There are a lot of points of compliance association with the TEACH Act
> however I cannot find any part of the statute that says the law cannot be
> utilized for fiction films (or did you mean feature films?)! It does also
> not say that you *cannot* use an entire work. If the work is
> *non-dramatic* then you are free to use the whole work. If it is
> *dramatic* then the law says you can use reasonable and limited portions,
> but this is not the same as saying you cannot use the entire thing! What I
> interpret it to mean is that you can use the entire work so long as you
> have a reasonable argument for doing so.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Carla
>
>
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Faculty Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
>
> Kraemer Family Library
>
> The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
>
> 719-255-3908
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:26 PM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> Carla
>
>
>
> We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we a

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Carla Myers]

Hi, Jessica
I am not aware of any statute in that law that explicitly states “go ahead and 
stream films!” However I can think of no statue in the law that states “you 
absolutely cannot stream films.”

Again, everything comes down to performing a thoughtful and thorough fair use 
analysis in which you consider all of the facts of the situation. I agree that 
streaming a film online for purely entertainment purposes would most likely not 
be a fair use. However if you’re thinking of streaming a film, be it a 
documentary or a popular film, to a password protected campus content 
management system (like Blackboard) you could have a strong case for fair use, 
especially when the subject of the film is directly related to the course topic 
and will be utilized as part of class instruction activities. For example…

Say I’m teaching an online class on the history of opera.  As part of my 
instruction I want my students to view five different operas from five 
different time periods so that they can compare and contrast operatic styles 
over the ages. First I’m going to check to see if any performances of the 
operas in question can be found freely available online, e.g. they are already 
legally streamed by the rightsholder. If that’s the case then I’ll post links 
to those websites so that my students can go watch them there (this also 
generates traffic to these websites, which the rightsholders appreciate!). If 
they are not freely available online I’ll next check to see if they are 
available through another online avenue such as  Amazon.com. If they are 
available there, even if it will cost the student $3.99 to watch each film, 
then I’m going to send them there to purchase access. If I’ve done my homework 
and cannot find them readily and/or legally available online I would next 
consider fair use…

1.   Purpose: educational, especially if they are directly tied to my class 
pedagogy and we will be providing comment and criticism on them.

2.   Nature of the work: operas, which are highly creative.

3.   Amount used: here’s where you want to carefully consider how much of 
the work students must view in order to effectively teach a subject. With 
teaching an opera history class I think I would have a strong argument for 
streaming the entire work, especially if we are comparing and contrasting 
operatic styles over the ages. If I was teaching a class looking at operatic 
arias then I would probably only want to stream the arias from each opera, 
rather than the entire work.

4.   Effect on the market: I would say negligible as online access is not 
readily available. This is an online class which has students from across the 
state and perhaps even across the county participating in it, so placing 
physical copies on print reserve for the students to use is not a viable option.
In a situation such as this I think I would have a strong argument for posting 
a streaming copy of the film to a password protected content management system 
such as Blackboard.

There are a lot of points of compliance association with the TEACH Act however 
I cannot find any part of the statute that says the law cannot be utilized for 
fiction films (or did you mean feature films?)! It does also not say that you 
cannot use an entire work. If the work is non-dramatic then you are free to use 
the whole work. If it is dramatic then the law says you can use reasonable and 
limited portions, but this is not the same as saying you cannot use the entire 
thing! What I interpret it to mean is that you can use the entire work so long 
as you have a reasonable argument for doing so.

Best,
Carla

Assistant Professor
Faculty Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
Kraemer Family Library
The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
719-255-3908

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:26 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Carla

We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about 
digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference

There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan provision 
that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed in certain 
circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most definitely not allowed 
when the work is widely available such as KANE & CATCHER. The closest case law 
is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a work allowed.. It is often 
forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and streaming entire books but took them 
down as soon as they were challenged by the publishers.

Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge anyone to 
provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film ( which is 
basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done  by some 
institutions) the "ar

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

When you stream a film students are watching it in a dorm, at home on
vacation or in Starbucks it is NOT a "physical place of instruction" nor is
the instructor present,. Again "face to face" is very specific.  The Best
practices you quote comes basically from  to the TEACH ACT which again
specifically excludes an entire fiction film so you and ARL are mixing
apples and oranges.

As you might imagine rights holders take a dim view that just buying a
single copy of a film entitles you to stream to students whenever and
wherever they have time to watch it. As it happens so did the appeals court
in the GSU case so that decision should be interesting but even if upheld
it clearly limits the amount of material that can be used and it remains
the only case where the issue has been litigated.

I wonder if some common sense might prevail. Do you really believe it is
legal to digitize and post online all the books being used in a class? Why
should each student have to buy a copy if it is legal to digitize and post
them. What makes films any different?


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Andrew Horbal  wrote:

>  Hi again Jessica,
>
>
>
> Without getting into what the GSU case specifically does or does not tell
> us about streaming video course reserves, I interpret the broader
> philosophical argument for this kind of service as boiling down to the
> contention that it is more analogous to the “performance or display of a
> work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching
> activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or
> similar place devoted to instruction” permitted under §110(1) than you
> allow. In both the case of an instructor screening a library copy of a DVD
> for their class and an instructor utilizing a streaming video course
> reserve service to make that same library DVD available to their students
> via their CMS site, one “lawfully acquired” DVD is being screened for
> multiple students. If copyright law specifically allows for one use, why
> not the other? This is, I believe, what ARL’s *Code of Best Practices in
> Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries
> * is going for when it recommends
> that (to single out the three “limitations” I find most relevant to the
> discussion at hand) “[t]he availability of materials should be coextensive
> with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research
> project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s
> direction,” that “[o]nly eligible students and other qualified persons
> (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials,”
> and that “[m]aterials should be made available only when, and only to the
> extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s
> pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.” The
> intent is to ensure that the streaming video course reserves scenario is as
> functionally similar to the face-to-face teaching activities scenario as
> possible in terms of possible market harm and other risks to the rights
> holder. Or, more briefly: why does it matter whether or not the professor
> is present in a physical classroom—isn’t the **intent** of §110(1) the
> most important thing?
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:07 PM
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> No it would not Andrew. I assume it is limited to students in classes.
> Libraries have always had the right/ability to put these items on physical
> reserve,but they could not for instance have dubbed extra copies to meet
> demand which is basically what streaming does. The "face to face" exemption
> which I consider the clearest most explicit part of copyright law is
> detailed that it applies only to students in a physical classroom with a
> professor present using a legal copy. Streaming is an entirely separate
> right which must be negotiated with the rights holder.
>
>
>
> I would add on a related note that the visual quality of much of streamed
> material is dreadful and as someone who deals mostly with feature films
>  visual where quality is key I find this truly offensive. This has no legal
> impact but to me adds to the contempt with which films are treated in many
> institutions.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Horbal  wrote:
>
> Hi Jessica,
>
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, would the degree of your objection to streaming
> video course reserves change based on the level of access the institution
> in question provides? Most e-reserves program limit access to students with
> a course-specific username and password, and some require authentication
> through the institution’s course management system (CMS), which would
> similarly limit access to just students en

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Andrew Horbal]

Hi again Jessica,

Without getting into what the GSU case specifically does or does not tell us 
about streaming video course reserves, I interpret the broader philosophical 
argument for this kind of service as boiling down to the contention that it is 
more analogous to the “performance or display of a work by instructors or 
pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit 
educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to 
instruction” permitted under §110(1) than you allow. In both the case of an 
instructor screening a library copy of a DVD for their class and an instructor 
utilizing a streaming video course reserve service to make that same library 
DVD available to their students via their CMS site, one “lawfully acquired” DVD 
is being screened for multiple students. If copyright law specifically allows 
for one use, why not the other? This is, I believe, what ARL’s Code of Best 
Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research 
Libraries is going for when it 
recommends that (to single out the three “limitations” I find most relevant to 
the discussion at hand) “[t]he availability of materials should be coextensive 
with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research 
project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction,” 
that “[o]nly eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ 
graduate assistants) should have access to materials,” and that “[m]aterials 
should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a 
clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the 
kind and amount of content involved.” The intent is to ensure that the 
streaming video course reserves scenario is as functionally similar to the 
face-to-face teaching activities scenario as possible in terms of possible 
market harm and other risks to the rights holder. Or, more briefly: why does it 
matter whether or not the professor is present in a physical classroom—isn’t 
the *intent* of §110(1) the most important thing?

Andy

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:07 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

No it would not Andrew. I assume it is limited to students in classes. 
Libraries have always had the right/ability to put these items on physical 
reserve,but they could not for instance have dubbed extra copies to meet demand 
which is basically what streaming does. The "face to face" exemption which I 
consider the clearest most explicit part of copyright law is detailed that it 
applies only to students in a physical classroom with a professor present using 
a legal copy. Streaming is an entirely separate right which must be negotiated 
with the rights holder.

I would add on a related note that the visual quality of much of streamed 
material is dreadful and as someone who deals mostly with feature films  visual 
where quality is key I find this truly offensive. This has no legal impact but 
to me adds to the contempt with which films are treated in many institutions.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Horbal 
mailto:ahor...@umd.edu>> wrote:
Hi Jessica,

Just out of curiosity, would the degree of your objection to streaming video 
course reserves change based on the level of access the institution in question 
provides? Most e-reserves program limit access to students with a 
course-specific username and password, and some require authentication through 
the institution’s course management system (CMS), which would similarly limit 
access to just students enrolled in the course that the video is being used in. 
I ask because this consideration (assuming it matters) doesn’t seem to have 
been brought into the discussion to this point.

Andy Horbal

Media Resources Librarian
0300 Hornbake Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-9227
ahor...@umd.edu



From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:26 PM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Carla

We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about 
digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference

There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan provision 
that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed in certain 
circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most definitely not allowed 
when the work is widely available such as KANE & CATCHER. The closest case law 
is GSU and it clearly limi

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm)]

Yes there is. A use is not truly fair (covered by 107) until it is litigated 
and shown to be fair. TEACH provides more clarity. I am no fan of TEACH, but it 
does provide those who are more risk averse with clear(er) guidelines related 
to making content available online for educational uses.

mb

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:10 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Well since that would already be covered under "fair use" ( yes I really 
believe it in) there is nothing special in TEACH about it.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Teach does apply to fiction films, but only in reasonable and limited portions

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Jessica Rosner 
mailto:maddux2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Carla

We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about 
digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference

There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan provision 
that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed in certain 
circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most definitely not allowed 
when the work is widely available such as KANE & CATCHER. The closest case law 
is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a work allowed.. It is often 
forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and streaming entire books but took them 
down as soon as they were challenged by the publishers.

Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge anyone to 
provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film ( which is 
basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done  by some 
institutions) the "argument" that films were made for "entertainment" but using 
them in classes is "transformative" which is the one advanced by some at ALA is 
plainly absurd. If it were true than basically any book, movie etc ever made 
could be streamed or posted online for academic use.

We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even there 
the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass".

As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the key one 
being that it does not apply to fiction films

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers 
mailto:cmye...@uccs.edu>> wrote:
Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one. First off, 
there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire book could be 
considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this type of statement you 
are generalizing about all types of use, however fair use does not work that 
way. Fair use assessments must be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the 
facts of the situation to each individual item your wish to copy. I agree that 
it would be challenging for anyone to claim fair use in digitizing a work as 
popular as Cather in the Rye, however there are millions of titles that have 
been published that are not as readily available this particular title that 
someone could make a strong fair use argument for digitizing, especially when 
their purpose is educational and/or transformative.

In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film could be 
considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make sure that 
they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather than just 
parts of it.

Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has 
provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works for 
educational purposes.

Best,
Carla Myers

Assistant Professor
Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
Kraemer Family Library
The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
719-255-3908

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details which 
portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years (h) and the 
making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do apply to media. The 
copying and distribution of portions of, or entire works to users do not apply.

Here is the text:


(i)

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

Well since that would already be covered under "fair use" ( yes I really
believe it in) there is nothing special in TEACH about it.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>  Teach does apply to fiction films, but only in reasonable and limited
> portions
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Jessica Rosner  wrote:
>
>   Carla
>
>  We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about
> digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference
>
> There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan
> provision that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed
> in certain circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most
> definitely not allowed when the work is widely available such as KANE &
> CATCHER. The closest case law is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of
> a work allowed.. It is often forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and
> streaming entire books but took them down as soon as they were challenged
> by the publishers.
>
>  Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge
> anyone to provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film (
> which is basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done
>  by some institutions) the "argument" that films were made for
> "entertainment" but using them in classes is "transformative" which is
> the one advanced by some at ALA is plainly absurd. If it were true than
> basically any book, movie etc ever made could be streamed or posted online
> for academic use.
>
>  We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even
> there the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass".
>
>  As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the
> key one being that it does not apply to fiction films
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers  wrote:
>
>>  Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an
>> entire book but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong
>> one. First off, there most certainly are situations where digitizing an
>> entire book could be considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making
>> this type of statement you are generalizing about all types of use, however
>> fair use does not work that way. Fair use assessments must be made on a
>> case-by-case basis, applying the facts of the situation to each individual
>> item your wish to copy. I agree that it would be challenging for anyone to
>> claim fair use in digitizing a work as popular as *Cather in the Rye*,
>> however there are millions of titles that have been published that are not
>> as readily available this particular title that someone could make a strong
>> fair use argument for digitizing, especially when their purpose is
>> educational and/or transformative.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film
>> could be considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make
>> sure that they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather
>> than just parts of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has
>> provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works
>> for educational purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Carla Myers
>>
>>
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
>>
>> Kraemer Family Library
>>
>> The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
>>
>> 719-255-3908
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
>> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM
>>
>> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
>> brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details
>> which portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years
>> (h) and the making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do
>> apply to media. The copying and distribution of portions of, or entire
>> works to users do not apply.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the text:
>>
>>
>>
>> (i)  The rights of reproduction and distribution under
>> this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or
>> sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than
>> an audiovisual work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall
>> apply with respect to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or
>> with respect to pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations,
>> diagrams, or similar adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or
>> distribute

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm)]

Teach does apply to fiction films, but only in reasonable and limited portions

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Jessica Rosner 
mailto:maddux2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Carla

We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about 
digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference

There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan provision 
that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed in certain 
circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most definitely not allowed 
when the work is widely available such as KANE & CATCHER. The closest case law 
is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a work allowed.. It is often 
forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and streaming entire books but took them 
down as soon as they were challenged by the publishers.

Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge anyone to 
provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film ( which is 
basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done  by some 
institutions) the "argument" that films were made for "entertainment" but using 
them in classes is "transformative" which is the one advanced by some at ALA is 
plainly absurd. If it were true than basically any book, movie etc ever made 
could be streamed or posted online for academic use.

We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even there 
the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass".

As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the key one 
being that it does not apply to fiction films

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers 
mailto:cmye...@uccs.edu>> wrote:
Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one. First off, 
there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire book could be 
considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this type of statement you 
are generalizing about all types of use, however fair use does not work that 
way. Fair use assessments must be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the 
facts of the situation to each individual item your wish to copy. I agree that 
it would be challenging for anyone to claim fair use in digitizing a work as 
popular as Cather in the Rye, however there are millions of titles that have 
been published that are not as readily available this particular title that 
someone could make a strong fair use argument for digitizing, especially when 
their purpose is educational and/or transformative.

In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film could be 
considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make sure that 
they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather than just 
parts of it.

Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has 
provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works for 
educational purposes.

Best,
Carla Myers

Assistant Professor
Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
Kraemer Family Library
The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
719-255-3908

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details which 
portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years (h) and the 
making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do apply to media. The 
copying and distribution of portions of, or entire works to users do not apply.

Here is the text:


(i)  The rights of reproduction and distribution under this 
section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural 
work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual 
work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall apply with respect 
to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or with respect to 
pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar 
adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or distributed in accordance 
with subsections (d) and (e).

mb

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Tuesday, Sep

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

No it would not Andrew. I assume it is limited to students in classes.
Libraries have always had the right/ability to put these items on physical
reserve,but they could not for instance have dubbed extra copies to meet
demand which is basically what streaming does. The "face to face" exemption
which I consider the clearest most explicit part of copyright law is
detailed that it applies only to students in a physical classroom with a
professor present using a legal copy. Streaming is an entirely separate
right which must be negotiated with the rights holder.

I would add on a related note that the visual quality of much of streamed
material is dreadful and as someone who deals mostly with feature films
 visual where quality is key I find this truly offensive. This has no legal
impact but to me adds to the contempt with which films are treated in many
institutions.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Horbal  wrote:

>  Hi Jessica,
>
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, would the degree of your objection to streaming
> video course reserves change based on the level of access the institution
> in question provides? Most e-reserves program limit access to students with
> a course-specific username and password, and some require authentication
> through the institution’s course management system (CMS), which would
> similarly limit access to just students enrolled in the course that the
> video is being used in. I ask because this consideration (assuming it
> matters) doesn’t seem to have been brought into the discussion to this
> point.
>
>
>
> Andy Horbal
>
>
>
> Media Resources Librarian
>
> 0300 Hornbake Library
>
> University of Maryland
>
> College Park, MD 20742
>
> (301) 405-9227
>
> ahor...@umd.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:26 PM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> Carla
>
>
>
> We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about
> digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference
>
>
>
> There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan
> provision that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed
> in certain circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most
> definitely not allowed when the work is widely available such as KANE &
> CATCHER. The closest case law is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a
> work allowed.. It is often forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and
> streaming entire books but took them down as soon as they were challenged
> by the publishers.
>
>
>
> Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge
> anyone to provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film (
> which is basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done
>  by some institutions) the "argument" that films were made for
> "entertainment" but using them in classes is "transformative" which is the
> one advanced by some at ALA is plainly absurd. If it were true than
> basically any book, movie etc ever made could be streamed or posted online
> for academic use.
>
>
>
> We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even
> there the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass".
>
>
>
> As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the key
> one being that it does not apply to fiction films
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers  wrote:
>
> Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire
> book but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one.
> First off, there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire
> book could be considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this
> type of statement you are generalizing about all types of use, however fair
> use does not work that way. Fair use assessments must be made on a
> case-by-case basis, applying the facts of the situation to each individual
> item your wish to copy. I agree that it would be challenging for anyone to
> claim fair use in digitizing a work as popular as *Cather in the Rye*,
> however there are millions of titles that have been published that are not
> as readily available this particular title that someone could make a strong
> fair use argument for digitizing, especially when their purpose is
> educational and/or transformative.
>
>
>
> In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film
> could be considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make
> sure that they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather
> than just parts of it.
>
>
>
> Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has
> provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works
> for educational purposes.
>
>
>
> Best

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Andrew Horbal]

Hi Jessica,

Just out of curiosity, would the degree of your objection to streaming video 
course reserves change based on the level of access the institution in question 
provides? Most e-reserves program limit access to students with a 
course-specific username and password, and some require authentication through 
the institution’s course management system (CMS), which would similarly limit 
access to just students enrolled in the course that the video is being used in. 
I ask because this consideration (assuming it matters) doesn’t seem to have 
been brought into the discussion to this point.

Andy Horbal

Media Resources Librarian
0300 Hornbake Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-9227
ahor...@umd.edu



From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:26 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Carla

We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about 
digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference

There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan provision 
that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed in certain 
circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most definitely not allowed 
when the work is widely available such as KANE & CATCHER. The closest case law 
is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a work allowed.. It is often 
forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and streaming entire books but took them 
down as soon as they were challenged by the publishers.

Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge anyone to 
provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film ( which is 
basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done  by some 
institutions) the "argument" that films were made for "entertainment" but using 
them in classes is "transformative" which is the one advanced by some at ALA is 
plainly absurd. If it were true than basically any book, movie etc ever made 
could be streamed or posted online for academic use.

We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even there 
the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass".

As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the key one 
being that it does not apply to fiction films

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers 
mailto:cmye...@uccs.edu>> wrote:
Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one. First off, 
there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire book could be 
considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this type of statement you 
are generalizing about all types of use, however fair use does not work that 
way. Fair use assessments must be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the 
facts of the situation to each individual item your wish to copy. I agree that 
it would be challenging for anyone to claim fair use in digitizing a work as 
popular as Cather in the Rye, however there are millions of titles that have 
been published that are not as readily available this particular title that 
someone could make a strong fair use argument for digitizing, especially when 
their purpose is educational and/or transformative.

In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film could be 
considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make sure that 
they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather than just 
parts of it.

Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has 
provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works for 
educational purposes.

Best,
Carla Myers

Assistant Professor
Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
Kraemer Family Library
The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
719-255-3908

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details which 
portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years (h) and the 
making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do apply to media. The 
copying and distribution of portions of, or entire works to users do not apply.

Here is the text:


(i)  The rights of rep

[Videolib] CCUMC Copyright workshop - October 15 in Portland

[Stanton, Kim]

Dear Videolibers is the Portland area,

CCUMC is offering a pre-conference workshop entitled "CopyWrites: Crafting 
Successful AV Copyright Policies for Your Institution".  This 4 hour workshop 
will focus on supporting the participants' ability to write internal policies 
and procedures for activities that require a high degree of copyright 
consideration. This session is being led by several longtime members of the 
VideoLib community.

This workshop will be held Wednesday, October 15 from 8am - 12pm at the Hilton 
Portland. The cost of the workshop is $75 for CCUMC members or $125 for 
non-members. Registration to the conference is not required to attend the 
workshop.

For more information and to register: http://www.ccumc.org/?page=14_Workshops

Hope to see you there,
Kim


Kim Stanton
Head, Media Library
University of North Texas
kim.stan...@unt.edu
P:(940) 565-4832

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

Carla

We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about
digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference

There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan
provision that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed
in certain circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most
definitely not allowed when the work is widely available such as KANE &
CATCHER. The closest case law is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a
work allowed.. It is often forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and
streaming entire books but took them down as soon as they were challenged
by the publishers.

Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge anyone
to provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film ( which is
basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done  by some
institutions) the "argument" that films were made for "entertainment" but
using them in classes is "transformative" which is the one advanced by some
at ALA is plainly absurd. If it were true than basically any book, movie
etc ever made could be streamed or posted online for academic use.

We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even
there the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass".

As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the key
one being that it does not apply to fiction films

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers  wrote:

>  Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire
> book but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one.
> First off, there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire
> book could be considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this
> type of statement you are generalizing about all types of use, however fair
> use does not work that way. Fair use assessments must be made on a
> case-by-case basis, applying the facts of the situation to each individual
> item your wish to copy. I agree that it would be challenging for anyone to
> claim fair use in digitizing a work as popular as *Cather in the Rye*,
> however there are millions of titles that have been published that are not
> as readily available this particular title that someone could make a strong
> fair use argument for digitizing, especially when their purpose is
> educational and/or transformative.
>
>
>
> In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film
> could be considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make
> sure that they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather
> than just parts of it.
>
>
>
> Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has
> provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works
> for educational purposes.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Carla Myers
>
>
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
>
> Kraemer Family Library
>
> The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
>
> 719-255-3908
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
> brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> 108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details
> which portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years
> (h) and the making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do
> apply to media. The copying and distribution of portions of, or entire
> works to users do not apply.
>
>
>
> Here is the text:
>
>
>
> (i)  The rights of reproduction and distribution under
> this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or
> sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than
> an audiovisual work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall
> apply with respect to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or
> with respect to pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations,
> diagrams, or similar adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or
> distributed in accordance with subsections (d) and (e).
>
>
>
> mb
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Cindy Wolff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:35 AM
>
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> In some cases even though someone would be within their rights to copy
> something, the rights holder tries to sue. Film companies have 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Carla Myers]

Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one. First off, 
there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire book could be 
considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this type of statement you 
are generalizing about all types of use, however fair use does not work that 
way. Fair use assessments must be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the 
facts of the situation to each individual item your wish to copy. I agree that 
it would be challenging for anyone to claim fair use in digitizing a work as 
popular as Cather in the Rye, however there are millions of titles that have 
been published that are not as readily available this particular title that 
someone could make a strong fair use argument for digitizing, especially when 
their purpose is educational and/or transformative.

In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film could be 
considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make sure that 
they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather than just 
parts of it.

Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has 
provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works for 
educational purposes.

Best,
Carla Myers

Assistant Professor
Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
Kraemer Family Library
The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
719-255-3908

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details which 
portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years (h) and the 
making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do apply to media. The 
copying and distribution of portions of, or entire works to users do not apply.

Here is the text:


(i)  The rights of reproduction and distribution under this 
section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural 
work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual 
work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall apply with respect 
to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or with respect to 
pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar 
adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or distributed in accordance 
with subsections (d) and (e).

mb

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:35 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

In some cases even though someone would be within their rights to copy 
something, the rights holder tries to sue. Film companies have sued people even 
for the intent of fair use. The onus is put on the entity doing the copying. 
I’m not really think 108 encompasses film.

The late Jack Valenti, the past president of the MPAA, did not believe in the 
concept of fair use.

Cindy Wolff



From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael M - 
(brewerm)
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:06 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire works 
is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, I like to 
remind people that the law does allow for this in certain circumstances.

Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin 
commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a 
reasonable price.

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright ( 
which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in print 
and t

[Videolib] CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS IN ALA-VRT DISCUSSION AT ANNUAL

[Wochna, Lorraine]

Hello everyone,

I’ve recently submitted a proposal to Video Round Table for consideration at 
the ALA annual.  They accepted my proposal, with a caveat – I mentioned that 
this would be a brief panel discussion and Q & A and that I would find a few 
‘co-presenters’.  VRT would like some ‘names’ to go with my proposal.   I turn 
to videolib to see if anyone would be interested in this topic.  I have humbly 
attached my proposal and would be very interested in working together.  I’m 
hoping to work with a vendor (or two), media librarian (or two), and anyone who 
has worked with PPR and/or a PPR film series.

I’m focusing on PPR in specific – that can be as simple as understanding the 
differences between PPR/Educational Use/Institutional Use - through and 
including ways to secure rights, access to venues, and other issues that come 
up with PPR specific questions.  This has been a ‘pet’ of mine especially this 
year, as we are having faculty/students want to show films at the Athena, Ohio 
U arthouse, owned by university.  It brings up many questions that I would like 
to address in the presentation:


· Diff between PPR / Institutional and Educational (the basics)

· Where can you show a PPR on campus?

· How to establish a work flow so we don’t get into “I want to show 
“XXX” Saturday at the Athena” – do they need to understand that rights have to 
be secured?  How can we help them?  What can we do?

· How to work with Circulation Desk (where we keep our films) and 
creating an environment where PPR can be best understood.

· Our cinema asks for permission from rights holder to screen in a 
theatrical venue, can we work around this?

· Can we work more collaboratively with vendors?

· Once we have a head wrapped around the basic do’s and don’t of PPR, 
how to we promote to students faculty and staff?

· How do vendors that offer PPR deal with these situations?

What I’m hoping for is a few takers on working with me, and then fleshing out 
the raw material and addressing at the conference.  All the bullets above are 
just ideas, concerns, thoughts.

I will be at Mid-Winter, so that would be one place to start.  We could also 
meet over Adobe Connect or some other ‘webinar’ tool.

I look forward to your responses and apologize for not being 100% clear in what 
I want to focus on – besides PPR issues.  As you know, all we have to do is 
say/speak or write the word PPR and a plethora of responses will floor the 
email.  I’m aware that this is a slippery slope.  Just trying to make it not so 
slippery to get the films out there to the world.

Best,
lorraine

lorraine wochna
Alden Library, Ohio U
Instruction Coordinator
Liaison to African America Studies, English, Film, Theatre
Athens OH  45701
740.597.1238
http://libguides.library.ohiou.edu/prf.php?account_id=7943






VRT_Proposal_ALA_2015.docx
Description: VRT_Proposal_ALA_2015.docx
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>  108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i)
> details which portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20
> years (h) and the making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c)
> do apply to media. The copying and distribution of portions of, or entire
> works to users do not apply.
>
>
>
> Here is the text:
>
>
>
> (i)  The rights of reproduction and distribution under
> this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or
> sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than
> an audiovisual work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall
> apply with respect to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or
> with respect to pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations,
> diagrams, or similar adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or
> distributed in accordance with subsections (d) and (e).
>
>
>
> mb
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Cindy Wolff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:35 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> In some cases even though someone would be within their rights to copy
> something, the rights holder tries to sue. Film companies have sued people
> even for the intent of fair use. The onus is put on the entity doing the
> copying. I’m not really think 108 encompasses film.
>
>
>
> The late Jack Valenti, the past president of the MPAA, did not believe in
> the concept of fair use.
>
>
>
> Cindy Wolff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> ] *On Behalf Of *Brewer, Michael M -
> (brewerm)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:06 PM
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire
> works is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made,
> I like to remind people that the law does allow for this in certain
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin
> commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a
> reasonable price.
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> ] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of
> copyright ( which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it
> is not in print and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.
>
>
>
> Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being
> used in classes?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
> brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>  Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution,
> display, or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or
> research.
>
>
>
> (h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term
> of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a
> nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce,
> distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or
> phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of
> preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has
> first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of
> the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph
> (2) apply.
>
>
>
> (2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized
> under this subsection if—
>
>
>
> (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;
>
>
>
> (B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable
> price; or
>
>
>
> (C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to
> regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the
> conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.
>
>
>
> (3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any
> subsequent uses by users other than such library or archives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm)]

108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details which 
portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years (h) and the 
making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do apply to media. The 
copying and distribution of portions of, or entire works to users do not apply.

Here is the text:


(i)  The rights of reproduction and distribution under this 
section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural 
work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual 
work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall apply with respect 
to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or with respect to 
pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar 
adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or distributed in accordance 
with subsections (d) and (e).

mb

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:35 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

In some cases even though someone would be within their rights to copy 
something, the rights holder tries to sue. Film companies have sued people even 
for the intent of fair use. The onus is put on the entity doing the copying. 
I’m not really think 108 encompasses film.

The late Jack Valenti, the past president of the MPAA, did not believe in the 
concept of fair use.

Cindy Wolff



From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael M - 
(brewerm)
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:06 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire works 
is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, I like to 
remind people that the law does allow for this in certain circumstances.

Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin 
commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a 
reasonable price.

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright ( 
which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in print 
and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.

Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being used in 
classes?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, display, 
or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or research.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of 
copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit 
educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, 
display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such 
work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or 
research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a 
reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under 
this subsection if—

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set 
forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent 
uses by users other than such library or archives.



Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is ab

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Dennis Doros]

Okay, I can quickly (and probably insufficiently) give a history of the
20-year clause, which I call the Schwartz Innovation. Eric Schwartz (a
friend of Jessica's as well as mine in fact) is an amazing copyright lawyer
who advises congress, the copyright office and works with the studios. It's
not exactly a new clause but I believe goes back to the Bono extension. The
deal was that copyrights would be extended those twenty years, but the
clause about use would be included.

That clause was intended not only to allow a library or archive who has
unique material (Karl Brown's STARK LOVE from 1927 is an excellent example
-- MoMA just restored it) to preserve or digitize it, but also can cause
its distribution either by the institution's own means or by licensing it
to a distributor. If the title was not in distribution, I do not believe a
rights-holder can then retroactively object to it.

However, that's not saying that Michael's examples are incorrect. I'm just
stating that it actually goes farther than just copying. It's purpose was
really to make these films available to the public.



Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com

Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here

!


Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
 and Twitter
!


See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
 and like them on Facebook

AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>  It is not just preservation. It is also replacement and making available
> materials to users. Reproduction, distribution and performance are what are
> required for streaming (streaming requires reproduction and is a means of
> performing a work). This portion of section 108 is focused on
> scholarly/research uses (archives and libraries making rare or unique
> content available online, whether it is print or media, for research
> purposes). Largely, this is going to be for things that did not have broad
> distribution and which are no longer of commercial interest. That could,
> though, include a lot of media. Such access, and the scholarship and
> research that might come out of it, might actually create a market for some
> content that could subsequently be commercialized. We tend to forget that
> educational and scholarly uses of works are likely to enhance rather than
> harm the market for older or more obscure titles.
>
>
>
> mb
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Moshiri, Farhad
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:16 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> Again, it is my understanding that this whole section deals with
> "preservation". It clearly states that its purpose is archival and making
> the materials available for research inside the library. It usually
> concerns outdated formats and allows the libraries to upgrade the format
> (digitize). But I don't see where streaming fits into this section at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> Farhad Moshiri, MLS
>
> Post-Masters Advanced Study Certificate
>
> Audiovisual  Librarian
>
> Subject areas: Music, Dance, Copyright issues,
>
> Middle Eastern Studies
>
> University of the Incarnate Word
>
> J.E. & L.E. Mabee Library
>
> 4301 Broadway – CPO 297
>
> San Antonio, TX 78209
>
> (210) 829-3842
>
>
>   --
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael M -
> (brewerm) [brew...@email.arizona.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:06 AM
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
> It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire
> works is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made,
> I like to remind people that the law does allow for this in certain
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin
> commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a
> reasonable price.
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.e

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm)]

It is not just preservation. It is also replacement and making available 
materials to users. Reproduction, distribution and performance are what are 
required for streaming (streaming requires reproduction and is a means of 
performing a work). This portion of section 108 is focused on 
scholarly/research uses (archives and libraries making rare or unique content 
available online, whether it is print or media, for research purposes). 
Largely, this is going to be for things that did not have broad distribution 
and which are no longer of commercial interest. That could, though, include a 
lot of media. Such access, and the scholarship and research that might come out 
of it, might actually create a market for some content that could subsequently 
be commercialized. We tend to forget that educational and scholarly uses of 
works are likely to enhance rather than harm the market for older or more 
obscure titles.

mb

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Moshiri, Farhad
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:16 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Again, it is my understanding that this whole section deals with 
"preservation". It clearly states that its purpose is archival and making the 
materials available for research inside the library. It usually concerns 
outdated formats and allows the libraries to upgrade the format (digitize). But 
I don't see where streaming fits into this section at all.


Farhad Moshiri, MLS
Post-Masters Advanced Study Certificate
Audiovisual  Librarian
Subject areas: Music, Dance, Copyright issues,
Middle Eastern Studies
University of the Incarnate Word
J.E. & L.E. Mabee Library
4301 Broadway - CPO 297
San Antonio, TX 78209
(210) 829-3842


From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael M - 
(brewerm) [brew...@email.arizona.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:06 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
It doesn't. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire works 
is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, I like to 
remind people that the law does allow for this in certain circumstances.

Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin 
commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a 
reasonable price.

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright ( 
which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in print 
and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.

Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being used in 
classes?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, display, 
or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or research.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of 
copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit 
educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, 
display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such 
work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or 
research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a 
reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under 
this subsection if-

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set 
forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent 
uses by users other than such library or archives.



Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Cindy Wolff]

In some cases even though someone would be within their rights to copy 
something, the rights holder tries to sue. Film companies have sued people even 
for the intent of fair use. The onus is put on the entity doing the copying. 
I’m not really think 108 encompasses film. 

 

The late Jack Valenti, the past president of the MPAA, did not believe in the 
concept of fair use.

 

Cindy Wolff

 

 

 

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael M - 
(brewerm)
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:06 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

 

It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire works 
is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, I like to 
remind people that the law does allow for this in certain circumstances. 

 

Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin 
commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a 
reasonable price. 

 

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

 

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

 

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright ( 
which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in print 
and the rights holder does not object you could stream it. 

 

Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being used in 
classes?

 

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
 wrote:

Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, display, 
or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or research.

 

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of 
copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit 
educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, 
display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such 
work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or 
research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a 
reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

 

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under 
this subsection if— 

 

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

 

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

 

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set 
forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

 

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent 
uses by users other than such library or archives.

 

 

 

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

 

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM


To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

 

What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making 
copies.

Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting material 
online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it is pretty 
clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much when it took 
down whole books as soon as it was sued. 

 

Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY different.

 

I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.

 

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
 wrote:

Jessica, 

 

It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the 
circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something like 
Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of protection 
that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale at a reasonable 
price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation about films (which, 
by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under Section 108(h) if the they 
meet the same criteria). I just wanted to clarify that it is not illegal to 
digitize entire works that are still under copyright under certain 
circumstances, so that others are aware. 

 

mb

 

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 

 

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

 

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 A

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Moshiri, Farhad]

Again, it is my understanding that this whole section deals with 
"preservation". It clearly states that its purpose is archival and making the 
materials available for research inside the library. It usually concerns 
outdated formats and allows the libraries to upgrade the format (digitize). But 
I don't see where streaming fits into this section at all.


Farhad Moshiri, MLS
Post-Masters Advanced Study Certificate
Audiovisual  Librarian
Subject areas: Music, Dance, Copyright issues,
Middle Eastern Studies
University of the Incarnate Word
J.E. & L.E. Mabee Library
4301 Broadway – CPO 297
San Antonio, TX 78209
(210) 829-3842


From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] 
On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) [brew...@email.arizona.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:06 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire works 
is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, I like to 
remind people that the law does allow for this in certain circumstances.

Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin 
commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a 
reasonable price.

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright ( 
which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in print 
and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.

Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being used in 
classes?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, display, 
or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or research.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of 
copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit 
educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, 
display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such 
work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or 
research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a 
reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under 
this subsection if—

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set 
forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent 
uses by users other than such library or archives.



Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making 
copies.
Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting material 
online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it is pretty 
clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much when it took 
down whole books as soon as it was sued.

Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY different.

I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Jessica,

It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the 
circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something like 
Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of protection 
that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale at a reasonable 
price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation about films (which, 
by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under Section 108(h) if the they 
meet the same criteria). I just wanted to clarify that it is not 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

OK but that is very small exception which was added in the last few years.
It is perfectly legit but does tend to muddy the waters for the 99.99% of
material it does not cover.Kind of like saying the Cubs were once World
Series Champions true but not lately. I think the GSU case made clear that
digitizing and streaming entire works is illegal and my guess is that when
the appeal  comes down even the 10% they allowed will disappear. None of
this is to say there is not totally legit fair use but it is nearly always
limited to small portions ( assuming you are dealing with an entire feature
film or book).

I am still utterly confused why some people would use the GSU case as
supporting streaming whole works when it does the opposite.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>  It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire
> works is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made,
> I like to remind people that the law does allow for this in certain
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin
> commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a
> reasonable price.
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of
> copyright ( which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it
> is not in print and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.
>
>
>
> Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being
> used in classes?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
> brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>  Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution,
> display, or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or
> research.
>
>
>
> (h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term
> of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a
> nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce,
> distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or
> phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of
> preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has
> first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of
> the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph
> (2) apply.
>
>
>
> (2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized
> under this subsection if—
>
>
>
> (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;
>
>
>
> (B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable
> price; or
>
>
>
> (C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to
> regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the
> conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.
>
>
>
> (3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any
> subsequent uses by users other than such library or archives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM
>
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making
> copies.
>
> Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting
> material online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it
> is pretty clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much
> when it took down whole books as soon as it was sued.
>
>
>
> Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY
> different.
>
>
>
> I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
> brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>  Jessica,
>
>
>
> It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the
> circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something
> like Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of
> protection that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale
> at a reasonable price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation
> about films (which, by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under
> Section 108(h) if the they meet the same criteria). I just wanted to
> clarify that it is not illegal to dig

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm)]

It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire works 
is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, I like to 
remind people that the law does allow for this in certain circumstances.

Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin 
commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a 
reasonable price.

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright ( 
which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in print 
and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.

Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being used in 
classes?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, display, 
or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or research.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of 
copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit 
educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, 
display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such 
work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or 
research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a 
reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under 
this subsection if—

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set 
forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent 
uses by users other than such library or archives.



Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making 
copies.
Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting material 
online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it is pretty 
clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much when it took 
down whole books as soon as it was sued.

Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY different.

I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Jessica,

It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the 
circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something like 
Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of protection 
that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale at a reasonable 
price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation about films (which, 
by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under Section 108(h) if the they 
meet the same criteria). I just wanted to clarify that it is not illegal to 
digitize entire works that are still under copyright under certain 
circumstances, so that others are aware.

mb

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly what GSU 
did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut back to 
"chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly the same as 
digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work digitizing it 
and putting up for many to access 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright
( which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in
print and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.

Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being
used in classes?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>  Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution,
> display, or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or
> research.
>
>
>
> (h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term
> of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a
> nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce,
> distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or
> phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of
> preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has
> first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of
> the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph
> (2) apply.
>
>
>
> (2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized
> under this subsection if—
>
>
>
> (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;
>
>
>
> (B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable
> price; or
>
>
>
> (C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to
> regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the
> conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.
>
>
>
> (3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any
> subsequent uses by users other than such library or archives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making
> copies.
>
> Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting
> material online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it
> is pretty clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much
> when it took down whole books as soon as it was sued.
>
>
>
> Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY
> different.
>
>
>
> I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
> brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>  Jessica,
>
>
>
> It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the
> circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something
> like Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of
> protection that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale
> at a reasonable price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation
> about films (which, by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under
> Section 108(h) if the they meet the same criteria). I just wanted to
> clarify that it is not illegal to digitize entire works that are still
> under copyright under certain circumstances, so that others are aware.
>
>
>
> mb
>
>
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM
>
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly
> what GSU did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut
> back to "chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly
> the same as digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work
> digitizing it and putting up for many to access without paying for rights.
> Even the current GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals
> court but no ruling has been issued) made it clear that you could not use
> entire works and they did in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use
> probably violated "fair use" and sent them back ( though this is on hold
> because of the appeal).
>
>
>
> Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire
> book but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at
> ALA of one of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting
> question"
>
>
>
> Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works
> are given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow les

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

This is exactly what I asked the rep at the ALA conference that if it were
"transformative" to stream Citizen Kane which was originally "entertainment
" for classes why not Catcher in the Rye to which he infamously responded
"that is an interesting question" In for a penny in for a pound. Either it
is totally legal to stream all films and books or it isn't. Does anyone
here honestly think they can digitize and stream at least every film  and
every book if it used in a class?

The librarians basically know they can't digitize and post Catcher on the
Rye or Portnoy's Complaint  but think it is OK to digitze and stream Kane
or Hoop Dreams?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Bogage, Alan 
wrote:

>  The argument goes something like:  if the copy is transformative, that
> is, transformed from original purpose for (non-profit) educational use and
> that the entire work is required to meet the educational learning
> objectives, then it is fair use.
>
>
>
> But, I agree with you – seems like a stretch.
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan Bogage
> Senior Director of Library, Media, and Distance Learning
> Carroll Community College
> 1601 Washington Rd.
> Westminster, MD 21157
> 410-386-8339
> www.carrollcc.edu
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:42 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly
> what GSU did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut
> back to "chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly
> the same as digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work
> digitizing it and putting up for many to access without paying for rights.
> Even the current GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals
> court but no ruling has been issued) made it clear that you could not use
> entire works and they did in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use
> probably violated "fair use" and sent them back ( though this is on hold
> because of the appeal).
>
>
>
> Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire
> book but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at
> ALA of one of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting
> question"
>
>
>
> Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works
> are given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less
> worthy of copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted
> collection policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often
> the exception but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham  wrote:
>
> How do you stream a book?
>
> Richard Graham
> Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian
>
> N220 Love Library
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> Lincoln, NE 68588-4100
>
> phone: 402.472.5410
> email: rgrah...@unl.edu
>
>
> 
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] on behalf of Jessica Rosner [
> maddux2...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
> I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim
> it is "fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the
> same with all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean
> if it "fair use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros  milefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear deg (and all),
>
> I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
> Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
> the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
> out by February.
>
> Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I
> appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
> more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
> $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
> students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
> comes with context and content.
>
> And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
> not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
> partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
> Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped
> going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to
> spell his name correctly.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dennis Doros
> Milestone Film & Video
> PO B

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm)]

Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, display, 
or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or research.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of 
copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit 
educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, 
display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such 
work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or 
research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a 
reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under 
this subsection if—

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set 
forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent 
uses by users other than such library or archives.



Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making 
copies.
Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting material 
online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it is pretty 
clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much when it took 
down whole books as soon as it was sued.

Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY different.

I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Jessica,

It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the 
circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something like 
Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of protection 
that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale at a reasonable 
price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation about films (which, 
by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under Section 108(h) if the they 
meet the same criteria). I just wanted to clarify that it is not illegal to 
digitize entire works that are still under copyright under certain 
circumstances, so that others are aware.

mb

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly what GSU 
did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut back to 
"chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly the same as 
digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work digitizing it 
and putting up for many to access without paying for rights. Even the current 
GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals court but no ruling 
has been issued) made it clear that you could not use entire works and they did 
in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use probably violated "fair use" 
and sent them back ( though this is on hold because of the appeal).

Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at ALA of one 
of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting question"

Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works are 
given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less worthy of 
copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted collection 
policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often the exception 
but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before)


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham 
mailto:rgrah...@unl.edu>> wrote:
How do you stream a book?

Richard Graham
Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian

N220 Love Library
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-4100

phone: 402.472.5410
email: rgrah...@unl.edu

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Bogage, Alan]

The argument goes something like:  if the copy is transformative, that is, 
transformed from original purpose for (non-profit) educational use and that the 
entire work is required to meet the educational learning objectives, then it is 
fair use.

But, I agree with you – seems like a stretch.


Alan Bogage
Senior Director of Library, Media, and Distance Learning
Carroll Community College
1601 Washington Rd.
Westminster, MD 21157
410-386-8339
www.carrollcc.edu

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:42 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly what GSU 
did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut back to 
"chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly the same as 
digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work digitizing it 
and putting up for many to access without paying for rights. Even the current 
GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals court but no ruling 
has been issued) made it clear that you could not use entire works and they did 
in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use probably violated "fair use" 
and sent them back ( though this is on hold because of the appeal).

Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at ALA of one 
of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting question"

Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works are 
given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less worthy of 
copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted collection 
policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often the exception 
but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before)


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham 
mailto:rgrah...@unl.edu>> wrote:
How do you stream a book?

Richard Graham
Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian

N220 Love Library
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-4100

phone: 402.472.5410
email: rgrah...@unl.edu



From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 on behalf of Jessica Rosner [maddux2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim it is 
"fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the same with 
all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean if it "fair 
use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros 
mailto:milefi...@gmail.com>>>
 wrote:
Dear deg (and all),

I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit 
Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read the 
word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming out by 
February.

Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I 
appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much more. 
$300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus $10 for a 
DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's students to buy even 
though its ten times better quality than streaming and comes with context and 
content.

And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm not 
disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just partaking of 
gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a Grapefruit 
Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped going out to bars 
together when he discovered that I had to use Google to spell his name 
correctly.




Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117> / 
Fax: 201-767-3035> / 
Email: 
milefi...@gmail.com>

Visit our main website!  
www.milestonefilms.com
Visit our new websites!  
www.mspresents.com, 
www.portraitofjason.com,
 
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
To

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making
copies.
Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting
material online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it
is pretty clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much
when it took down whole books as soon as it was sued.

Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY different.

I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) <
brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>  Jessica,
>
>
>
> It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the
> circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something
> like Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of
> protection that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale
> at a reasonable price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation
> about films (which, by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under
> Section 108(h) if the they meet the same criteria). I just wanted to
> clarify that it is not illegal to digitize entire works that are still
> under copyright under certain circumstances, so that others are aware.
>
>
>
> mb
>
>
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
>
>
> You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly
> what GSU did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut
> back to "chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly
> the same as digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work
> digitizing it and putting up for many to access without paying for rights.
> Even the current GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals
> court but no ruling has been issued) made it clear that you could not use
> entire works and they did in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use
> probably violated "fair use" and sent them back ( though this is on hold
> because of the appeal).
>
>
>
> Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire
> book but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at
> ALA of one of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting
> question"
>
>
>
> Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works
> are given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less
> worthy of copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted
> collection policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often
> the exception but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham  wrote:
>
> How do you stream a book?
>
> Richard Graham
> Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian
>
> N220 Love Library
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> Lincoln, NE 68588-4100
>
> phone: 402.472.5410
> email: rgrah...@unl.edu
>
>
> 
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] on behalf of Jessica Rosner [
> maddux2...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
> I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim
> it is "fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the
> same with all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean
> if it "fair use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros  milefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear deg (and all),
>
> I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
> Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
> the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
> out by February.
>
> Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I
> appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
> more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
> $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
> students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
> comes with context and content.
>
> And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
> not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
> partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
> Grapefruit Margarita and to be 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm)]

Jessica,

It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the 
circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something like 
Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of protection 
that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale at a reasonable 
price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation about films (which, 
by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under Section 108(h) if the they 
meet the same criteria). I just wanted to clarify that it is not illegal to 
digitize entire works that are still under copyright under certain 
circumstances, so that others are aware.

mb

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly what GSU 
did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut back to 
"chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly the same as 
digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work digitizing it 
and putting up for many to access without paying for rights. Even the current 
GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals court but no ruling 
has been issued) made it clear that you could not use entire works and they did 
in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use probably violated "fair use" 
and sent them back ( though this is on hold because of the appeal).

Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at ALA of one 
of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting question"

Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works are 
given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less worthy of 
copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted collection 
policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often the exception 
but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before)


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham 
mailto:rgrah...@unl.edu>> wrote:
How do you stream a book?

Richard Graham
Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian

N220 Love Library
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-4100

phone: 402.472.5410
email: rgrah...@unl.edu



From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 on behalf of Jessica Rosner [maddux2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim it is 
"fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the same with 
all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean if it "fair 
use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros 
mailto:milefi...@gmail.com>>>
 wrote:
Dear deg (and all),

I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit 
Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read the 
word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming out by 
February.

Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I 
appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much more. 
$300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus $10 for a 
DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's students to buy even 
though its ten times better quality than streaming and comes with context and 
content.

And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm not 
disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just partaking of 
gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a Grapefruit 
Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped going out to bars 
together when he discovered that I had to use Google to spell his name 
correctly.




Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117> / 
Fax: 201-767-3035> / 
Email: 
milefi...@gmail.com>

Visit our main website!  
www.milestonefilms.com
Visit 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Dennis Doros]

Jessica,

It wasn't *entirely* satire. :-)

For this group, I should give you my recent findings. I've tried to create
new copies of our previously pressed DVDs this past month using my new
six-core Mac Pro. When I used Handbrake, a modified VLC and DVD Smith to
download a DVD with CSS protection, there were an *enormous* number of
artifacts in the moving image including strobing, shaking and various other
artifacts which in the highest of technical terms, we call "crap." Only my
authoring and compression lab in Maryland by using pretty expensive
professional software that removes the CSS first and then converts
everything down to the encoding can you get a proper copy out of it. (Those
details will not be provided.)

For anyone who is paying distributors to stream films, I would suggest they
ask the distributor to provide a digital file. And if you bought from
Milestone and I told you to use the DVD, you can get back to me. Now that
Dropbox and other places are much cheaper to deliver large files, I think
it would be best for the distributors to provide quality files for the
money being paid.



Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com

Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here

!


Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
 and Twitter
!


See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
 and like them on Facebook

AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jessica Rosner 
wrote:

> I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim
> it is "fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the
> same with all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean
> if it "fair use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros  wrote:
>
>> Dear deg (and all),
>>
>> I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
>> Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
>> the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
>> out by February.
>>
>> Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses,
>> I appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
>> more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
>> $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
>> students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
>> comes with context and content.
>>
>> And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
>> not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
>> partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
>> Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped
>> going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to
>> spell his name correctly.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dennis Doros
>> Milestone Film & Video
>> PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
>> Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com
>>
>> Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
>> Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
>> www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
>> To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here
>> 
>> !
>>
>>
>> Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
>>  and Twitter
>> !
>>
>>
>> See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
>>  and like them on Facebook
>> 
>> AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014
>> 
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.
>>>
>>> Farhad
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
>>> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
>>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>>>
>>> Farhad
>>>
>>> No, you are correct.
>>>
>>> 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Dennis Doros]

Richard,

I will not *brook* any streaming of books!

Actually, a PDF file where you turn the pages would be sufficient and is a
similar technology. We all do it almost on a weekly basis going through the
Staples' flyer, or an online catalog or magazine. You can even write notes
on them.


Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com

Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here

!


Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
 and Twitter
!


See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
 and like them on Facebook

AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham  wrote:

> How do you stream a book?
>
> Richard Graham
> Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian
>
> N220 Love Library
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> Lincoln, NE 68588-4100
>
> phone: 402.472.5410
> email: rgrah...@unl.edu
>
>
> 
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] on behalf of Jessica Rosner [
> maddux2...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
> I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim
> it is "fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the
> same with all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean
> if it "fair use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros  milefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear deg (and all),
>
> I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
> Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
> the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
> out by February.
>
> Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I
> appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
> more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
> $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
> students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
> comes with context and content.
>
> And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
> not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
> partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
> Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped
> going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to
> spell his name correctly.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dennis Doros
> Milestone Film & Video
> PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
> Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035
> / Email: milefi...@gmail.com
>
> Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com<
> http://www.milestonefilms.com/>
> Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com,
> www.portraitofjason.com,
> www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
> To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here<
> http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0150/7896/files/2014MilestoneVideoCatalog.pdf?75
> >!
>
> Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook<
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milestone-Film/22348485426> and Twitter<
> https://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>!
>
> See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists<
> http://www.amianet.org/> and like them on Facebook<
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-of-Moving-Image-Archivists/86854559717
> >
> AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014<
> http://www.amianet.org/>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad  > wrote:
> Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.
>
> Farhad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
> Farhad
>
> No, you are correct.
>
> The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed 

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly what
GSU did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut back
to "chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly the
same as digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work
digitizing it and putting up for many to access without paying for rights.
Even the current GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals
court but no ruling has been issued) made it clear that you could not use
entire works and they did in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use
probably violated "fair use" and sent them back ( though this is on hold
because of the appeal).

Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire
book but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at
ALA of one of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting
question"

Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works
are given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less
worthy of copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted
collection policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often
the exception but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before)


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham  wrote:

> How do you stream a book?
>
> Richard Graham
> Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian
>
> N220 Love Library
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> Lincoln, NE 68588-4100
>
> phone: 402.472.5410
> email: rgrah...@unl.edu
>
>
> 
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] on behalf of Jessica Rosner [
> maddux2...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
> I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim
> it is "fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the
> same with all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean
> if it "fair use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros  milefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear deg (and all),
>
> I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
> Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
> the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
> out by February.
>
> Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I
> appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
> more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
> $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
> students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
> comes with context and content.
>
> And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
> not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
> partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
> Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped
> going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to
> spell his name correctly.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dennis Doros
> Milestone Film & Video
> PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
> Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035
> / Email: milefi...@gmail.com
>
> Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com<
> http://www.milestonefilms.com/>
> Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com,
> www.portraitofjason.com,
> www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
> To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here<
> http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0150/7896/files/2014MilestoneVideoCatalog.pdf?75
> >!
>
> Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook<
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milestone-Film/22348485426> and Twitter<
> https://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>!
>
> See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists<
> http://www.amianet.org/> and like them on Facebook<
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-of-Moving-Image-Archivists/86854559717
> >
> AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014<
> http://www.amianet.org/>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad  > wrote:
> Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.
>
> Farhad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Vide

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles -- i.e. the media Ouroboros

[Randal Baier]

Regarding the Grapefruit Margarita, this recipe might suffice, although the 
pastel ambience does damage to anyone with a social conscience. Actually I'm 
convinced that this site is a front for a paint company, as the colors of 
everything seem to be related to "what colors can I repaint my child's room now 
that zhe has left for college." I would prefer the chipotle hue infused with a 
rough salt texture, but others may enjoy a peaceful puce. 


One half of this recipe makes me want to speak pirate, yet the other half 
brings out a most embarrassing "James, we'll be having drinks overlooking the 
squash courts." 


http://www.domesticate-me.com/grapefruit-margaritas-chipotle-chili-salt-lime/ 




== 
Randal Baier 
Eastern Michigan University 
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197 
(734) 487-2520 
rba...@emich.edu 
tweets @rbaier – skypes @ randalbaier 
“... do not all strange sounds thrill us as human 
till we have learned to refer them to their proper 
source?” -Thoreau, mss., Journal 9: 1854-1855 


- Original Message -

From: "Jessica Rosner"  
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:40:54 AM 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles 


I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim it is 
"fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the same with 
all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean if it "fair 
use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)? 



On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros < milefi...@gmail.com > wrote: 




Dear deg (and all), 


I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit 
Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read the 
word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming out by 
February. 


Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I 
appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much more. 
$300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus $10 for a 
DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's students to buy even 
though its ten times better quality than streaming and comes with context and 
content. 


And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm not 
disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just partaking of 
gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a thing as a Grapefruit Margarita 
and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped going out to bars together 
when he discovered that I had to use Google to spell his name correctly. 









Best regards, 
Dennis Doros 
Milestone Film & Video 
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640 
Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com 


Visit our main website! www.milestonefilms.com 
Visit our new websites! www.mspresents.com , www.portraitofjason.com , 
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com , 
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here ! 






Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook and Twitter ! 





See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists and like them on 
Facebook 
AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014 



On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad < mosh...@uiwtx.edu > wrote: 


Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care. 

Farhad 



-Original Message- 
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu ] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM 
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles 

Farhad 

No, you are correct. 

The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity from 
being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the copyright). 
Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied the 
waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in question, 
and other points. The the case was NOT decided based on merits. 

Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a victory 
for libraries and essentially permitting digitization. But long story short, 
there has been no case law established on either side of the issue of libraries 
digitizing without permission. 

SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally acquired 
content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in the Georgia 
State University case. 

Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in academic 
libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in November, and 
published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes some data on the 
extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their collections. 

-deg farrelly 

deg farrelly 
ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian Arizona State University Libraries 
Tem

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Richard Graham]

How do you stream a book?

Richard Graham
Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian

N220 Love Library
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-4100

phone: 402.472.5410
email: rgrah...@unl.edu



From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] 
on behalf of Jessica Rosner [maddux2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim it is 
"fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the same with 
all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean if it "fair 
use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros 
mailto:milefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear deg (and all),

I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit 
Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read the 
word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming out by 
February.

Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I 
appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much more. 
$300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus $10 for a 
DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's students to buy even 
though its ten times better quality than streaming and comes with context and 
content.

And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm not 
disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just partaking of 
gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a Grapefruit 
Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped going out to bars 
together when he discovered that I had to use Google to spell his name 
correctly.




Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / 
Email: milefi...@gmail.com

Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, 
www.portraitofjason.com, 
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click 
here!

Support "Milestone Film" on 
Facebook and 
Twitter!

See the website: Association of Moving Image 
Archivists and like them on 
Facebook
AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 
2014

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad 
mailto:mosh...@uiwtx.edu>> wrote:
Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.

Farhad

-Original Message-
From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu]
 On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Farhad

No, you are correct.

The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity from 
being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the copyright).
 Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied the 
waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in question, 
and other points.  The the case was NOT decided based on merits.

Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a victory 
for libraries and essentially permitting digitization.  But long story short, 
there has been no case law established on either side of the issue of libraries 
digitizing without permission.

SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally acquired 
content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in the Georgia 
State University case.

Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in academic 
libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in November, and 
published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes some data on the 
extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their collections.

-deg farrelly

deg farrelly
ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian Arizona State University Libraries 
Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
602.332.3103



On 9/29/14 11:36 AM, 
"videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu"
mailto:video

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Elizabeth McMahon]

Dennis,

Grapefruit margaritas are real (this looks tempting, though I personally
hate grapefruit)
http://www.cookingchanneltv.com/recipes/food-network-kitchens/chipotle-grapefruit-margarita.html

Just be glad you don't have to live with the ignominy that Mayor BdB does
for having savagely murdered Charlotte, the groundhog masquerading at
Staten Island Chuck (you know, the one who bit Bloomberg and made us all so
very happy for doing what we all desired to do ourselves). He uses his
gargantuan stature as a weapon. (And he's supposed to be an animal lover).
Maybe you and Phil can patch things up. Maybe try a Ground hog brew!
*http://tinyurl.com/m2fysqs
*

I cannot imagine how parents can afford to send their children to school
these days. I count my blessings that I got a fine state education, that
was affordable, and where I had real professors, not adjuncts and not grad
students. And used bookstores were the only way to go. (And back then, I
still thought they were overpriced!) I am sure your son will display the
same enterprising ingenuity and intellectual deftness as his mom and dad,
in traversing college and its perils. I wish him the best of luck.

Best,

Elizabeth

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros  wrote:

> Dear deg (and all),
>
> I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
> Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
> the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
> out by February.
>
> Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I
> appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
> more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
> $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
> students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
> comes with context and content.
>
> And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
> not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
> partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
> Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped
> going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to
> spell his name correctly.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dennis Doros
> Milestone Film & Video
> PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
> Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com
>
> Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
> Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
> www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
> To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here
> 
> !
>
>
> Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
>  and Twitter
> !
>
>
> See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
>  and like them on Facebook
> 
> AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014
> 
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.
>>
>> Farhad
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
>> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>>
>> Farhad
>>
>> No, you are correct.
>>
>> The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity
>> from being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the
>> copyright).
>>  Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied
>> the waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in
>> question, and other points.  The the case was NOT decided based on merits.
>>
>> Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a
>> victory for libraries and essentially permitting digitization.  But long
>> story short, there has been no case law established on either side of the
>> issue of libraries digitizing without permission.
>>
>> SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally
>> acquired content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in the
>> Georgia State University case.
>>
>> Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in
>> academic libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in
>> November, and published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes
>> some data on the extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their
>> collections.
>>
>> -deg farrelly
>>
>> deg farrelly

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Jessica Rosner]

I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim
it is "fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the
same with all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean
if it "fair use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros  wrote:

> Dear deg (and all),
>
> I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
> Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
> the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
> out by February.
>
> Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I
> appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
> more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
> $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
> students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
> comes with context and content.
>
> And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
> not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
> partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
> Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped
> going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to
> spell his name correctly.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dennis Doros
> Milestone Film & Video
> PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
> Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com
>
> Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
> Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
> www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
> To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here
> 
> !
>
>
> Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
>  and Twitter
> !
>
>
> See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
>  and like them on Facebook
> 
> AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014
> 
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.
>>
>> Farhad
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
>> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>>
>> Farhad
>>
>> No, you are correct.
>>
>> The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity
>> from being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the
>> copyright).
>>  Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied
>> the waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in
>> question, and other points.  The the case was NOT decided based on merits.
>>
>> Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a
>> victory for libraries and essentially permitting digitization.  But long
>> story short, there has been no case law established on either side of the
>> issue of libraries digitizing without permission.
>>
>> SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally
>> acquired content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in the
>> Georgia State University case.
>>
>> Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in
>> academic libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in
>> November, and published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes
>> some data on the extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their
>> collections.
>>
>> -deg farrelly
>>
>> deg farrelly
>> ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian Arizona State University
>> Libraries Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
>> 602.332.3103
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/14 11:36 AM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It is my understanding that according to the copyright law, you?re not
>> >allowed to change the format of audiovisual materials without permission.
>> >The famous case of Berkeley vs. Ambrose Video was dismissed due to
>> >technicalities and Berkeley being a state institution. It was not
>> >dismissed based on copyright law. Am I wrong on this?
>> >
>> >Farhad Moshiri, MLS
>>
>>
>> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
>> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic
>> control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in
>> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as
>> an effective

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Dennis Doros]

Dear deg (and all),

I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit
Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read
the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming
out by February.

Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I
appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much
more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus
$10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's
students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and
comes with context and content.

And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm
not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just
partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a
Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped
going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to
spell his name correctly.




Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com

Visit our main website!  www.milestonefilms.com
Visit our new websites!  www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com,
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com,
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here

!


Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook
 and Twitter
!


See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists
 and like them on Facebook

AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad  wrote:

> Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.
>
> Farhad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles
>
> Farhad
>
> No, you are correct.
>
> The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity from
> being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the copyright).
>  Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied
> the waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in
> question, and other points.  The the case was NOT decided based on merits.
>
> Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a
> victory for libraries and essentially permitting digitization.  But long
> story short, there has been no case law established on either side of the
> issue of libraries digitizing without permission.
>
> SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally
> acquired content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in the
> Georgia State University case.
>
> Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in
> academic libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in
> November, and published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes
> some data on the extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their
> collections.
>
> -deg farrelly
>
> deg farrelly
> ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian Arizona State University
> Libraries Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
> 602.332.3103
>
>
>
> On 9/29/14 11:36 AM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >It is my understanding that according to the copyright law, you?re not
> >allowed to change the format of audiovisual materials without permission.
> >The famous case of Berkeley vs. Ambrose Video was dismissed due to
> >technicalities and Berkeley being a state institution. It was not
> >dismissed based on copyright law. Am I wrong on this?
> >
> >Farhad Moshiri, MLS
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic
> control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in
> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as
> an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of
> communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video
> producers and distributors.
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential or
> contain privileged information and are intended solely for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this email in
> error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, print

Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

[Moshiri, Farhad]

Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.

Farhad

-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Farhad

No, you are correct.

The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity from 
being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the copyright).
 Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied the 
waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in question, 
and other points.  The the case was NOT decided based on merits.

Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a victory 
for libraries and essentially permitting digitization.  But long story short, 
there has been no case law established on either side of the issue of libraries 
digitizing without permission.

SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally acquired 
content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in the Georgia 
State University case.

Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in academic 
libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in November, and 
published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes some data on the 
extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their collections.

-deg farrelly

deg farrelly
ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian Arizona State University Libraries 
Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
602.332.3103



On 9/29/14 11:36 AM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu"
 wrote:

>
>It is my understanding that according to the copyright law, you?re not
>allowed to change the format of audiovisual materials without permission.
>The famous case of Berkeley vs. Ambrose Video was dismissed due to
>technicalities and Berkeley being a state institution. It was not
>dismissed based on copyright law. Am I wrong on this?
>
>Farhad Moshiri, MLS


VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential or contain 
privileged information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or 
entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, 
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email and any 
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, 
please immediately delete the email and any attachments from your system and 
notify the sender. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for 
your compliance.

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.