Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
One more thing. While the list did not include films made exclusively for educational instruction, they did include indeed many, many titles sold only for the educational market. Titles released by places like Bullfrog, Women Make Movies, California Newsreel ( and don't kill me guys) really do not have a broad interest and most are NOT sold to individuals, only to institutions. Legally I don't think it matters ( although nearly all probably came with PPR), but I think as you may have noticed many of us think morally it is very disturbing. It would less than honest to not to admit that people might be less upset if the films being streamed without rights were owned by Newscorp, as opposed to the diminishing number of independent distributors who have been providing quality films exclusively to the University & library market for many years ( as well as some new comers who are naive enough to believe that schools won't digitize and stream a work without permission) On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Shoaf,Judith P wrote: > Jessica, > > ** ** > > From the Ambrose website: > > The Content is licensed solely for classroom teaching, research, > educational non-commercial multimedia projects, classroom presentations, and > individual presentations for use in educational institutions or public > libraries. *PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHTS *A "public performance" is any > performance of a videocassette, DVD, videodisc or film which occurs outside > of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family > members, such as in a school or library. In most cases titles sold by video > and retail outlets are restricted to home use only and do not include public > performance rights. All of the prices listed on the individual film pages > include public performance rights. > > http://www.ambrosevideo.com/order.cfm#terms > > ** ** > > And of course they explicitly forbid anything else, change of format, > broadcast, etc. > > You are right--It is a red herring. I’m just saying that Ambrose calls this > PPR and UCLA calls it PPR (and is in fact allowing use only for classroom > teaching and research). I guess that the definition assumes that the > face-to-face exception is an exception to PPR, and therefore forms part of > PPR—the part you normally don’t need permission for in the U.S. Also, > Ambrose apparently does not have tiered pricing—you are not paying more for > the PPR, or rather you have no way to buy the item without this very limited > “PPR.” I find the text above shockingly misleading, though. > > ** ** > > NB as you know, one reason Ambrose is the plaintiff is that they actually > have the streaming service to offer. I think few other potential plaintiffs > can claim that—that 100% of their material being streamed by UCLA is > available from them digitally, so UCLA is not only usurping their rights but > also depriving them of income from their property. I also noticed that they > have been careful not to stream anything that was made specifically for an > educational-institution market. It’s all entertainment or documentaries of > broad interest. > > ** ** > > Judy > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! > > ** ** > > Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film > being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always > meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think > the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement > virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State > School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't > go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with > a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( > hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was > streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course > the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources > to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? > > ** ** > > Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in > terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. > > ** ** > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P wrote:*** > * > > I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose’s license for public > performance is ver
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Weird language. The other part though is not true. Virtually all of the studio titles streamed by UCLA could have been licensed through Swank and many of the others could have been gotten as well. However this would be another red herring as I don't think the "but it is not available" for streaming argument was used and would be unlikely to matter. I can't see any court saying that the fact that a rights holder did not make material available to be used in a certain way could be held against them. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Shoaf,Judith P wrote: > Jessica, > > ** ** > > From the Ambrose website: > > The Content is licensed solely for classroom teaching, research, > educational non-commercial multimedia projects, classroom presentations, and > individual presentations for use in educational institutions or public > libraries. *PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHTS *A "public performance" is any > performance of a videocassette, DVD, videodisc or film which occurs outside > of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family > members, such as in a school or library. In most cases titles sold by video > and retail outlets are restricted to home use only and do not include public > performance rights. All of the prices listed on the individual film pages > include public performance rights. > > http://www.ambrosevideo.com/order.cfm#terms > > ** ** > > And of course they explicitly forbid anything else, change of format, > broadcast, etc. > > You are right--It is a red herring. I’m just saying that Ambrose calls this > PPR and UCLA calls it PPR (and is in fact allowing use only for classroom > teaching and research). I guess that the definition assumes that the > face-to-face exception is an exception to PPR, and therefore forms part of > PPR—the part you normally don’t need permission for in the U.S. Also, > Ambrose apparently does not have tiered pricing—you are not paying more for > the PPR, or rather you have no way to buy the item without this very limited > “PPR.” I find the text above shockingly misleading, though. > > ** ** > > NB as you know, one reason Ambrose is the plaintiff is that they actually > have the streaming service to offer. I think few other potential plaintiffs > can claim that—that 100% of their material being streamed by UCLA is > available from them digitally, so UCLA is not only usurping their rights but > also depriving them of income from their property. I also noticed that they > have been careful not to stream anything that was made specifically for an > educational-institution market. It’s all entertainment or documentaries of > broad interest. > > ** ** > > Judy > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! > > ** ** > > Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film > being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always > meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think > the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement > virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State > School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't > go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with > a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( > hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was > streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course > the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources > to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? > > ** ** > > Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in > terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. > > ** ** > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P wrote:*** > * > > I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose’s license for public > performance is very restricted—basically it is a limited version of > face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to > enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. > So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to > ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt “it means whatever we say it means” > and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library > viewing. > >
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Jessica, >From the Ambrose website: The Content is licensed solely for classroom teaching, research, educational non-commercial multimedia projects, classroom presentations, and individual presentations for use in educational institutions or public libraries. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHTS A "public performance" is any performance of a videocassette, DVD, videodisc or film which occurs outside of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family members, such as in a school or library. In most cases titles sold by video and retail outlets are restricted to home use only and do not include public performance rights. All of the prices listed on the individual film pages include public performance rights. http://www.ambrosevideo.com/order.cfm#terms And of course they explicitly forbid anything else, change of format, broadcast, etc. You are right--It is a red herring. I'm just saying that Ambrose calls this PPR and UCLA calls it PPR (and is in fact allowing use only for classroom teaching and research). I guess that the definition assumes that the face-to-face exception is an exception to PPR, and therefore forms part of PPR-the part you normally don't need permission for in the U.S. Also, Ambrose apparently does not have tiered pricing-you are not paying more for the PPR, or rather you have no way to buy the item without this very limited "PPR." I find the text above shockingly misleading, though. NB as you know, one reason Ambrose is the plaintiff is that they actually have the streaming service to offer. I think few other potential plaintiffs can claim that-that 100% of their material being streamed by UCLA is available from them digitally, so UCLA is not only usurping their rights but also depriving them of income from their property. I also noticed that they have been careful not to stream anything that was made specifically for an educational-institution market. It's all entertainment or documentaries of broad interest. Judy From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P mailto:jsh...@ufl.edu>> wrote: I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose's license for public performance is very restricted-basically it is a limited version of face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt "it means whatever we say it means" and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library viewing. Judy ** I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions - that streaming is not a "distribution" such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, as a potentially public performance, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorney
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P wrote: > I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose’s license for public > performance is very restricted—basically it is a limited version of > face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to > enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. > So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to > ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt “it means whatever we say it means” > and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library > viewing. > > ** ** > > Judy > > ** ** > > ** > > I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): > > > ** ** > > What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few > lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — > that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive > right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed > right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, > as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general > dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for “failure to state a claim > upon which relief can be granted.” Thus this ruling does not offer the > higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a > couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. > > ** ** > > What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, > in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, *as a potentially > public performance*, was justified under section 110. Is that what the > UCLA attorneys would likely have argued – that having PPR licenses meant > they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I > guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself > (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public > performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? > > ** ** > > Susan at Wabash > > ** ** > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hallman, Philip > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Two articles of interest this morning: > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ > > > ** ** > > http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=11100412* > *** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Philip Hallman > > Film Studies Librarian > > Donald Hall Collection > > Dept of Screen Arts & Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library > > 105 S. State Street > > 6330 North Quad > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109 > > 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. > > -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Trust me you can infer that they are idiots. These are the same people ( Through the MPAA) who testified before Congress and spent resources to stop schools from breaking encryption to use CLIPS. I would definitely NOT infer they are not going to protect their rights. Remember that the discovery which showed UCLA had in fact streamed all those studio titles came well after the case was underway and studios generally don't like to get involved in someone else's suit I am not saying they are going to run out and bring their own tomorrow. They tend to get distracted by on line piracy , bootlegs etc. Sometimes they can't see the forest for the trees. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) < jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote: > Surely Universal Studios has more powerful lawyers than UCLA, I wonder > why they, or other major studios, were not a party to the suit. Should we > infer anything from their silence? > > ** ** > > Matt > > ** ** > > __ > > Matt Ball > > Media Services Librarian > > University of Virginia > > mattb...@virginia.edu<https://mail.eservices.virginia.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=f9bb9e66e0cb45eb9c98da126198ad7e&URL=mailto%3amattball%40virginia.edu> > > > 434-924-3812 > > ** ** > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:12 AM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! > > ** ** > > I think you need to keep in mind that that section applied only to films > sold with PPR and UCLA was streaming thousands of standard films. The > problem is none of those rights holders got involved. Also I suspect that > from now on any company selling films with PPR will add to their contract > that no streaming is permitted and of course that would supersede any > interpretation by this judge of copyright law. > > I want to add a general comment. I was told my oft mentioned copyright > consultant that indeed this case was using the wrong arguments on a number > of fronts. Had for instance Fredrick Wiseman or Universal who ARE the > copyright holders of films streamed by UCLA been a party to the suite it > would likely have ended very differently. > The saddest thing to me is that UCLA and other institutions ( Like say > Michigan in Hathi/Google case in which they just got bitch slapped on > claiming "orphan works" that were anything but) set themselves up as poor > little educators fighting evil corporations when in fact they are the ones > the high powered lawyers and the independent filmmakers are the ones who > have few resources to fight for their rights. > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Susan Albrecht > wrote: > > I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): > > > > > What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few > lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — > that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive > right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed > right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, > as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general > dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for “failure to state a claim > upon which relief can be granted.” Thus this ruling does not offer the > higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a > couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. > > > > What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, > in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, *as a potentially > public performance*, was justified under section 110. Is that what the > UCLA attorneys would likely have argued – that having PPR licenses meant > they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I > guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself > (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public > performance. Or is that really neither here nor there?**** > > > > Susan at Wabash > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hallman, Philip > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! > > > > > > Two articles of interest this morning: > > >
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Surely Universal Studios has more powerful lawyers than UCLA, I wonder why they, or other major studios, were not a party to the suit. Should we infer anything from their silence? Matt __ Matt Ball Media Services Librarian University of Virginia mattb...@virginia.edu<https://mail.eservices.virginia.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=f9bb9e66e0cb45eb9c98da126198ad7e&URL=mailto%3amattball%40virginia.edu> 434-924-3812 From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:12 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! I think you need to keep in mind that that section applied only to films sold with PPR and UCLA was streaming thousands of standard films. The problem is none of those rights holders got involved. Also I suspect that from now on any company selling films with PPR will add to their contract that no streaming is permitted and of course that would supersede any interpretation by this judge of copyright law. I want to add a general comment. I was told my oft mentioned copyright consultant that indeed this case was using the wrong arguments on a number of fronts. Had for instance Fredrick Wiseman or Universal who ARE the copyright holders of films streamed by UCLA been a party to the suite it would likely have ended very differently. The saddest thing to me is that UCLA and other institutions ( Like say Michigan in Hathi/Google case in which they just got bitch slapped on claiming "orphan works" that were anything but) set themselves up as poor little educators fighting evil corporations when in fact they are the ones the high powered lawyers and the independent filmmakers are the ones who have few resources to fight for their rights. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Susan Albrecht mailto:albre...@wabash.edu>> wrote: I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions - that streaming is not a "distribution" such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, as a potentially public performance, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued - that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? Susan at Wabash From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>] On Behalf Of Hallman, Philip Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu> Subject: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=11100412 Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts & Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com<mailto:jessicapros...@gmail.com> 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
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose's license for public performance is very restricted-basically it is a limited version of face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt "it means whatever we say it means" and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library viewing. Judy ** I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions - that streaming is not a "distribution" such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, as a potentially public performance, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued - that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? Susan at Wabash From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Hallman, Philip Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=11100412 Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts & Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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] Case dismissed against UCLA!
I think you need to keep in mind that that section applied only to films sold with PPR and UCLA was streaming thousands of standard films. The problem is none of those rights holders got involved. Also I suspect that from now on any company selling films with PPR will add to their contract that no streaming is permitted and of course that would supersede any interpretation by this judge of copyright law. I want to add a general comment. I was told my oft mentioned copyright consultant that indeed this case was using the wrong arguments on a number of fronts. Had for instance Fredrick Wiseman or Universal who ARE the copyright holders of films streamed by UCLA been a party to the suite it would likely have ended very differently. The saddest thing to me is that UCLA and other institutions ( Like say Michigan in Hathi/Google case in which they just got bitch slapped on claiming "orphan works" that were anything but) set themselves up as poor little educators fighting evil corporations when in fact they are the ones the high powered lawyers and the independent filmmakers are the ones who have few resources to fight for their rights. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Susan Albrecht wrote: > I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke > blogger): > > ** ** > > What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few > lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — > that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive > right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed > right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, > as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general > dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for “failure to state a claim > upon which relief can be granted.” Thus this ruling does not offer the > higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a > couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. > > ** ** > > What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, > in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, *as a potentially > public performance*, was justified under section 110. Is that what the > UCLA attorneys would likely have argued – that having PPR licenses meant > they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I > guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself > (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public > performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? > > ** ** > > Susan at Wabash > > ** ** > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hallman, Philip > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Two articles of interest this morning: > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ > > > ** ** > > http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=11100412* > *** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Philip Hallman > > Film Studies Librarian > > Donald Hall Collection > > Dept of Screen Arts & Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library > > 105 S. State Street > > 6330 North Quad > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109 > > 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. > > -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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] Case dismissed against UCLA!
I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions - that streaming is not a "distribution" such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, as a potentially public performance, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued - that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? Susan at Wabash From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Hallman, Philip Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=11100412 Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts & Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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.
[Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=11100412 Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts & Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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.
