Re: [Videolib] UCLA case fallout PPR / VOD / CMS Rights

[Jessica Rosner]

OK I am totally confused. Are they adding or limiting rights? I work mainly
with filmmakers directly for very small distributors who basically can not
afford (at least now) and delivery system of their own, but since they own
the film they can pretty much sell any rights they want forever and for the
most part they seem OK with selling the rights for a school to put it on
whatever system they want so long as it is password protected.

I think the big "divide" will be how educational distributors handle this Vs
more traditional feature films owned mainly by studios, large European
companies etc.


On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Elliott, Curleen
wrote:

> The waters for specific rights from vendors of video media will definitely
> become more crowded.  I was about to purchase some DVDs from a vendor and
> came across their new Course Management Systems (CMS) rights. This gives the
> right to load DVDs on Blackboard or Moodle ( legally change format, I
> guess). This of course is different from their Video on Demand and PPR
> rights, which also seems to be defined differently depending on the vendor.
> Very interesting.
>
> ** **
>
> Curleen Elliott
>
> Library Associate
>
> Norwalk Community College
>
> Baker Library
>
> 188 Richards Avenue
>
> Norwalk, CT 06854
>
> (203) 857-7215
>
> Fx: (203) 857-7380
>
> ** **
>
> "Reading is not just an escape. It is access to a better way of life." ***
> *
>
> Karin Slaughter
>
> ** **
>
> 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.

[Videolib] UCLA case fallout PPR / VOD / CMS Rights

[Elliott, Curleen]

 

The waters for specific rights from vendors of video media will
definitely become more crowded.  I was about to purchase some DVDs from
a vendor and came across their new Course Management Systems (CMS)
rights. This gives the right to load DVDs on Blackboard or Moodle (
legally change format, I guess). This of course is different from their
Video on Demand and PPR rights, which also seems to be defined
differently depending on the vendor. Very interesting.

 

Curleen Elliott

Library Associate

Norwalk Community College

Baker Library

188 Richards Avenue

Norwalk, CT 06854

(203) 857-7215

Fx: (203) 857-7380

 

"Reading is not just an escape. It is access to a better way of life." 

Karin Slaughter

 

<>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] UCLA Case

[Randal Baier]

Nice explanation -- "musicologimetrics" on that one. That makes sense, it's 
enough time to hear the tune and maybe get to the bridge. Those percentages 
work out, I hadn't considered the clip time as a percentage and was wondering 
"why 50 rather than 30?" 

Cheers, 
Randal 



- Original Message -
From: "Judith P Shoaf"  
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2011 9:10:35 AM 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case 




Randal--well, you asked me a question and then sort of gave the answer I would 
give. I am not dealing with this kind of situation myself, so whether I am "OK 
with a 50 sec. clip" is not relevant. It looks, though, as if the librarians 
have given it some thought and believe the 50 sec. clip is fair use. I gather 
that a 78 rpm disc could not hold much more than 3 minutes/side (I recall that 
"Soliloquy" from Carousel required 2 sides), while a 45 could hold up to 5 
min/side. If the songs were performed to maximize disc length, presumably 50 
sec = about 30% of a 78 (more likely to be PD) or 20% of a 45. The librarians 
may have felt precisely that 50 sec is enough to help researchers identify what 
they want to hear but a small enough clip not to replace the market value of 
the whole song. --Judy 




I'm engaging here, not challenging, trying not to be my usual glib self. 

So, Judy, you're OK with the 50 sec. clip aspect of this collection, I take it, 
even for non-PD recordings? Those orphans, etc.? The rest of it, including full 
renditions, is available to legitimate UCLA users, and I imagine anyone who 
wanted to be working on the material in depth would want to be in the 
collection itself, as you point out. 

re: Strachwitz/Frontera. The 50 sec. clip combined with the label views of each 
record, and the indexing, is compelling for research at a distance. 
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 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] UCLA Case

[Shoaf,Judith P]

Randal--well, you asked me a question and then sort of gave the answer I would 
give. I am not dealing with this kind of situation myself, so whether I am "OK 
with a 50 sec. clip" is not relevant. It looks, though, as if the librarians 
have given it some thought and believe the 50 sec. clip is fair use. I gather 
that a 78 rpm disc could not hold much more than 3 minutes/side (I recall that 
"Soliloquy" from Carousel required 2 sides), while a 45 could hold up to 5 
min/side. If the songs were performed to maximize disc length, presumably 50 
sec = about 30% of a 78 (more likely to be PD) or 20% of a 45.  The librarians 
may have felt precisely that 50 sec is enough to help researchers identify what 
they want to hear but a small enough clip not to replace the market value of 
the whole song. --Judy

I'm engaging here, not challenging, trying not to be my usual glib self.

So, Judy, you're OK with the 50 sec. clip aspect of this collection, I take it, 
even for non-PD recordings? Those orphans, etc.? The rest of it, including full 
renditions, is available to legitimate UCLA users, and I imagine anyone who 
wanted to be working on the material in depth would want to be in the 
collection itself, as you point out.

re: Strachwitz/Frontera. The 50 sec. clip combined with the label views of each 
record, and the indexing, is compelling for research at a distance.
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] UCLA case

[Shoaf,Judith P]

Jessica--you do rant a lot and I have poked some irritants in your direction 
recently, but I wanted to add that I'm glad you are on the list and always 
ready with information, case studies, and valiant defense of the rights owners. 
I have understood the situation so much more fully from reading your "rants"!



Judy
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] UCLA case

[Jessica Rosner]

Well as Dennis pointed out "theft" is the legal term for violating a rights
holders copyright and UCLA hiding beyond "sovereign immunity" does not make
it less so.
However it is not people on the list I think are thieves, I think you are
all in a very tough position between academics who truly do not give a rat's
ass about copyright, administrations which want to save money and filmmakers
whom you genuinely support. It is tough place to be, but not as tough as the
independent distributors and filmmakers who see their work being stolen by
people who either hide it ( at least UCLA was forced to admit they streamed
whole films) or use high priced lawyers and technicalities to avoid being
held liable while simultaneously painting rights holders as greedy, wealthy
companies who don't care about their works and are picking on poor innocent
academics. ( Ever read the comments sections of the academic journals
covering this case?).

I know I rant A LOT on this subject, but  it goes to the heart of business I
love which it is killing and I think nearly everyone here knows it is both
illegal and unethical to stream an entire film without obtaining the rights.
I know I have mentioned this again and again but beyond losing their
livelihood what hurts distributors and filmmakers most is that they believed
the academic community was their friend and supporter and not the instrument
of their destruction and I have spoken to enough of them to know this is not
an exaggeration.

OK I am done. Back to work if I can sell anything these days.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) <
jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:

> Thank you for this expression Roger.  Although I don't imagine most of us
> are thieving academics, being referred to as such doesn't do much for
> maintaining a civil discourse between two parties that clearly rely on each
> other.  Keeping the vitriol and rancor at bay would probably serve us all
> well.
>
> Matt
>
> 
>
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brown, Roger
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:13 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
>
> All,
>
> While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
> the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
> further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
> are nothing more than thieves?
>
> I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
> or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
> agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
> about this case should not include personal attacks.
>
> Thank you.
> - -
>
>
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>
>
>
> -
>
>
> 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 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] UCLA case

[Ball, James (jmb4aw)]

Thank you for this expression Roger.  Although I don't imagine most of us are 
thieving academics, being referred to as such doesn't do much for maintaining a 
civil discourse between two parties that clearly rely on each other.  Keeping 
the vitriol and rancor at bay would probably serve us all well.

Matt


 
Matt Ball
Media and Collections Librarian
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA  22904
mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brown, Roger
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:13 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA case

All,

While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
are nothing more than thieves?

I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
about this case should not include personal attacks.

Thank you.
- - 


Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu



-


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 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] UCLA case

[ghandman]

OK...I think this would be extremely ill-advised,

The case is being litigated in the courts; I'm in no mood to have it pleaded
on this list.

As I said in my last post, I think we need to move on and wait (rather
than snipe and endlessly conjecture)

Gary


> Since I have not read all the legal pleadings, it would be helpful if
> someone from UCLA could post a response to this list explaining exactly
> what they did do (and I am new to the list so I apologize if this was done
> before).  It would be helpful to hear from someone at UCLA describe what
> they streamed and how they did it (did they use a  proxy server so all
> students on campus have access and from home or just for specific courses
> through course management software?  Did they stream titles in which they
> had paid for public performance rights or feature films?  How many films
> did they stream?).  Others on this list have made factual statements about
> what UCLA did, but I don't think I've heard from anyone at UCLA say what
> they did.
>
> Matthew
>
> Matthew Wright
> Head of Collection Development and Instructional Services
> William S. Boyd School of Law
> University of Nevada Las Vegas
> 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451080
> Las Vegas, NV 89154-1080
> (702) 895-2409; (702) 895-2410 (fax)
>
>
>
> From:   Jessica Rosner 
> To:     videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Date:   06/01/2011 09:34 AM
> Subject:Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
> Sent by:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>
>
>
> I am not attacking individuals but I think the actions and attitudes of
> UCLA ( and others) speak for themselves. Obviously I know even more than I
> can post and if I could I know it would make some people on this list even
> angrier.
>
> I understand UCLA personal are somewhat constrained on what they can say,
> but I would like to know if you agree that streaming entire feature works
> to students on and off campus even as part of course is ethical (
> forgetting legal)  and I really wish someone who agrees with this view
> would explain why it is different from doing the same with a novel,
> textbook, etc.
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:
> All,
>
> While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
> the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
> further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
> are nothing more than thieves?
>
> I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
> or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
> agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
> about this case should not include personal attacks.
>
> Thank you.
> - -
>
>
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>
>
>
> -
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>


Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley

510-643-8566
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

"I have always

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Susan Weber]

That link to UCLA's news is incorrect. This should do it:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/campus-to-re-start-streaming-of-154601.aspx


Brown, Roger wrote:

  Hi,

A link to the press release explaining UCLA's official position can be
seen here:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/campus-to-re-start-streaming-of-15
4601.aspx

Legal discussions of various aspects of the case can be found online from
Educause to Techdirt to the Sloan Consortium, as well as AIME's site.


- - 
Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu





  
  
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:43:43 -0400
From: Jessica Rosner 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hey I am all for that. I think some of their documents are on the AIME
site.I can tell for a fact that 99% of the films they streamed did not
have
Public Performance Rights. Again the list of films they admitted to
streaming as of over a year ago was in the 1700 range and included tons of
Hollywood feature films, Foreign Films, Classic films and educational
documentaries. They did not specifically indicate if they had streamed all
those films in their entirety, but their claim was they had the right to
and
had clearly done it.

I would really love to hear someone from UCLA talk about the list of films
and how they did it.


On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM,  wrote:



  Since I have not read all the legal pleadings, it would be helpful if
someone from UCLA could post a response to this list explaining exactly
what
they did do (and I am new to the list so I apologize if this was done
before).  It would be helpful to hear from someone at UCLA describe what
they streamed and how they did it (did they use a  proxy server so all
students on campus have access and from home or just for specific
courses
through course management software?  Did they stream titles in which
they
had paid for public performance rights or feature films?  How many
films did
they stream?).  Others on this list have made factual statements about
what
UCLA did, but I don't think I've heard from anyone at UCLA say what they
did.

Matthew

Matthew Wright
Head of Collection Development and Instructional Services
William S. Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451080
Las Vegas, NV 89154-1080
(702) 895-2409; (702) 895-2410 (fax)


  

  
  

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.
  


-- 
Susan Weber, Librarian
Langara College, 
100 West 49th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.  V5Y 2Z6
Tel. 604-323-5533  email: swe...@langara.bc.ca





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] UCLA Case

[Brown, Roger]

Hi,

A link to the press release explaining UCLA's official position can be
seen here:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/campus-to-re-start-streaming-of-15
4601.aspx

Legal discussions of various aspects of the case can be found online from
Educause to Techdirt to the Sloan Consortium, as well as AIME's site.


- - 
Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu





>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:43:43 -0400
>From: Jessica Rosner 
>Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
>To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>Message-ID: 
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Hey I am all for that. I think some of their documents are on the AIME
>site.I can tell for a fact that 99% of the films they streamed did not
>have
>Public Performance Rights. Again the list of films they admitted to
>streaming as of over a year ago was in the 1700 range and included tons of
>Hollywood feature films, Foreign Films, Classic films and educational
>documentaries. They did not specifically indicate if they had streamed all
>those films in their entirety, but their claim was they had the right to
>and
>had clearly done it.
>
>I would really love to hear someone from UCLA talk about the list of films
>and how they did it.
>
>
>On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Since I have not read all the legal pleadings, it would be helpful if
>> someone from UCLA could post a response to this list explaining exactly
>>what
>> they did do (and I am new to the list so I apologize if this was done
>> before).  It would be helpful to hear from someone at UCLA describe what
>> they streamed and how they did it (did they use a  proxy server so all
>> students on campus have access and from home or just for specific
>>courses
>> through course management software?  Did they stream titles in which
>>they
>> had paid for public performance rights or feature films?  How many
>>films did
>> they stream?).  Others on this list have made factual statements about
>>what
>> UCLA did, but I don't think I've heard from anyone at UCLA say what they
>> did.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> Matthew Wright
>> Head of Collection Development and Instructional Services
>> William S. Boyd School of Law
>> University of Nevada Las Vegas
>> 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451080
>> Las Vegas, NV 89154-1080
>> (702) 895-2409; (702) 895-2410 (fax)
>>
>>


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] UCLA case

[Dennis Doros]

Folks,

My apologies Jessica and Matthew... BUT! As much as I agree that I'd love to
hear UCLA's side and castigate them for their unholy views (my mind wanders
to the interview of Lars von Trier on the subject of Adolph Hitler and
Albert Speers) of fair use of entire feature films, I caution anyone who
suggests someone else should talk about an on-going lawsuit that their
institution is facing. Getting a person fired should not be our goal.

And Roger, I'm joking in my sentence above, but any distributor is very
touchy about the legality of migrating materials (especially with CSS and/or
copyright protection) across different platforms without proper
authorization from the copyright holder. And until the courts or the
copyright office specifically allows this migration of entire films beyond
the boundaries of fair use established by prior court cases, "theft" is
actually the legal term the US Copyright law uses in terms of improper
digital duplication of an artists' material. It's totally and ugly term and
I would never call anyone a thief unless they broke into my house (good luck
getting by the hounds of hell) or stole my car, but the internet age has
redefined intellectual theft to a level never seen before in history.
(Though Mark Twain and Charles Dickens lost a ton of money from unauthorized
editions.) It's not for nothing the most "popular" illegal download site was
called Pirate's Bay. And it's not just Warner Brothers or Sony losing huge
amounts of money by IP theft. It's a lot of people on this listserv.

As a Board of Director of AMIA who represents the studios, archives,
libraries and academics, the organization has specifically avoided copyright
issues such as these. But it does allow me to hear from all sides of the
argument. What the US really needs is a clearing house for use of all
materials from copyright holders, royalty fees for this usage (whether its a
dollar for students or a million dollars from Microsoft) and government
support of distribution (which many countries have extensive support such as
France). But until then, I don't think it's personal but the feelings are
pretty heated.

-- 
Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video/Milliarium Zero
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117
Fax: 201-767-3035
email: milefi...@gmail.com
www.milestonefilms.com
www.ontheboweryfilm.com
www.arayafilm.com
www.exilesfilm.com
www.wordisoutmovie.com
www.killerofsheep.com

AMIA Austin 2011: www.amianet.org
Join "Milestone Film" on Facebook!

Follow Milestone on Twitter! 
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] UCLA case

[Jessica Rosner]

Well their positions as well as the films they admitted streaming are a
matter of public record. For those of you who want to see the list of films
they admitted to streaming. go to the AIME documents and see the filing
exhibits 1-3 dated March 22 of last  year. I can see maybe 5% that MIGHT
have had PPR rights but as I have said the majority are fiction feature
films from studios and small art distributors. More than a few are from
companies long out of business , who never even released films on DVD and
whose rights on the films expired up to 20 years ago.

I would also point out that some of educational films came with a specific
prohibition on streaming ( and other things) at the time of purchase.

http://www.aime.org/news.php

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jana Atkins  wrote:

> I wouldn’t count on hearing on the record about this from anyone at UCLA
> for a very long time, if ever.  The general policy of most institutions is
> not to comment on ongoing litigation.  That usually means until the appeals
> process is exhausted.
>
> Jana Atkins, B.M., M.L.S.
>
> Performing Arts/Multimedia Librarian
>
> University of Central Oklahoma
>
> Max Chambers Library
>
> 100 N. University
>
> Edmond, OK  73034
>
> 405-974-2949
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:44 PM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
>
>
>
> Hey I am all for that. I think some of their documents are on the AIME
> site.I can tell for a fact that 99% of the films they streamed did not have
> Public Performance Rights. Again the list of films they admitted to
> streaming as of over a year ago was in the 1700 range and included tons of
> Hollywood feature films, Foreign Films, Classic films and educational
> documentaries. They did not specifically indicate if they had streamed all
> those films in their entirety, but their claim was they had the right to and
> had clearly done it.
>
> I would really love to hear someone from UCLA talk about the list of films
> and how they did it.
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM,  wrote:
>
> Since I have not read all the legal pleadings, it would be helpful if
> someone from UCLA could post a response to this list explaining exactly what
> they did do (and I am new to the list so I apologize if this was done
> before).  It would be helpful to hear from someone at UCLA describe what
> they streamed and how they did it (did they use a  proxy server so all
> students on campus have access and from home or just for specific courses
> through course management software?  Did they stream titles in which they
> had paid for public performance rights or feature films?  How many films did
> they stream?).  Others on this list have made factual statements about what
> UCLA did, but I don't think I've heard from anyone at UCLA say what they
> did.
>
> Matthew
>
> Matthew Wright
> Head of Collection Development and Instructional Services
> William S. Boyd School of Law
> University of Nevada Las Vegas
> 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451080
> Las Vegas, NV 89154-1080
> (702) 895-2409; (702) 895-2410 (fax)
>
>
>
> From:Jessica Rosner 
> To:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Date:06/01/2011 09:34 AM
> Subject:Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
> Sent by:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> --
>
>
>
>
> I am not attacking individuals but I think the actions and attitudes of
> UCLA ( and others) speak for themselves. Obviously I know even more than I
> can post and if I could I know it would make some people on this list even
> angrier.
>
> I understand UCLA personal are somewhat constrained on what they can say,
> but I would like to know if you agree that streaming entire feature works to
> students on and off campus even as part of course is ethical ( forgetting
> legal)  and I really wish someone who agrees with this view would explain
> why it is different from doing the same with a novel, textbook, etc.
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:
>
> All,
>
> While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
> the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
> further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
> are nothing more than thieves?
>
> I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
> or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
> agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
> about 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA case

[Jana Atkins]

I wouldn't count on hearing on the record about this from anyone at UCLA for a 
very long time, if ever.  The general policy of most institutions is not to 
comment on ongoing litigation.  That usually means until the appeals process is 
exhausted.

Jana Atkins, B.M., M.L.S.
Performing Arts/Multimedia Librarian
University of Central Oklahoma
Max Chambers Library
100 N. University
Edmond, OK  73034
405-974-2949



From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:44 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA case

Hey I am all for that. I think some of their documents are on the AIME site.I 
can tell for a fact that 99% of the films they streamed did not have Public 
Performance Rights. Again the list of films they admitted to streaming as of 
over a year ago was in the 1700 range and included tons of Hollywood feature 
films, Foreign Films, Classic films and educational documentaries. They did not 
specifically indicate if they had streamed all those films in their entirety, 
but their claim was they had the right to and had clearly done it.

I would really love to hear someone from UCLA talk about the list of films and 
how they did it.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM, 
mailto:matthew.wri...@unlv.edu>> wrote:
Since I have not read all the legal pleadings, it would be helpful if someone 
from UCLA could post a response to this list explaining exactly what they did 
do (and I am new to the list so I apologize if this was done before).  It would 
be helpful to hear from someone at UCLA describe what they streamed and how 
they did it (did they use a  proxy server so all students on campus have access 
and from home or just for specific courses through course management software?  
Did they stream titles in which they had paid for public performance rights or 
feature films?  How many films did they stream?).  Others on this list have 
made factual statements about what UCLA did, but I don't think I've heard from 
anyone at UCLA say what they did.

Matthew

Matthew Wright
Head of Collection Development and Instructional Services
William S. Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451080
Las Vegas, NV 89154-1080
(702) 895-2409; (702) 
895-2410 (fax)



From:Jessica Rosner 
mailto:jessicapros...@gmail.com>>
To:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Date:06/01/2011 09:34 AM
Subject:Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
Sent by:
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>




I am not attacking individuals but I think the actions and attitudes of UCLA ( 
and others) speak for themselves. Obviously I know even more than I can post 
and if I could I know it would make some people on this list even angrier.

I understand UCLA personal are somewhat constrained on what they can say, but I 
would like to know if you agree that streaming entire feature works to students 
on and off campus even as part of course is ethical ( forgetting legal)  and I 
really wish someone who agrees with this view would explain why it is different 
from doing the same with a novel, textbook, etc.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Brown, Roger 
mailto:rbr...@oid.ucla.edu>> wrote:
All,

While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
are nothing more than thieves?

I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
about this case should not include personal attacks.

Thank you.
- -


Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu<mailto:rbr...@oid.ucla.edu>



-


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 ev

Re: [Videolib] UCLA case

[Jessica Rosner]

Hey I am all for that. I think some of their documents are on the AIME
site.I can tell for a fact that 99% of the films they streamed did not have
Public Performance Rights. Again the list of films they admitted to
streaming as of over a year ago was in the 1700 range and included tons of
Hollywood feature films, Foreign Films, Classic films and educational
documentaries. They did not specifically indicate if they had streamed all
those films in their entirety, but their claim was they had the right to and
had clearly done it.

I would really love to hear someone from UCLA talk about the list of films
and how they did it.


On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM,  wrote:

> Since I have not read all the legal pleadings, it would be helpful if
> someone from UCLA could post a response to this list explaining exactly what
> they did do (and I am new to the list so I apologize if this was done
> before).  It would be helpful to hear from someone at UCLA describe what
> they streamed and how they did it (did they use a  proxy server so all
> students on campus have access and from home or just for specific courses
> through course management software?  Did they stream titles in which they
> had paid for public performance rights or feature films?  How many films did
> they stream?).  Others on this list have made factual statements about what
> UCLA did, but I don't think I've heard from anyone at UCLA say what they
> did.
>
> Matthew
>
> Matthew Wright
> Head of Collection Development and Instructional Services
> William S. Boyd School of Law
> University of Nevada Las Vegas
> 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451080
> Las Vegas, NV 89154-1080
> (702) 895-2409; (702) 895-2410 (fax)
>
>
>
> From:Jessica Rosner 
> To:    videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Date:06/01/2011 09:34 AM
> Subject:Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
> Sent by:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> --
>
>
>
> I am not attacking individuals but I think the actions and attitudes of
> UCLA ( and others) speak for themselves. Obviously I know even more than I
> can post and if I could I know it would make some people on this list even
> angrier.
>
> I understand UCLA personal are somewhat constrained on what they can say,
> but I would like to know if you agree that streaming entire feature works to
> students on and off campus even as part of course is ethical ( forgetting
> legal)  and I really wish someone who agrees with this view would explain
> why it is different from doing the same with a novel, textbook, etc.
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Brown, Roger 
> <*rbr...@oid.ucla.edu*>
> wrote:
> All,
>
> While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
> the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
> further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
> are nothing more than thieves?
>
> I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
> or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
> agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
> about this case should not include personal attacks.
>
> Thank you.
> - -
>
>
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: *310-206-1248* <310-206-1248>
> fax: *310-206-5392* <310-206-5392>*
> **rbr...@oid.ucla.edu* 
>
>
>
> -
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues
> relating to the selection

Re: [Videolib] UCLA case

[matthew . wright]

Since I have not read all the legal pleadings, it would be helpful if 
someone from UCLA could post a response to this list explaining exactly 
what they did do (and I am new to the list so I apologize if this was done 
before).  It would be helpful to hear from someone at UCLA describe what 
they streamed and how they did it (did they use a  proxy server so all 
students on campus have access and from home or just for specific courses 
through course management software?  Did they stream titles in which they 
had paid for public performance rights or feature films?  How many films 
did they stream?).  Others on this list have made factual statements about 
what UCLA did, but I don't think I've heard from anyone at UCLA say what 
they did.

Matthew

Matthew Wright
Head of Collection Development and Instructional Services
William S. Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451080
Las Vegas, NV 89154-1080
(702) 895-2409; (702) 895-2410 (fax)



From:   Jessica Rosner 
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Date:   06/01/2011 09:34 AM
Subject:    Re: [Videolib] UCLA case
Sent by:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu



I am not attacking individuals but I think the actions and attitudes of 
UCLA ( and others) speak for themselves. Obviously I know even more than I 
can post and if I could I know it would make some people on this list even 
angrier.

I understand UCLA personal are somewhat constrained on what they can say, 
but I would like to know if you agree that streaming entire feature works 
to students on and off campus even as part of course is ethical ( 
forgetting legal)  and I really wish someone who agrees with this view 
would explain why it is different from doing the same with a novel, 
textbook, etc.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:
All,

While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
are nothing more than thieves?

I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
about this case should not include personal attacks.

Thank you.
- -


Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu



-


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.

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] UCLA case

[Jessica Rosner]

I am not attacking individuals but I think the actions and attitudes of UCLA
( and others) speak for themselves. Obviously I know even more than I can
post and if I could I know it would make some people on this list even
angrier.

I understand UCLA personal are somewhat constrained on what they can say,
but I would like to know if you agree that streaming entire feature works to
students on and off campus even as part of course is ethical ( forgetting
legal)  and I really wish someone who agrees with this view would explain
why it is different from doing the same with a novel, textbook, etc.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:

> All,
>
> While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
> the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
> further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
> are nothing more than thieves?
>
> I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
> or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
> agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
> about this case should not include personal attacks.
>
> Thank you.
> - -
>
>
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>
>
>
> -
>
>
> 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] UCLA case

[Brown, Roger]

All,

While I appreciate and respect everyone's right to say what they like on
the videolib listserv, can I request that we temper the language to avoid
further comments suggesting that the librarians and academics here at UCLA
are nothing more than thieves?

I am one of those librarians and academics, and we are not intentionally
or maliciously out to steal any and all content, regardless of contracts,
agreements or law. This is not something we take lightly.  Discussions
about this case should not include personal attacks.

Thank you.
- - 


Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu



-


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] UCLA Case

[Randal Baier]

I'm engaging here, not challenging, trying not to be my usual glib self. 

So, Judy, you're OK with the 50 sec. clip aspect of this collection, I take it, 
even for non-PD recordings? Those orphans, etc.? The rest of it, including full 
renditions, is available to legitimate UCLA users, and I imagine anyone who 
wanted to be working on the material in depth would want to be in the 
collection itself, as you point out. 

re: Strachwitz/Frontera. The 50 sec. clip combined with the label views of each 
record, and the indexing, is compelling for research at a distant. That is a 
related benefit ... "the power of digital" ... but I guess not specifically 
about the legalities of copying, 108 and so forth. Fabulous material comes to 
light because of a combination of the two ... the technology and the law that 
might allow it's extension. 

I guess I WANT to push the legalities a bit on this stuff. I am sitting in a 
room, listening to a recording, in an archive. Do I need to physically be there 
to hear it? There was a time when a/v collections allowed users to be 
downstairs and control playback by knobs -- that was perfectly OK. I refer to 
legitimate users. Don't we have an analogous situation today, just more 
sophisticated? 

I must say, it is ironic that in the article Strachwitz is quoted stating that 
UCLA is "chicken" to fully digitize. 

By the way, based on your recent missives, I suggest the coffee first -- then 
abundant new thoughts will flow. 

Randal Baier 


- Original Message -
From: "Judith P Shoaf"  
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:43:28 AM 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case 




Thanks, Anthony, for the article about UCLA's Mexican music collection. 



Re consistent policies... There is a difference between making copyrighted 
materials available to enrolled students in a password-protected site (which is 
the film streaming situation) and putting copyrighted material on the web with 
free availability to anyone at all. The former case involves educational use as 
defined in the TEACH act (the legal question being whether they can digitize 
and stream an entire film, and perhaps whether TEACH covers course management 
systems in courses that have a standard brick-and-mortar classroom component). 



The publication of the music collection is untenable unless the music is 
clearly public domain, or the permissions are obtained. Making digital copies 
of the non-PD Mexican collection requires recourse to Section 108, which 
restricts use to the library itself. 




To me it sounds like what they are doing is perfectly adequate for scholars, 
who would nevertheless have to come to UCLA to study the full collection. On 
the other hand, it seems to me that researching the original musicians and 
publishers of the "orphan" works would be a part of constructing the history of 
this type of music, and therefore something the library should investigate or 
into which it should encourage investigation. 



Judy Shoaf, probably insufficiently caffeinated 

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] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

It doesn't Chris but A. You don't need the TEACH Act for that as it is
actual "Fair Use" and the Library of Congress actually agreed that you could
break encryption for this provided other criteria of TEACH applied.B. UCLA
was not showing "limited" portions they were showing entire films.
As it turns out other than mentioning it its initial response UCLA did not
even try to use TEACH as a defense. It should also be pointed out that not
only does TEACH exclude fiction feature films ( other than clips) , it
excludes films made and marketed expressly to the educational market and
some of the titles on the UCLA list , especially those belonging to AIME
members would fit that criteria.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Chris Lewis  wrote:

> For the record, as I mentioned here last week, the TEACH Act doesn't
> seem to exclude the use of "dramatic" works if they are being used in
> "reasonable and limited portions" and satisfy the other conditions
> outlined in the law.
>
> If there's a lawyer in the house that reads the Act differently please
> speak up.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jessica Rosner 
> wrote:
> > Still waiting to go out for coffee but TEACH does exempt "dramatic" works
> > from being covered by its provisions and it is hard to think of anything
> > more dramatic than Shakespeare or the well over a thousand of standard
> > fiction feature films UCLA admits to having streamed.
> >
> > Must get caffeine ( and something sweet and unhealthy to go with it).
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the precision. I meant that by “whether they can digitize
> >> and stream an entire film” but did not even recall that it was only
> dramatic
> >> works that are indicated.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Judy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica
> Rosner
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:07 AM
> >>
> >> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Judith,
> >>
> >> In addition to questions of breaking encryption, streaming to bricks and
> >> morter institutions and other issues, TEACH could not possibly cover the
> >> titles involved in the UCLA case because they were entire "dramatic"
> works
> >> which are specifically exempted from TEACH.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jessica
> >>
> >> ( who also needs coffee)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, Anthony, for the article about UCLA's Mexican music collection.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Re consistent policies... There is a difference between making
> copyrighted
> >> materials available to enrolled students in a password-protected site
> (which
> >> is the film streaming situation) and putting copyrighted material on the
> web
> >> with free availability to anyone at all. The former case involves
> >> educational use as defined in the TEACH act (the legal question being
> >> whether they can digitize and stream an entire film, and perhaps whether
> >> TEACH covers course management systems in courses that have
> >> a standard brick-and-mortar classroom component).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The publication of the music collection is untenable unless the music is
> >> clearly public domain, or the permissions are obtained. Making digital
> >> copies of the non-PD Mexican collection requires recourse to Section
> 108,
> >> which restricts use to the library itself.
> >>
> >> To me it sounds like what they are doing is perfectly adequate for
> >> scholars, who would nevertheless have to come to UCLA to study the full
> >> collection. On the other hand, it seems to me that researching the
> original
> >> musicians and publishers of the "orphan" works would be a part of
> >> constructing the history of this type of music, and therefore something
> the
> >> library should investigate or into which it should encourage
> investigation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Judy Shoaf, probably insufficiently caffeinated
> >>
> >> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
> >> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibl

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Chris Lewis]

For the record, as I mentioned here last week, the TEACH Act doesn't
seem to exclude the use of "dramatic" works if they are being used in
"reasonable and limited portions" and satisfy the other conditions
outlined in the law.

If there's a lawyer in the house that reads the Act differently please speak up.



On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jessica Rosner  wrote:
> Still waiting to go out for coffee but TEACH does exempt "dramatic" works
> from being covered by its provisions and it is hard to think of anything
> more dramatic than Shakespeare or the well over a thousand of standard
> fiction feature films UCLA admits to having streamed.
>
> Must get caffeine ( and something sweet and unhealthy to go with it).
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the precision. I meant that by “whether they can digitize
>> and stream an entire film” but did not even recall that it was only dramatic
>> works that are indicated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Judy
>>
>>
>>
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:07 AM
>>
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>
>>
>>
>> Judith,
>>
>> In addition to questions of breaking encryption, streaming to bricks and
>> morter institutions and other issues, TEACH could not possibly cover the
>> titles involved in the UCLA case because they were entire "dramatic" works
>> which are specifically exempted from TEACH.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jessica
>>
>> ( who also needs coffee)
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Anthony, for the article about UCLA's Mexican music collection.
>>
>>
>>
>> Re consistent policies... There is a difference between making copyrighted
>> materials available to enrolled students in a password-protected site (which
>> is the film streaming situation) and putting copyrighted material on the web
>> with free availability to anyone at all. The former case involves
>> educational use as defined in the TEACH act (the legal question being
>> whether they can digitize and stream an entire film, and perhaps whether
>> TEACH covers course management systems in courses that have
>> a standard brick-and-mortar classroom component).
>>
>>
>>
>> The publication of the music collection is untenable unless the music is
>> clearly public domain, or the permissions are obtained. Making digital
>> copies of the non-PD Mexican collection requires recourse to Section 108,
>> which restricts use to the library itself.
>>
>> To me it sounds like what they are doing is perfectly adequate for
>> scholars, who would nevertheless have to come to UCLA to study the full
>> collection. On the other hand, it seems to me that researching the original
>> musicians and publishers of the "orphan" works would be a part of
>> constructing the history of this type of music, and therefore something the
>> library should investigate or into which it should encourage investigation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Judy Shoaf, probably insufficiently caffeinated
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jessica Rosner
> Media Consultant
> 224-545-3897 (cell)
> 212-627-1785 (land line)
> jessicapros...@gmail.com
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Still waiting to go out for coffee but TEACH does exempt "dramatic" works
from being covered by its provisions and it is hard to think of anything
more dramatic than Shakespeare or the well over a thousand of standard
fiction feature films UCLA admits to having streamed.

Must get caffeine ( and something sweet and unhealthy to go with it).

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:

>  Thanks for the precision. I meant that by “whether they can digitize
> and stream an entire film” but did not even recall that it was only dramatic
> works that are indicated.
>
>
>
> Judy
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:07 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
>
>
> Judith,
>
> In addition to questions of breaking encryption, streaming to bricks and
> morter institutions and other issues, TEACH could not possibly cover the
> titles involved in the UCLA case because they were entire "dramatic" works
> which are specifically exempted from TEACH.
>
>
>
> Jessica
>
> ( who also needs coffee)
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:
>
> Thanks, Anthony, for the article about UCLA's Mexican music collection.
>
>
>
> Re consistent policies... There is a difference between making copyrighted
> materials available to enrolled students in a password-protected site (which
> is the film streaming situation) and putting copyrighted material on the web
> with free availability to anyone at all. The former case involves
> educational use as defined in the TEACH act (the legal question being
> whether they can digitize and stream an entire film, and perhaps whether
> TEACH covers course management systems in courses that have
> a standard brick-and-mortar classroom component).
>
>
>
> The publication of the music collection is untenable unless the music is
> clearly public domain, or the permissions are obtained. Making digital
> copies of the non-PD Mexican collection requires recourse to Section 108,
> which restricts use to the library itself.
>
> To me it sounds like what they are doing is perfectly adequate for
> scholars, who would nevertheless have to come to UCLA to study the full
> collection. On the other hand, it seems to me that researching the original
> musicians and publishers of the "orphan" works would be a part of
> constructing the history of this type of music, and therefore something the
> library should investigate or into which it should encourage investigation.
>
>
>
> Judy Shoaf, probably insufficiently caffeinated
>
>
> 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.
>
>


-- 
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] UCLA Case

[Shoaf,Judith P]

Thanks for the precision. I meant that by "whether they can digitize and stream 
an entire film" but did not even recall that it was only dramatic works that 
are indicated.

Judy

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:07 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

Judith,
In addition to questions of breaking encryption, streaming to bricks and morter 
institutions and other issues, TEACH could not possibly cover the titles 
involved in the UCLA case because they were entire "dramatic" works which are 
specifically exempted from TEACH.

Jessica
( who also needs coffee)
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Shoaf,Judith P 
mailto:jsh...@ufl.edu>> wrote:

Thanks, Anthony, for the article about UCLA's Mexican music collection.



Re consistent policies... There is a difference between making copyrighted 
materials available to enrolled students in a password-protected site (which is 
the film streaming situation) and putting copyrighted material on the web with 
free availability to anyone at all. The former case involves educational use as 
defined in the TEACH act (the legal question being whether they can digitize 
and stream an entire film, and perhaps whether TEACH covers course management 
systems in courses that have a standard brick-and-mortar classroom component).



The publication of the music collection is untenable unless the music is 
clearly public domain, or the permissions are obtained. Making digital copies 
of the non-PD Mexican collection requires recourse to Section 108, which 
restricts use to the library itself.

To me it sounds like what they are doing is perfectly adequate for scholars, 
who would nevertheless have to come to UCLA to study the full collection. On 
the other hand, it seems to me that researching the original musicians and 
publishers of the "orphan" works would be a part of constructing the history of 
this type of music, and therefore something the library should investigate or 
into which it should encourage investigation.



Judy Shoaf, probably insufficiently caffeinated

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. 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] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Judith,
In addition to questions of breaking encryption, streaming to bricks and
morter institutions and other issues, TEACH could not possibly cover the
titles involved in the UCLA case because they were entire "dramatic" works
which are specifically exempted from TEACH.

Jessica
( who also needs coffee)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:

>  Thanks, Anthony, for the article about UCLA's Mexican music collection.
>
>
>
> Re consistent policies... There is a difference between making copyrighted
> materials available to enrolled students in a password-protected site (which
> is the film streaming situation) and putting copyrighted material on the web
> with free availability to anyone at all. The former case involves
> educational use as defined in the TEACH act (the legal question being
> whether they can digitize and stream an entire film, and perhaps whether
> TEACH covers course management systems in courses that have
> a standard brick-and-mortar classroom component).
>
>
>
> The publication of the music collection is untenable unless the music is
> clearly public domain, or the permissions are obtained. Making digital
> copies of the non-PD Mexican collection requires recourse to Section 108,
> which restricts use to the library itself.
>
> To me it sounds like what they are doing is perfectly adequate for
> scholars, who would nevertheless have to come to UCLA to study the full
> collection. On the other hand, it seems to me that researching the original
> musicians and publishers of the "orphan" works would be a part of
> constructing the history of this type of music, and therefore something the
> library should investigate or into which it should encourage investigation.
>
>
>
> Judy Shoaf, probably insufficiently caffeinated
>
> 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] UCLA Case

[Shoaf,Judith P]

Thanks, Anthony, for the article about UCLA's Mexican music collection.



Re consistent policies... There is a difference between making copyrighted 
materials available to enrolled students in a password-protected site (which is 
the film streaming situation) and putting copyrighted material on the web with 
free availability to anyone at all. The former case involves educational use as 
defined in the TEACH act (the legal question being whether they can digitize 
and stream an entire film, and perhaps whether TEACH covers course management 
systems in courses that have a standard brick-and-mortar classroom component).



The publication of the music collection is untenable unless the music is 
clearly public domain, or the permissions are obtained. Making digital copies 
of the non-PD Mexican collection requires recourse to Section 108, which 
restricts use to the library itself.

To me it sounds like what they are doing is perfectly adequate for scholars, 
who would nevertheless have to come to UCLA to study the full collection. On 
the other hand, it seems to me that researching the original musicians and 
publishers of the "orphan" works would be a part of constructing the history of 
this type of music, and therefore something the library should investigate or 
into which it should encourage investigation.



Judy Shoaf, probably insufficiently caffeinated
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] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Maybe if they actually knew who owned them it would easier for them to
stream them without permission or payment

( I am in an especially snarky mood tonight).

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Anthony Anderson  wrote:

>  From a most recent issue of *The Chronicle of Higher Education*.
> Apparently when it
> comes to possible copyright infringement issues, UCLA does not always
> pursue what
> some might term a consistent policy.
>
> Cheers!
> (and "Go Trojans!" ;-) )
> Anthony
>
> ***
> Anthony E. Anderson
> Social Studies and Arts & Humanities Librarian
> Von KleinSmid Library
> University of Southern California
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0182
> (213) 740-1190  antho...@usc.edu
> "Wind, regen, zon, of kou,
> Albert Cuyp ik hou van jou."
> *
>
>
>
> ##
> Out of Fear, Colleges Lock Books and Images Away From Scholars
> [image: Out of Fear, Institutions Lock Millions of Books and Images Away
> from Scholars 1]
>
> Riney Records
>
> This rare recording is part of a Mexican-music collection restricted by the
> university that holds it because the copyright owners can't be found, making
> the record an "orphan."
> Enlarge 
> Image
>
> By Marc Parry
>
> A library of 8.7 million digital volumes. A trove of 100,000 ocean-science
> photos. An archive of 57,000 Mexican-music recordings.
>
> A common problem bedevils those different university collections. Wide
> online access is curtailed, in part because they contain "orphan works,"
> whose copyright owners can't be found. And the institutions that hold the
> collections—a consortium of major research libraries and the University of
> California campuses at San Diego and Los Angeles—must deal with legal
> uncertainty in deciding how to share the works. A university that goes too
> far could end up facing a copyright-infringement lawsuit.
>
> Many colleges now have the ability to digitize a wide variety of
> collections for broad use but frequently back away. And that reluctance
> harms scholarship, because researchers end up not using valuable documents
> if they can't afford to fly to a distant archive to see them.
>
> This spring academics, advocacy groups, and government officials are paying
> new attention to the issue. The fresh look comes after Google's attempt to
> solve the problem for books ran off the rails in March, when a judge
> scuttleda 
> proposed settlement that would have allowed the company to open up access
> to many orphan works through its book-digitization program. Now various
> groups with a stake in the debate are floating proposals for Congress to
> achieve what Google hasn't.* *
>
> * *
>
> **A close look at one archive shows why the mass digitization of orphan
> works is creating such trouble.
>
>  The UCLA library is building a Web repository for the Arhoolie
> Foundation's Strachwitz Frontera Collection of Mexican and Mexican American
> Recordings, an archive of rare 78- and 45-rpm records that date as far back
> as 1905. When many of the recordings became accessible to the public on the
> collection's Web site, in 2009, UCLA bragged that it was largest online
> archive of its kind. And the digitizing is only about halfway done. The
> archive is important to students and scholars who want to learn about the
> musical heritage of North America and the cultural development of one of the
> largest minority groups in the United States.
>
> The collection grew out of a love affair between a now-79-year-old German
> immigrant and the Mexican tunes he would hear on the radio in California and
> in cantinas every time he drove through the American Southwest. Chris
> Strachwitz was enamored by *corridos*, or narrative ballads. He combed
> rec­ord shops, distributors, jukebox companies, and even radio stations.
> Among the tunes he salvaged are recordings from small, regional labels that
> have dropped out of sight. Mr. Strachwitz donated his records to the
> Arhoolie Foundation, which he leads, and in 2001 the foundation started
> digitizing the songs with UCLA.
>
> But the university is sharing only a fraction of that music with the world
> because it believes most of the collection is made up of orphans, still
> covered by copyright. Full access is restricted to computers connected to
> the campus network. Off-campus users can hear only 50-second snippets. UCLA
> chose that policy based on its reading of fair-use exceptions to copyright
> law, which may permit reproductions for teaching and research. Going further
> would introduce "a level of risk that, given the current status of copyright
> law, was really challenging," says Sharon E. Farb, associate university
> librarian for collection management and scholarly communication.
>
> (Her concern isn't abstract: 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Anthony Anderson]

From a most recent issue of The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Apparently when it
comes to possible copyright infringement issues, UCLA does not always
pursue what
some might term a consistent policy.

Cheers!
(and "Go Trojans!"  ;-) )
Anthony

***

Anthony E. Anderson

Social Studies and Arts & Humanities
Librarian

Von KleinSmid Library

University of Southern
California

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0182

(213) 740-1190  antho...@usc.edu

"Wind, regen, zon, of kou,

Albert Cuyp ik hou van jou."

*


##
Out of Fear, Colleges Lock Books and Images Away From Scholars
 

Riney Records

This rare recording is
part of a Mexican-music collection restricted by the university that
holds it because the copyright owners can't be found, making the record
an "orphan."
Enlarge
Image 
By Marc Parry
A library of 8.7 million digital volumes.
A trove of 100,000 ocean-science photos. An archive of 57,000
Mexican-music recordings.
A common problem bedevils those different
university collections. Wide online access is curtailed, in part
because they contain "orphan works," whose copyright owners can't be
found. And the institutions that hold the collections—a consortium of
major research libraries and the University of California campuses at
San Diego and Los Angeles—must deal with legal uncertainty in deciding
how to share the works. A university that goes too far could end up
facing a copyright-infringement lawsuit.
Many colleges now have the ability to
digitize a wide variety of collections for broad use but frequently
back away. And that reluctance harms scholarship, because researchers
end up not using valuable documents if they can't afford to fly to a
distant archive to see them.
This spring academics, advocacy groups,
and government officials are paying new attention to the issue. The
fresh look comes after Google's attempt to solve the problem for books
ran off the rails in March, when a judge scuttled
a proposed settlement that would have allowed the company to open up
access to many orphan works through its book-digitization program. Now
various groups with a stake in the debate are floating proposals for
Congress to achieve what Google hasn't. 
 
A close look at one
archive shows why the mass digitization of orphan works is creating
such trouble.




The UCLA library is building a Web
repository for the Arhoolie Foundation's Strachwitz Frontera Collection
of Mexican and Mexican American Recordings, an archive of rare 78- and
45-rpm records that date as far back as 1905. When many of the
recordings became accessible to the public on the collection's Web
site, in 2009, UCLA bragged that it was largest online archive of its
kind. And the digitizing is only about halfway done. The archive is
important to students and scholars who want to learn about the musical
heritage of North America and the cultural development of one of the
largest minority groups in the United States.
The collection grew out of a love affair
between a now-79-year-old German immigrant and the Mexican tunes he
would hear on the radio in California and in cantinas every time he
drove through the American Southwest. Chris Strachwitz was enamored by corridos,
or narrative ballads. He combed rec­ord shops, distributors, jukebox
companies, and even radio stations. Among the tunes he salvaged are
recordings from small, regional labels that have dropped out of sight.
Mr. Strachwitz donated his records to the Arhoolie Foundation, which he
leads, and in 2001 the foundation started digitizing the songs with
UCLA.
But the university is sharing only a
fraction of that music with the world because it believes most of the
collection is made up of orphans, still covered by copyright. Full
access is restricted to computers connected to the campus network.
Off-campus users can hear only 50-second snippets. UCLA chose that
policy based on its reading of fair-use exceptions to copyright law,
which may permit reproductions for teaching and research. Going further
would introduce "a level of risk that, given the current status of
copyright law, was really challenging," says Sharon E. Farb, associate
university librarian for collection management and scholarly
communication.
(Her concern isn't abstract: UCLA is
defending itself in a separate copyright-infringement lawsuit over its
use of streaming-video technology. See article on Page A4.)
Mr. Strachwitz, for his part, rejects the
idea that most of his collection is orphaned. A quick scan of
Frontera's Web
site shows that many of the recordings were issued by major labels
like Columbia and Victor. Mr. Strachwitz would like to see full digital
copies of the music available to the world. But "UCLA is chicken to do
it," he argues, because "they don't want to raise the ire of the record
business, who could possibly—but it's very improbable—step in and say,
'Hmmm ... we own t

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Academics are indeed cavalier on the rights of others. My solution which I
have used in the past would be to tell them that A. everything they ever
wrote will be posted on line for free. B. Their courses will be tapes and
they will be let go at the end of the term and the videos of the classes
used in place of their teaching because it will save the school a ton of
money.

I think most rights holders are trying to work on a fair model, but it
should be pointed out again and again that UCLA ( and Georgia State for that
matter) had no interest in negotiating. Their position was they were
entitled to stream/post on line complete works and they did not have to pay
anything more than the cost of single copy to do it.


On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:

>
>
> Jessica,
>
> I was more saying I understood where they were coming from. In a time of
> budget cutting it is hard to justify a whole new world of annual
> subscriptions to older materials.
>
> Of course fighting this case will cost more than $925, even $925/year in
> perpetuity .
>
> I also looked at the request to dismiss the case, and it struck me as a
> layman that there was a lot of legal tapdancing going on there.  So I agree
> on that point, though it is interesting to see what comes up. As you say,
> the Ambrose aspect is interesting because they do offer what looks like a
> good model for institutional streaming, though also because of their
> longtime insistence on the purchase of institutional rights to their hard
> media.
>
>
>
> Re doing this to books, remember the Kinko’s case.  Professors DID Xerox
> whole books, whole articles, etc. (my course packet once contained an entire
> play in translation, most of a book that was out of print).  Professors tend
> to be ruthless about the use of materials that they want to teach. If
> something will get the point across, or on the other hand is worth
> discussing, they want to use it.
>
>
>
> Their ruthlessness perhaps has to do with the fact that most professors
> make $0.00 royalties on their publications. Unless the book is a textbook,
> it will not make money, and the press involved may require a subvention from
> the author even if the work is peer-reviewed and the press is respectable.
> Scholarly presses tend not to make money, either—if a title sells well, it
> allows them to print a book that will not sell so well but that they think
> is important.  So the knowledge that if someone steals my  book I will lose
> nothing at all may make me (not me, Judy, but “me” the wicked professor)
> more cavalier about the rights of others.
>
>
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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] UCLA Case

[Shoaf,Judith P]

Jessica,
I was more saying I understood where they were coming from. In a time of budget 
cutting it is hard to justify a whole new world of annual subscriptions to 
older materials.
Of course fighting this case will cost more than $925, even $925/year in 
perpetuity .
I also looked at the request to dismiss the case, and it struck me as a layman 
that there was a lot of legal tapdancing going on there.  So I agree on that 
point, though it is interesting to see what comes up. As you say, the Ambrose 
aspect is interesting because they do offer what looks like a good model for 
institutional streaming, though also because of their longtime insistence on 
the purchase of institutional rights to their hard media.

Re doing this to books, remember the Kinko's case.  Professors DID Xerox whole 
books, whole articles, etc. (my course packet once contained an entire play in 
translation, most of a book that was out of print).  Professors tend to be 
ruthless about the use of materials that they want to teach. If something will 
get the point across, or on the other hand is worth discussing, they want to 
use it.

Their ruthlessness perhaps has to do with the fact that most professors make 
$0.00 royalties on their publications. Unless the book is a textbook, it will 
not make money, and the press involved may require a subvention from the author 
even if the work is peer-reviewed and the press is respectable. Scholarly 
presses tend not to make money, either-if a title sells well, it allows them to 
print a book that will not sell so well but that they think is important.  So 
the knowledge that if someone steals my  book I will lose nothing at all may 
make me (not me, Judy, but "me" the wicked professor) more cavalier about the 
rights of others.

Judy



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] UCLA Case

[Shoaf,Judith P]

I'm curious about one detail: does anybody know how many films are being 
streamed in their entirety at UCLA? And the breakdown between theatrical and 
documentary/educational numbers? And average class size? Of course if they are 
constantly putting items up and then taking them down it would be hard to 
count, so there would be a couple of totals: the total up to now, and the 
average total at any given time.

Just curious.

Judy Shoaf

-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of 
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:20 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

It's not a fetish Randal.  It's an issue which may very well determine the 
future--the fiscal viability--of independent film/video distribution.  I can't 
think of another issue relating to institutional use of media in the past 
quarter century that's as significant.

And yes, many of use do know the particulars of the UCLA case.

gary handman


> This isn't intended to be rude, but do y'all actually know all the 
> things you're claiming to know about this UCLA case?
>
> Apart from various opinions about the ethics, the gut level morality, 
> and the actual laws involved?
>
> I get the strong opinions, but it seems that we are all on *many* 
> different sides of capitalism here.
>
> Watch out, it's fast becoming a fetish.
>
> Randal Baier
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jessica Rosner" 
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:45:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> Well again UCLA was streaming a large number of complete fiction 
> feature films. There really has never been an issue in my mind about 
> clips and this case had nothing to do with the use of clips. The film 
> that "started" this was a film of a Shakespeare play that likely ran 
> close to 4 hours.
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Chris Lewis < cle...@american.edu >
> wrote:
>
>
> This is a little out of context since I'm picking this up a day late 
> but amidst the conversation you noted the TEACH Act doesn't cover 
> fiction features. It doesn't cover the use of entire features but 
> otherwise doesn't distinguish between fiction and fact-based works in 
> what it covers.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jessica Rosner < 
> jessicapros...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> I understand that, but they are breaking copyright by digitizing and 
>> streaming entire films and rather than hiding behind sovereign 
>> immunity they should base their claim directly on fair use. ( I don't 
>> see how TEACH ACT would apply since the overwhelming number of titles 
>> they streamed including the ones from Ambrose were fiction 
>> features.). The way librarians understandably feel when a distributor 
>> says you have to pay more even if they sell cheaply to individuals 
>> because you are an institution is exactly how I feel about this. We 
>> don't have to pay or follow the law because we are an educational 
>> institution.
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) < 
>> jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu > wrote:
>>>
>>> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual 
>>> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through 
>>> a course management system, which limits access to specific students 
>>> who are registered for a specific class. If that’s the case then I’m 
>>> not sure Elizabeth’s PBS analogy holds up. I also don’t think that 
>>> PBS is considered a non-profit educational institution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Ball
>>> Media and Collections Librarian
>>> University of Virginia
>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904
>>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu ] On Behalf Of Jessica 
>>> Rosner
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
>>>
>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am 
>>> pretty sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a 
>>> professor asks for a film to be streamed to a student they stream 
>

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[ghandman]

It's not a fetish Randal.  It's an issue which may very well determine the
future--the fiscal viability--of independent film/video distribution.  I
can't think of another issue relating to institutional use of media in the
past quarter century that's as significant.

And yes, many of use do know the particulars of the UCLA case.

gary handman


> This isn't intended to be rude, but do y'all actually know all the things
> you're claiming to know about this UCLA case?
>
> Apart from various opinions about the ethics, the gut level morality, and
> the actual laws involved?
>
> I get the strong opinions, but it seems that we are all on *many*
> different sides of capitalism here.
>
> Watch out, it's fast becoming a fetish.
>
> Randal Baier
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jessica Rosner" 
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:45:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> Well again UCLA was streaming a large number of complete fiction feature
> films. There really has never been an issue in my mind about clips and
> this case
> had nothing to do with the use of clips. The film that "started" this was
> a film of a Shakespeare play that likely ran close to 4 hours.
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Chris Lewis < cle...@american.edu >
> wrote:
>
>
> This is a little out of context since I'm picking this up a day late
> but amidst the conversation you noted the TEACH Act doesn't cover
> fiction features. It doesn't cover the use of entire features but
> otherwise doesn't distinguish between fiction and fact-based works in
> what it covers.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jessica Rosner
> < jessicapros...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> I understand that, but they are breaking copyright by digitizing and
>> streaming entire films and rather than hiding behind sovereign immunity
>> they
>> should base their claim directly on fair use. ( I don't see how TEACH
>> ACT
>> would apply since the overwhelming number of titles they streamed
>> including
>> the ones from Ambrose were fiction features.). The way librarians
>> understandably feel when a distributor says you have to pay more even if
>> they sell cheaply to individuals because you are an institution is
>> exactly
>> how I feel about this. We don't have to pay or follow the law because we
>> are
>> an educational institution.
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw)
>> < jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu > wrote:
>>>
>>> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual
>>> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a
>>> course
>>> management system, which limits access to specific students who are
>>> registered for a specific class. If that’s the case then I’m not sure
>>> Elizabeth’s PBS analogy holds up. I also don’t think that PBS is
>>> considered a non-profit educational institution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Ball
>>> Media and Collections Librarian
>>> University of Virginia
>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904
>>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu ] On Behalf Of Jessica
>>> Rosner
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
>>>
>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am
>>> pretty
>>> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for
>>> a
>>> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class
>>> rooms I don't think companies would be upset.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw)
>>> < jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu > wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
>>> course management system?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Matt Ball
>>> Media and Collections Librarian
>>> University of Virginia
>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904
>>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-38

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Randal Baier]

This isn't intended to be rude, but do y'all actually know all the things 
you're claiming to know about this UCLA case? 

Apart from various opinions about the ethics, the gut level morality, and the 
actual laws involved? 

I get the strong opinions, but it seems that we are all on *many* different 
sides of capitalism here. 

Watch out, it's fast becoming a fetish. 

Randal Baier 


- Original Message -
From: "Jessica Rosner"  
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:45:37 AM 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case 

Well again UCLA was streaming a large number of complete fiction feature films. 
There really has never been an issue in my mind about clips and this case 
had nothing to do with the use of clips. The film that "started" this was a 
film of a Shakespeare play that likely ran close to 4 hours. 


On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Chris Lewis < cle...@american.edu > wrote: 


This is a little out of context since I'm picking this up a day late 
but amidst the conversation you noted the TEACH Act doesn't cover 
fiction features. It doesn't cover the use of entire features but 
otherwise doesn't distinguish between fiction and fact-based works in 
what it covers. 




On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jessica Rosner 
< jessicapros...@gmail.com > wrote: 
> I understand that, but they are breaking copyright by digitizing and 
> streaming entire films and rather than hiding behind sovereign immunity they 
> should base their claim directly on fair use. ( I don't see how TEACH ACT 
> would apply since the overwhelming number of titles they streamed including 
> the ones from Ambrose were fiction features.). The way librarians 
> understandably feel when a distributor says you have to pay more even if 
> they sell cheaply to individuals because you are an institution is exactly 
> how I feel about this. We don't have to pay or follow the law because we are 
> an educational institution. 
> 
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) 
> < jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu > wrote: 
>> 
>> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual 
>> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a course 
>> management system, which limits access to specific students who are 
>> registered for a specific class. If that’s the case then I’m not sure 
>> Elizabeth’s PBS analogy holds up. I also don’t think that PBS is 
>> considered a non-profit educational institution. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matt 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matt Ball 
>> Media and Collections Librarian 
>> University of Virginia 
>> Charlottesville, VA 22904 
>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
>> [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu ] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM 
>> 
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu 
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty 
>> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a 
>> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class 
>> rooms I don't think companies would be upset. 
>> 
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) 
>> < jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu > wrote: 
>> 
>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected 
>> course management system? 
>> 
>> Matt 
>> 
>> ____ 
>> 
>> Matt Ball 
>> Media and Collections Librarian 
>> University of Virginia 
>> Charlottesville, VA 22904 
>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812 
>> 
>> -Original Message- 
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
>> [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu ] On Behalf Of Elizabeth 
>> Sheldon 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM 
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu 
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case 
>> 
>> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a 
>> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their 
>> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is 
>> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were 
>> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the emergence 
>> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Well again UCLA was streaming a large number of complete fiction feature
films. There really has never been an issue in my mind about clips and this
case
had nothing to do with the use of clips. The film that "started" this was a
film of a Shakespeare play that likely ran close to 4 hours.

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Chris Lewis  wrote:

> This is a little out of context since I'm picking this up a day late
> but amidst the conversation you noted the TEACH Act doesn't cover
> fiction features. It doesn't cover the use of entire features but
> otherwise doesn't distinguish between fiction and fact-based works in
> what it covers.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jessica Rosner
>  wrote:
> > I understand that, but they are breaking copyright by digitizing and
> > streaming entire films and rather than hiding behind sovereign immunity
> they
> > should base their claim directly on fair use. ( I don't see how TEACH ACT
> > would apply since the overwhelming number of titles they streamed
> including
> > the ones from Ambrose were fiction features.). The way librarians
> > understandably feel when a distributor says you have to pay more even if
> > they sell cheaply to individuals because you are an institution is
> exactly
> > how I feel about this. We don't have to pay or follow the law because we
> are
> > an educational institution.
> >
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw)
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual
> >> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a
> course
> >> management system, which limits access to specific students who are
> >> registered for a specific class.  If that’s the case then I’m not sure
> >> Elizabeth’s PBS  analogy holds up.  I also don’t think that PBS is
> >> considered a non-profit educational institution.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt Ball
> >> Media and Collections Librarian
> >> University of Virginia
> >> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> >> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica
> Rosner
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
> >>
> >> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty
> >> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for
> a
> >> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class
> >> rooms I don't think companies would be  upset.
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw)
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
> >> course management system?
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Matt Ball
> >> Media and Collections Librarian
> >> University of Virginia
> >> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> >> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
> Sheldon
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
> >> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >>
> >> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
> >> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
> >> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
> >> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
> >> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the
> emergence
> >> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
> >> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
> >> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the
> films
> >> was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other
> retail
> >> outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming fr

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Chris Lewis]

This is a little out of context since I'm picking this up a day late
but amidst the conversation you noted the TEACH Act doesn't cover
fiction features. It doesn't cover the use of entire features but
otherwise doesn't distinguish between fiction and fact-based works in
what it covers.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jessica Rosner
 wrote:
> I understand that, but they are breaking copyright by digitizing and
> streaming entire films and rather than hiding behind sovereign immunity they
> should base their claim directly on fair use. ( I don't see how TEACH ACT
> would apply since the overwhelming number of titles they streamed including
> the ones from Ambrose were fiction features.). The way librarians
> understandably feel when a distributor says you have to pay more even if
> they sell cheaply to individuals because you are an institution is exactly
> how I feel about this. We don't have to pay or follow the law because we are
> an educational institution.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw)
>  wrote:
>>
>> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual
>> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a course
>> management system, which limits access to specific students who are
>> registered for a specific class.  If that’s the case then I’m not sure
>> Elizabeth’s PBS  analogy holds up.  I also don’t think that PBS is
>> considered a non-profit educational institution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt Ball
>> Media and Collections Librarian
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>
>>
>>
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
>>
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty
>> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a
>> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class
>> rooms I don't think companies would be  upset.
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw)
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
>> course management system?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> 
>>
>> Matt Ball
>> Media and Collections Librarian
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>
>> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
>> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
>> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
>> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
>> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the emergence
>> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
>> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
>> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the films
>> was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other retail
>> outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of television
>> broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any other provider that offers
>> films for streaming acquired the rights to do so and paid specifically for
>> them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD therefore we have the right
>> to stream it... for no additional lic
>>  ensing fee to the copyright holder."
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Elizabeth
>>
>> Elizabeth Sheldon
>> Vice President
>> Kino Lorber, Inc.
>> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
>> New York, NY 10018
>> (212) 629-6880
>>
>> www.kinolorberedu.com
>>
>> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>
>> > I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell
>> > me if it is UCLA's position that the "

[Videolib] UCLA Case

[Wilcox, Jeremy]

We have been watching this case with interest since it began. It
directly affects us, as the educational rights holder for most BBC
programming. From our perspective then, what UCLA has been/is doing
seems plain wrong in that a streaming/download right is utterly distinct
from a DVD hard copy right. Therefore, in the case of titles we own,
even if UCLA has been ripping copies of authorised educational copies of
DVDs, they are still not covered to do this unless granted permission by
us or our authorised US distributors. Even worse if what they are
actually doing in a lot of cases is ripping retail DVDs!

I don't pretend to know anything about the vagaries of US copyright law
but this is absolutely the commercial perspective relating to this case.
I hope the right result comes in - however long it takes - otherwise I
absolutely believe we're looking at the death knell for the factual
documentary educational distribution market - certainly for our titles
anyway. If we can't make money from distribution rights then we don't
distribute anything.and seeing as 90% of BBC factual output doesn't
make it to retail and is only available at an institutional purchase
level, end users would be starved of that content - or forced to use
pirated copies of broadcast on the internet (which is a whole other
topic I could bang on about...).

Regards


Jeremy Wilcox
Head of Sales & Licensing
BBC Active  
Pearson Education


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of
videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu
Sent: 27 May 2011 10:19
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: videolib Digest, Vol 42, Issue 127

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.berkele
y.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. UCLA Case (Andrews, Sarah E)
   2. Re: UCLA Case (Jessica Rosner)
   3. Re: UCLA Case (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu)
   4. How big is YouTube? (Deg Farrelly)
   5. Re: videolib Digest, Vol 42, Issue 126 (Wilcox, Jeremy)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:54:02 +0000
From: "Andrews, Sarah E" 
Subject: [Videolib] UCLA Case
To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
Message-ID:

<8ab11d7697842b4e8eda196b7b4f0a0a076ba...@itsnt443.iowa.uiowa.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

This ruling makes me squirm...I'm pretty sure that people like me
are going to be asked to rip & stream to our course management system in
the very near future.  (I work at an ARL library).



Sarah
-- next part --
An HTML attachment scrubbed and removed.
HTML attachments are only available in MIME digests.

------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 18:58:55 -0400
From: Jessica Rosner 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Just wait for the wording and you can show them the actual specifics.
This
is the case of bad cases and bad law. Right now it looks like it will
apply
only to UCLA and Ambrose Media titles sold with PPR.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Andrews, Sarah E
wrote:

>  This ruling makes me squirm...I'm pretty sure that people like me
are
> going to be asked to rip & stream to our course management system in
the
> very near future.  (I work at an ARL library).
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
> 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
-- next part --
An HTML attachment scrubbed and removed.
HTML attachments are only available in MIME digests.

--

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:21:08 -0700
From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Message-ID:
<63ea371ba806f0a64f847b8ddea805d

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[ghandman]

I dunno about squirm...  First of all, I wouldn't worry about it until all
the litigious shoes have dropped (see deg's earlier post)

Secondly:  You're probably the person on campus who knows most about
community practice (that's what us video types believe in and do); about
current litigation; about the law in general (at least, I hope you are). 
And knowing this stuff you need to stand up and do the right thing,
despite ill-informed pressures.  Faculty know nothing except what they
think they want.  Most administrators, well...you know...they tend garner
superficial knowledge and easily bow to faculty whim.

Or maybe you're squirming about workload, staffing, and tech capabilities,
rather than copyright and academic politics?  In fact, workload DOES worry
me a bit.  If the UCLA rulings do ultimately somehow favor a broad
application of fair use, or TEACH, or PPR (or whatever the hell UCLA is
claiming), and if we're suddenly given caveat to "rip & stream" (hey, I
used to subscribe to that journal!) then I think the fun really begins... 
In these days of incredibly shrinking staff and equipment budgets, it's
hard to envision who on campus is gonna pull off the considerable work of
encoding, managing, and archiving the content.

Gary


> This ruling makes me squirm...I'm pretty sure that people like me are
> going to be asked to rip & stream to our course management system in the
> very near future.  (I work at an ARL library).
>
>
>
> Sarah
> 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.
>


Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley

510-643-8566
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

"I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
--Francois Truffaut


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] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Just wait for the wording and you can show them the actual specifics. This
is the case of bad cases and bad law. Right now it looks like it will apply
only to UCLA and Ambrose Media titles sold with PPR.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Andrews, Sarah E
wrote:

>  This ruling makes me squirm...I'm pretty sure that people like me are
> going to be asked to rip & stream to our course management system in the
> very near future.  (I work at an ARL library).
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
> 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.

[Videolib] UCLA Case

[Andrews, Sarah E]

This ruling makes me squirm...I'm pretty sure that people like me are going 
to be asked to rip & stream to our course management system in the very near 
future.  (I work at an ARL library).



Sarah
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] UCLA Case

[ghandman]

> By the way, I was surprised to see that UCLA is claiming public
> performance rights rather than fair use.

  creative! (if harebrained)

   gary




>
> Matt
>
> __
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> mattb...@virginia.edu
> 434-924-3812
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 5:09 PM, "ghand...@library.berkeley.edu"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>> yeah, so?
>>>
>>> gary
>>
>> ...or, I should have said, the issue of whether they're streaming to
>> particular courses or to a wider institutional audience, on campus or
>> off,
>> is really not the main point of contention, I think.  It seems to me
>> that's what is really in question are the practices of trans-coding
>> media
>> content and delivering it across networks without license or permission.
>> UCLA seems to be claiming these practices fall within fair use, or, at
>> least, are allowable under the terms of public performance rights.
>>
>> gary handman
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
>>>> course management system?
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Matt Ball
>>>> Media and Collections Librarian
>>>> University of Virginia
>>>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>>>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
>>>> Sheldon
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
>>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>>>
>>>> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
>>>> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in
>>>> their
>>>> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
>>>> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
>>>> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the
>>>> emergence
>>>> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
>>>> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
>>>> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the
>>>> films was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any
>>>> other
>>>> retail outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of
>>>> television broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any other
>>>> provider that offers films for streaming acquired the rights to do so
>>>> and
>>>> paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD
>>>> therefore we have the right to stream it... for no additional lic
>>>> ensing fee to the copyright holder."
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Elizabeth
>>>>
>>>> Elizabeth Sheldon
>>>> Vice President
>>>> Kino Lorber, Inc.
>>>> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
>>>> New York, NY 10018
>>>> (212) 629-6880
>>>>
>>>> www.kinolorberedu.com
>>>>
>>>> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would
>>>>> tell
>>>>> me if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits
>>>>> the library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are
>>>>> assigned in classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in
>>>>> class
>>>>> or check them out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to
>>>>> know because legally that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full
>>>>> lengh
>>>>> feature films and streaming them to a students computer wherever they
>>>>> may be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA
>>>>> appears to be getting off on technicalities and not if such a
>>>>> practice
>>>>> is legal. The overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did
>>>>

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

I kind of thought that was ironic myself but pretty irrelevent since again
the overwhelming majority of the titles UCLA streamed where standard retail
copies they probably paid an average of $25 for if they got a discount for
quantity from a wholesaler.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM, jwoo  wrote:

> I like that notion that if we do pay for PPR, then we can stream.
>  Justifies the tiered institutional rates as well as more limited rights for
> home-use videos
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>
> No they streamed thousands of films without PPR even in at least one case
> where they had literally signed a contract not to, in theory this was the
> perfect case because UCLA admitted to streaming the thousands of films,
> unfortunately it appears the judge looked only narrowly at the Ambrose
> titles. The studios and their reps have basically done nothing though I
> suspect as they realize how much more widespread this is, they may wake up.
> For the record not only did UCLA stream titles they had no right to , they
> also used crappy copies in many cases. They could not even be bothered to by
> a recent DVD so they streamed 20 plus year old videos. I am sure they looked
> like utter crap but given the rest of their attitude I doubt they cared.
>
> Despite the image you get in the media of things like this , it was small
> educational companies fighting a much better financed university. If and
> when the big rights holders get involved I am sure things will be different.
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Susan Albrecht wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the text, Peter.
>>
>> One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for *each*
>> film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still doesn't
>> address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm curious
>> whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed offerings to
>> those for which it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for instance, a
>> feature film
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
>> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>
>> Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
>> Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the University
>> of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of educational video
>> makers when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to students
>> and faculty.
>>
>> The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
>> colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
>> purchased with educational films give them the legal authority to bring
>> videos into the virtual classroom space.
>>
>>
>>
>> "The court's tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss," U.S.
>> District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
>> "The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend."
>>
>> The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a
>> foregone conclusion.
>>
>> Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a
>> national trade association of educational content producers and
>> distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA and
>> top school administrators breached contracts and violated copyrights when
>> they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed students and teachers to
>> stream videos like "The Plays of William Shakespeare" over the Internet.
>>
>> Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film's distributor, is also
>> a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming service,
>> Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.
>>
>> The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal
>> action, the school suspended use of its online streaming system. But "after
>> a winter-break period of reflection," the school brought the system back
>> online, according to the complaint.
>>
>> "We have exhibits showing that the decision to stop and restart streaming
>> was made at the highest levels of the school's administration," attorney
>> Arnold Lutzker, who represents the plaintiffs, told the judge.
>>
>> The complaint accuses UCLA of hypocrisy, applying for over 1,700
>> copyrights in the past three

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Again I think the simple analogy is does your library scan books and put
them online so students can read them without buying a copy or going to the
library to take one out?. I don't think one needs anything more detailed
than that. In the case of films you have the added option of the student
having a netflix account and watching them legally on their own for titles
that are available that way.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) <
jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:

> Elizabeth, based on our conversation a few months ago I'm sure you won't be
> surprised to see that I still don't agree with your analogy, especially now
> that you're talking about a for-profit cable company with paying
> subscribers.  But alas, we agreed to continue that conversation over a tasty
> beverage at the Market in the fall, which I am looking forward to.  :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
> __
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> mattb...@virginia.edu
> 434-924-3812
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, "Elizabeth Sheldon" 
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I should change my PBS analogy: it is like a cable channel, which
> is only accessible to paid subscribers, going to Walmart, buying a DVD, and
> broadcasting it on their cable VOD platform without paying for the rights.
> >
> > PBS is considered a non-profit institution and has a mandate to provide
> 'educational' programming. When I license programs to PBS they often retain
> the off-air taping rights so as that teachers can tape programs off air and
> show them in their classroom. It is a specific right that they ask for and
> that I grant, not one that they assume as an extension of the broadcast
> license. So my overall point is that in the commercial media world, rights
> are negotiated, granted and paid for.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Elizabeth
> >
> > Elizabeth Sheldon
> > Vice President
> > Kino Lorber, Inc.
> > 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
> > New York, NY 10018
> > (212) 629-6880
> >
> > www.kinolorberedu.com
> >
> > On May 26, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) wrote:
> >
> >> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual
> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a course
> management system, which limits access to specific students who are
> registered for a specific class.  If that’s the case then I’m not sure
> Elizabeth’s PBS  analogy holds up.  I also don’t think that PBS is
> considered a non-profit educational institution.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Matt Ball
> >> Media and Collections Librarian
> >> University of Virginia
> >> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> >> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
> >>
> >> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
> >> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >>
> >> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty
> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a
> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class
> rooms I don't think companies would be  upset.
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) <
> jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
> >> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
> course management system?
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Matt Ball
> >> Media and Collections Librarian
> >> University of Virginia
> >> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> >> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
> >> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >>
> >> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
> purchased at retail prices a

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Elizabeth Sheldon]

Matt,

Perhaps my Netflix analogy was the best but I look forward to comtinuing the 
conversation in Vegas.

Best,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Sheldon
Vice President
Kino Lorber, Inc.
333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
New York, NY 10018
(212) 629-6880

On May 26, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) wrote:

> Elizabeth, based on our conversation a few months ago I'm sure you won't be 
> surprised to see that I still don't agree with your analogy, especially now 
> that you're talking about a for-profit cable company with paying subscribers. 
>  But alas, we agreed to continue that conversation over a tasty beverage at 
> the Market in the fall, which I am looking forward to.  :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Matt
> 
> __
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> mattb...@virginia.edu
> 434-924-3812
> 
> On May 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, "Elizabeth Sheldon"  
> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps I should change my PBS analogy: it is like a cable channel, which is 
>> only accessible to paid subscribers, going to Walmart, buying a DVD, and 
>> broadcasting it on their cable VOD platform without paying for the rights.
>> 
>> PBS is considered a non-profit institution and has a mandate to provide 
>> 'educational' programming. When I license programs to PBS they often retain 
>> the off-air taping rights so as that teachers can tape programs off air and 
>> show them in their classroom. It is a specific right that they ask for and 
>> that I grant, not one that they assume as an extension of the broadcast 
>> license. So my overall point is that in the commercial media world, rights 
>> are negotiated, granted and paid for.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Elizabeth
>> 
>> Elizabeth Sheldon
>> Vice President
>> Kino Lorber, Inc.
>> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
>> New York, NY 10018
>> (212) 629-6880
>> 
>> www.kinolorberedu.com
>> 
>> On May 26, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) wrote:
>> 
>>> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual 
>>> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a 
>>> course management system, which limits access to specific students who are 
>>> registered for a specific class.  If that’s the case then I’m not sure 
>>> Elizabeth’s PBS  analogy holds up.  I also don’t think that PBS is 
>>> considered a non-profit educational institution.
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Matt Ball
>>> Media and Collections Librarian
>>> University of Virginia
>>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>> 
>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
>>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>> 
>>> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty 
>>> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a 
>>> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class 
>>> rooms I don't think companies would be  upset.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected 
>>> course management system?
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Matt Ball
>>> Media and Collections Librarian
>>> University of Virginia
>>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
>>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>> 
>>> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a 
>>> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their 
>>> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is 
>>> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were 
>>> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the emergence 
>>> of new technologies. Some of the distri

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[jwoo]

I like that notion that if we do pay for PPR, then we can stream.   
Justifies the tiered institutional rates as well as more limited  
rights for home-use videos


On May 26, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote:

No they streamed thousands of films without PPR even in at least one  
case where they had literally signed a contract not to, in theory  
this was the perfect case because UCLA admitted to streaming the  
thousands of films, unfortunately it appears the judge looked only  
narrowly at the Ambrose titles. The studios and their reps have  
basically done nothing though I suspect as they realize how much  
more widespread this is, they may wake up. For the record not only  
did UCLA stream titles they had no right to , they also used crappy  
copies in many cases. They could not even be bothered to by a recent  
DVD so they streamed 20 plus year old videos. I am sure they looked  
like utter crap but given the rest of their attitude I doubt they  
cared.


Despite the image you get in the media of things like this , it was  
small educational companies fighting a much better financed  
university. If and when the big rights holders get involved I am  
sure things will be different.



On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Susan Albrecht  
 wrote:

Thank you for the text, Peter.

One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for  
*each* film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that  
still doesn't address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change,  
but I'm curious whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit  
its streamed offerings to those for which it had obtained PPR, and  
never streamed, for instance, a feature film


Susan


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs

Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California  
indicated Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit  
alleging the University of California, Los Angeles, violated the  
copyrights of educational video makers when it implemented a system  
for streaming videos online to students and faculty.


The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights  
of colleges and universities that argue the public performance  
rights they purchased with educational films give them the legal  
authority to bring videos into the virtual classroom space.




"The court's tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss," U.S.
District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
"The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to  
amend."


The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not  
a foregone conclusion.


Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a  
national trade association of educational content producers and  
distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that  
UCLA and top school administrators breached contracts and violated  
copyrights when they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed  
students and teachers to stream videos like "The Plays of William  
Shakespeare" over the Internet.


Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film's distributor,  
is also a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video  
streaming service, Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.


The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible  
legal action, the school suspended use of its online streaming  
system. But "after a winter-break period of reflection," the school  
brought the system back online, according to the complaint.


"We have exhibits showing that the decision to stop and restart  
streaming was made at the highest levels of the school's  
administration," attorney Arnold Lutzker, who represents the  
plaintiffs, told the judge.


The complaint accuses UCLA of hypocrisy, applying for over 1,700  
copyrights in the past three decades and vowing in policy statements  
to uphold copyright law, even as its streaming system violated the  
copyrights of PBS Video, Icarus Films and other AIME members.


The university's video streaming system "does not have to be an  
educational setting," the complaint said. "For example, the student  
with access to the UCLA network can be in a WiFi hot spot anywhere,  
such as at Starbucks coffee shops off campus."


But attorneys for UCLA countered that the videos at issue had come  
with an unambiguous license printed in bold on the Ambrose video  
catalog: "All purchases by schools and libraries include public  
performance rights."


The streaming system only allows students to play videos online if  
an instructor assigns the video and only if they are currently  
enrolled in the class,

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Ball, James (jmb4aw)]

Amen brother.  But it is good in these discussions to be accurate about the 
details, which was the goal of my remarks.

By the way, I was surprised to see that UCLA is claiming public performance 
rights rather than fair use.

Matt

__
Matt Ball
Media and Collections Librarian
University of Virginia
mattb...@virginia.edu
434-924-3812

On May 26, 2011, at 5:09 PM, "ghand...@library.berkeley.edu" 
 wrote:

> 
>> yeah, so?
>> 
>> gary
> 
> ...or, I should have said, the issue of whether they're streaming to
> particular courses or to a wider institutional audience, on campus or off,
> is really not the main point of contention, I think.  It seems to me
> that's what is really in question are the practices of trans-coding media
> content and delivering it across networks without license or permission. 
> UCLA seems to be claiming these practices fall within fair use, or, at
> least, are allowable under the terms of public performance rights.
> 
> gary handman
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
>>> course management system?
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Matt Ball
>>> Media and Collections Librarian
>>> University of Virginia
>>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
>>> Sheldon
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>> 
>>> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
>>> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
>>> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
>>> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
>>> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the
>>> emergence
>>> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
>>> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
>>> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the
>>> films was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other
>>> retail outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of
>>> television broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any other
>>> provider that offers films for streaming acquired the rights to do so
>>> and
>>> paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD
>>> therefore we have the right to stream it... for no additional lic
>>> ensing fee to the copyright holder."
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Elizabeth
>>> 
>>> Elizabeth Sheldon
>>> Vice President
>>> Kino Lorber, Inc.
>>> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
>>> New York, NY 10018
>>> (212) 629-6880
>>> 
>>> www.kinolorberedu.com
>>> 
>>> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell
>>>> me if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits
>>>> the library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are
>>>> assigned in classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in class
>>>> or check them out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to
>>>> know because legally that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full
>>>> lengh
>>>> feature films and streaming them to a students computer wherever they
>>>> may be.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA
>>>> appears to be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice
>>>> is legal. The overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT
>>>> come with Public Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail
>>>> DVDs and old VHS copies and streaming them by the thousands.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
>>>> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Ball, James (jmb4aw)]

Elizabeth, based on our conversation a few months ago I'm sure you won't be 
surprised to see that I still don't agree with your analogy, especially now 
that you're talking about a for-profit cable company with paying subscribers.  
But alas, we agreed to continue that conversation over a tasty beverage at the 
Market in the fall, which I am looking forward to.  :-)

Cheers,

Matt

__
Matt Ball
Media and Collections Librarian
University of Virginia
mattb...@virginia.edu
434-924-3812

On May 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, "Elizabeth Sheldon"  
wrote:

> Perhaps I should change my PBS analogy: it is like a cable channel, which is 
> only accessible to paid subscribers, going to Walmart, buying a DVD, and 
> broadcasting it on their cable VOD platform without paying for the rights.
> 
> PBS is considered a non-profit institution and has a mandate to provide 
> 'educational' programming. When I license programs to PBS they often retain 
> the off-air taping rights so as that teachers can tape programs off air and 
> show them in their classroom. It is a specific right that they ask for and 
> that I grant, not one that they assume as an extension of the broadcast 
> license. So my overall point is that in the commercial media world, rights 
> are negotiated, granted and paid for.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> Elizabeth Sheldon
> Vice President
> Kino Lorber, Inc.
> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
> New York, NY 10018
> (212) 629-6880
> 
> www.kinolorberedu.com
> 
> On May 26, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) wrote:
> 
>> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual computers, 
>> I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a course management 
>> system, which limits access to specific students who are registered for a 
>> specific class.  If that’s the case then I’m not sure Elizabeth’s PBS  
>> analogy holds up.  I also don’t think that PBS is considered a non-profit 
>> educational institution.
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matt Ball
>> Media and Collections Librarian
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>> 
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>> 
>> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty 
>> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a 
>> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class 
>> rooms I don't think companies would be  upset.
>> 
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) 
>>  wrote:
>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected course 
>> management system?
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matt Ball
>> Media and Collections Librarian
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>> 
>> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a local 
>> PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their community 
>> without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is correct that 
>> many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were purchased at 
>> retail prices and were sold for home use before the emergence of new 
>> technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that institutions 
>> purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the exemptions but 
>> that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the films was included 
>> with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other retail outlet, or even 
>> if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of television broadcast, I can 
>> reassure you that Netflix or any other provider that offers films for 
>> streaming acquired the rights to do so and paid specifically for them and 
>> did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD therefore we have the right to 
>> stream it... for no additional lic
>> ensing fee to the copyright holder."
&g

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Elizabeth Sheldon]

Perhaps I should change my PBS analogy: it is like a cable channel, which is 
only accessible to paid subscribers, going to Walmart, buying a DVD, and 
broadcasting it on their cable VOD platform without paying for the rights.

PBS is considered a non-profit institution and has a mandate to provide 
'educational' programming. When I license programs to PBS they often retain the 
off-air taping rights so as that teachers can tape programs off air and show 
them in their classroom. It is a specific right that they ask for and that I 
grant, not one that they assume as an extension of the broadcast license. So my 
overall point is that in the commercial media world, rights are negotiated, 
granted and paid for.

Best,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Sheldon
Vice President
Kino Lorber, Inc.
333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
New York, NY 10018
(212) 629-6880

www.kinolorberedu.com

On May 26, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) wrote:

> I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual computers, 
> I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a course management 
> system, which limits access to specific students who are registered for a 
> specific class.  If that’s the case then I’m not sure Elizabeth’s PBS  
> analogy holds up.  I also don’t think that PBS is considered a non-profit 
> educational institution.
>  
> Matt
>  
> 
>  
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>  
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>  
> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty sure 
> much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a film to 
> be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class rooms I don't 
> think companies would be  upset.
> 
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) 
>  wrote:
> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected course 
> management system?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
>  
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> 
> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a local 
> PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their community 
> without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is correct that 
> many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were purchased at retail 
> prices and were sold for home use before the emergence of new technologies. 
> Some of the distributors did not require that institutions purchase PPR as 
> they understood the copyright law and the exemptions but that does not mean 
> that a de facto right to stream the films was included with the purchase of 
> the DVD from Amazon or any other retail outlet, or even if purchased with 
> PPR. Coming from the world of television broadcast, I can reassure you that 
> Netflix or any other provider that offers films for streaming acquired the 
> rights to do so and paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we 
> distribute the DVD therefore we have the right to stream it... for no 
> additional lic
>  ensing fee to the copyright holder."
> 
> Best,
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> Elizabeth Sheldon
> Vice President
> Kino Lorber, Inc.
> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
> New York, NY 10018
> (212) 629-6880
> 
> www.kinolorberedu.com
> 
> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
> 
> > I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell me 
> > if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits the 
> > library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are assigned in 
> > classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in class or check them 
> > out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to know because legally 
> > that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh feature films and 
> > streaming them to a students computer wherever they may be.
> >
> > Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA appears 
> > to be gett

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[ghandman]

> yeah, so?
>
> gary

...or, I should have said, the issue of whether they're streaming to
particular courses or to a wider institutional audience, on campus or off,
is really not the main point of contention, I think.  It seems to me
that's what is really in question are the practices of trans-coding media
content and delivering it across networks without license or permission. 
UCLA seems to be claiming these practices fall within fair use, or, at
least, are allowable under the terms of public performance rights.

gary handman



>
>
>> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
>> course management system?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> 
>>  
>> Matt Ball
>> Media and Collections Librarian
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA  22904
>> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
>> Sheldon
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>>
>> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
>> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
>> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
>> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
>> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the
>> emergence
>> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
>> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
>> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the
>> films was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other
>> retail outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of
>> television broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any other
>> provider that offers films for streaming acquired the rights to do so
>> and
>> paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD
>> therefore we have the right to stream it... for no additional lic
>>  ensing fee to the copyright holder."
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Elizabeth
>>
>> Elizabeth Sheldon
>> Vice President
>> Kino Lorber, Inc.
>> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
>> New York, NY 10018
>> (212) 629-6880
>>
>> www.kinolorberedu.com
>>
>> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>
>>> I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell
>>> me if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits
>>> the library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are
>>> assigned in classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in class
>>> or check them out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to
>>> know because legally that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full
>>> lengh
>>> feature films and streaming them to a students computer wherever they
>>> may be.
>>>
>>> Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA
>>> appears to be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice
>>> is legal. The overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT
>>> come with Public Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail
>>> DVDs and old VHS copies and streaming them by the thousands.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger 
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
>>> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all
>>> the
>>> facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's
>>> policies.
>>>
>>> The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
>>> "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if
>>> digital
>>> streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
>>> stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
>>>
>>> The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on
>>> this
>>> issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Brown
>>> Manager
>>> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
>>> 46 Powell Library
&

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

I understand that, but they are breaking copyright by digitizing and
streaming entire films and rather than hiding behind sovereign immunity they
should base their claim directly on fair use. ( I don't see how TEACH ACT
would apply since the overwhelming number of titles they streamed including
the ones from Ambrose were fiction features.). The way librarians
understandably feel when a distributor says you have to pay more even if
they sell cheaply to individuals because you are an institution is exactly
how I feel about this. We don't have to pay or follow the law because we are
an educational institution.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) <
jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:

>  I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual
> computers, I’m pretty sure that students are accessing them through a course
> management system, which limits access to specific students who are
> registered for a specific class.  If that’s the case then I’m not sure
> Elizabeth’s PBS  analogy holds up.  I also don’t think that PBS is
> considered a non-profit educational institution.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> mattb...@virginia.edu<https://mail.eservices.virginia.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=62fe60f092584617be4c37bdfc2dcf42&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:* Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
>
>
> Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty
> sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a
> film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class
> rooms I don't think companies would be  upset.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) <
> jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>
> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
> course management system?
>
> Matt
>
> 
>
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the emergence
> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the films
> was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other retail
> outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of television
> broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any other provider that offers
> films for streaming acquired the rights to do so and paid specifically for
> them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD therefore we have the right
> to stream it... for no additional lic
>  ensing fee to the copyright holder."
>
> Best,
>
> Elizabeth
>
> Elizabeth Sheldon
> Vice President
> Kino Lorber, Inc.
> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
> New York, NY 10018
> (212) 629-6880
>
> www.kinolorberedu.com
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>
> > I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell
> me if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits the
> library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are assigned in
> classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in class or check them
> out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to know because legally
> that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh feature films and
> streaming them to a students computer wherever they may be.
> >
> > Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA appears
> to be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice is 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[ghandman]

yeah, so?

gary


> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
> course management system?
>
> Matt
>
> 
>  
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
> Sheldon
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the emergence
> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the
> films was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other
> retail outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of
> television broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any other
> provider that offers films for streaming acquired the rights to do so and
> paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD
> therefore we have the right to stream it... for no additional lic
>  ensing fee to the copyright holder."
>
> Best,
>
> Elizabeth
>
> Elizabeth Sheldon
> Vice President
> Kino Lorber, Inc.
> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
> New York, NY 10018
> (212) 629-6880
>
> www.kinolorberedu.com
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>
>> I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell
>> me if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits
>> the library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are
>> assigned in classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in class
>> or check them out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to
>> know because legally that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh
>> feature films and streaming them to a students computer wherever they
>> may be.
>>
>> Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA
>> appears to be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice
>> is legal. The overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT
>> come with Public Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail
>> DVDs and old VHS copies and streaming them by the thousands.
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger 
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
>> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all
>> the
>> facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.
>>
>> The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
>> "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if
>> digital
>> streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
>> stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
>>
>> The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on
>> this
>> issue.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Roger Brown
>> Manager
>> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
>> 46 Powell Library
>> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
>> office: 310-206-1248
>> fax: 310-206-5392
>> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Message: 2
>> >Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:09:51 +
>> >From: Susan Albrecht 
>> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>> >To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>> >Message-ID:
>> >
>> >
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> >
>> >Thank you for the text, Peter.
>> >
>> >One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for
>> >*each* film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that
>> still
>> >doesn't address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm
>> >curious whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Ball, James (jmb4aw)]

I would be surprised if UCLA is transmitting videos to individual computers, 
I'm pretty sure that students are accessing them through a course management 
system, which limits access to specific students who are registered for a 
specific class.  If that's the case then I'm not sure Elizabeth's PBS  analogy 
holds up.  I also don't think that PBS is considered a non-profit educational 
institution.

Matt



Matt Ball
Media and Collections Librarian
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA  22904
mattb...@virginia.edu<https://mail.eservices.virginia.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=62fe60f092584617be4c37bdfc2dcf42&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: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:42 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty sure 
much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a film to be 
streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class rooms I don't 
think companies would be  upset.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) 
mailto:jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu>> wrote:
Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected course 
management system?

Matt



Matt Ball
Media and Collections Librarian
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA  22904
mattb...@virginia.edu<mailto:mattb...@virginia.edu> | 
434-924-3812

-Original Message-
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 Elizabeth Sheldon
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a local 
PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their community 
without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is correct that many 
of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were purchased at retail prices 
and were sold for home use before the emergence of new technologies. Some of 
the distributors did not require that institutions purchase PPR as they 
understood the copyright law and the exemptions but that does not mean that a 
de facto right to stream the films was included with the purchase of the DVD 
from Amazon or any other retail outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming 
from the world of television broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any 
other provider that offers films for streaming acquired the rights to do so and 
paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD 
therefore we have the right to stream it... for no additional lic
 ensing fee to the copyright holder."

Best,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Sheldon
Vice President
Kino Lorber, Inc.
333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
New York, NY 10018
(212) 629-6880

www.kinolorberedu.com<http://www.kinolorberedu.com>

On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:

> I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell me if 
> it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits the library 
> to scan and post copyrighted books that students are assigned in classes so 
> that they need not buy them, watch them in class or check them out of the 
> library? I am dead serious about wanting to know because legally that is what 
> UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh feature films and streaming them to a 
> students computer wherever they may be.
>
> Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA appears to 
> be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice is legal. The 
> overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT come with Public 
> Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail DVDs and old VHS copies 
> and streaming them by the thousands.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger 
> mailto:rbr...@oid.ucla.edu>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all the
> facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.
>
> The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
> "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if digital
> streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
> stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
>
> The rules, policies, and interpretations

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

Oh heck no. They are streaming to the students computers and I am pretty
sure much of that is even off campus. Basically if a professor asks for a
film to be streamed to a student they stream it. If it was to the class
rooms I don't think companies would be  upset.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) <
jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:

> Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected
> course management system?
>
> Matt
>
> 
>
> Matt Ball
> Media and Collections Librarian
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA  22904
> mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a
> local PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their
> community without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is
> correct that many of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were
> purchased at retail prices and were sold for home use before the emergence
> of new technologies. Some of the distributors did not require that
> institutions purchase PPR as they understood the copyright law and the
> exemptions but that does not mean that a de facto right to stream the films
> was included with the purchase of the DVD from Amazon or any other retail
> outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming from the world of television
> broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any other provider that offers
> films for streaming acquired the rights to do so and paid specifically for
> them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD therefore we have the right
> to stream it... for no additional lic
>  ensing fee to the copyright holder."
>
> Best,
>
> Elizabeth
>
> Elizabeth Sheldon
> Vice President
> Kino Lorber, Inc.
> 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
> New York, NY 10018
> (212) 629-6880
>
> www.kinolorberedu.com
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>
> > I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell
> me if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits the
> library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are assigned in
> classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in class or check them
> out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to know because legally
> that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh feature films and
> streaming them to a students computer wherever they may be.
> >
> > Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA appears
> to be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice is legal. The
> overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT come with Public
> Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail DVDs and old VHS
> copies and streaming them by the thousands.
> >
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
> > ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all the
> > facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.
> >
> > The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
> > "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if digital
> > streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
> > stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
> >
> > The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on
> this
> > issue.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > Roger Brown
> > Manager
> > UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> > 46 Powell Library
> > Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> > office: 310-206-1248
> > fax: 310-206-5392
> > rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >--
> > >
> > >Message: 2
> > >Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:09:51 +
> > >From: Susan Albrecht 
> > >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> > >To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> > >Message-ID:
> > >
> > >
> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > >Thank you for the text, Peter.
> > >
> > &

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Ball, James (jmb4aw)]

Isn't UCLA streaming to specific classes through a password-protected course 
management system?

Matt


 
Matt Ball
Media and Collections Librarian
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA  22904
mattb...@virginia.edu | 434-924-3812

-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Sheldon
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:55 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a local 
PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their community 
without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is correct that many 
of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were purchased at retail prices 
and were sold for home use before the emergence of new technologies. Some of 
the distributors did not require that institutions purchase PPR as they 
understood the copyright law and the exemptions but that does not mean that a 
de facto right to stream the films was included with the purchase of the DVD 
from Amazon or any other retail outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming 
from the world of television broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any 
other provider that offers films for streaming acquired the rights to do so and 
paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD 
therefore we have the right to stream it... for no additional lic
 ensing fee to the copyright holder."

Best,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Sheldon
Vice President
Kino Lorber, Inc.
333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
New York, NY 10018
(212) 629-6880

www.kinolorberedu.com

On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:

> I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell me if 
> it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits the library 
> to scan and post copyrighted books that students are assigned in classes so 
> that they need not buy them, watch them in class or check them out of the 
> library? I am dead serious about wanting to know because legally that is what 
> UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh feature films and streaming them to a 
> students computer wherever they may be.
> 
> Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA appears to 
> be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice is legal. The 
> overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT come with Public 
> Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail DVDs and old VHS copies 
> and streaming them by the thousands.
> 
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all the
> facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.
> 
> The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
> "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if digital
> streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
> stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
> 
> The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on this
> issue.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >--
> >
> >Message: 2
> >Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:09:51 +
> >From: Susan Albrecht 
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> >Message-ID:
> >
> >
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >Thank you for the text, Peter.
> >
> >One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for
> >*each* film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still
> >doesn't address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm
> >curious whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed
> >offerings to those for which it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for
> >instance, a feature film
> >
> >Susan
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> >[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
> >Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
> >To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >
> >Law360, New York (May 2, 2011

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Elizabeth Sheldon]

I would like to add to Jessica's note that this is the equivalent of a local 
PBS station buying DVDs from Amazon and broadcasting them in their community 
without paying a license to the copyright holder. Jessica is correct that many 
of the films that ULCA has encoded and streamed were purchased at retail prices 
and were sold for home use before the emergence of new technologies. Some of 
the distributors did not require that institutions purchase PPR as they 
understood the copyright law and the exemptions but that does not mean that a 
de facto right to stream the films was included with the purchase of the DVD 
from Amazon or any other retail outlet, or even if purchased with PPR. Coming 
from the world of television broadcast, I can reassure you that Netflix or any 
other provider that offers films for streaming acquired the rights to do so and 
paid specifically for them and did not say, "Oh, we distribute the DVD 
therefore we have the right to stream it... for no additional licensing fee to 
the copyright holder."

Best,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Sheldon
Vice President
Kino Lorber, Inc.
333 W. 39th St., Suite 503
New York, NY 10018
(212) 629-6880

www.kinolorberedu.com

On May 26, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:

> I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell me if 
> it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits the library 
> to scan and post copyrighted books that students are assigned in classes so 
> that they need not buy them, watch them in class or check them out of the 
> library? I am dead serious about wanting to know because legally that is what 
> UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh feature films and streaming them to a 
> students computer wherever they may be.
> 
> Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA appears to 
> be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice is legal. The 
> overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT come with Public 
> Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail DVDs and old VHS copies 
> and streaming them by the thousands.
> 
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all the
> facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.
> 
> The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
> "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if digital
> streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
> stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
> 
> The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on this
> issue.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >--
> >
> >Message: 2
> >Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:09:51 +
> >From: Susan Albrecht 
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> >Message-ID:
> >
> >
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >Thank you for the text, Peter.
> >
> >One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for
> >*each* film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still
> >doesn't address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm
> >curious whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed
> >offerings to those for which it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for
> >instance, a feature film
> >
> >Susan
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> >[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
> >Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
> >To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >
> >Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
> >Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the
> >University of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of
> >educational video makers when it implemented a system for streaming
> >videos online to students and faculty.
> >
> >The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
> >colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
> >purchased with educational films give them the

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

I am well aware of the issues and details Roger. Perhaps you would tell me
if it is UCLA's position that the "virtual classroom" also permits the
library to scan and post copyrighted books that students are assigned in
classes so that they need not buy them, watch them in class or check them
out of the library? I am dead serious about wanting to know because legally
that is what UCLA is doing in digitizing full lengh feature films and
streaming them to a students computer wherever they may be.

Of course in the end this case actually solved nothing since UCLA appears to
be getting off on technicalities and not if such a practice is legal. The
overwhelming majority of titles streamed by UCLA did NOT come with Public
Performance Rights. UCLA is taking $25 or less retail DVDs and old VHS
copies and streaming them by the thousands.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all the
> facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.
>
> The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
> "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if digital
> streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
> stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
>
> The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on this
> issue.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>
>
>
>
> >
> >--
> >
> >Message: 2
> >Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:09:51 +
> >From: Susan Albrecht 
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> >Message-ID:
> >
> >
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >Thank you for the text, Peter.
> >
> >One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for
> >*each* film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still
> >doesn't address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm
> >curious whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed
> >offerings to those for which it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for
> >instance, a feature film....
> >
> >Susan
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> >[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
> >Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
> >To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >
> >Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
> >Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the
> >University of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of
> >educational video makers when it implemented a system for streaming
> >videos online to students and faculty.
> >
> >The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
> >colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
> >purchased with educational films give them the legal authority to bring
> >videos into the virtual classroom space.
> >
> >
> >
> >"The court's tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss," U.S.
> >District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
> >"The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend."
> >
> >The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a
> >foregone conclusion.
> >
> >Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a
> >national trade association of educational content producers and
> >distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA
> >and top school administrators breached contracts and violated copyrights
> >when they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed students and
> >teachers to stream videos like "The Plays of William Shakespeare" over
> >the Internet.
> >
> >Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film's distributor, is
> >also a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming
> >service, Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.
> >
> >The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal
> >action, the school susp

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Dennis Doros]

Agreed, Roger, but the additional issue is whether the
distributor/institutional model can exist without proper financial
remuneration. I'm being very careful in this statement not to pass judgement
(though some of my titles are on the UCLA list), but a judgement in favor of
the institutions could be a Pyrrhic victory. When the prices that network
and cable stations paid for new productions collapsed several years ago,
there were a lot more inferior documentaries using the same public domain
footage over and over again as a result.

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

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brown, Roger  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
> ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all the
> facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.
>
> The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
> "virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if digital
> streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
> stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.
>
> The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on this
> issue.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>
>
>
>
> >
> >------
> >
> >Message: 2
> >Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:09:51 +
> >From: Susan Albrecht 
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> >Message-ID:
> >
> >
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >Thank you for the text, Peter.
> >
> >One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for
> >*each* film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still
> >doesn't address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm
> >curious whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed
> >offerings to those for which it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for
> >instance, a feature film
> >
> >Susan
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> >[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
> >Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
> >To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> >
> >Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
> >Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the
> >University of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of
> >educational video makers when it implemented a system for streaming
> >videos online to students and faculty.
> >
> >The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
> >colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
> >purchased with educational films give them the legal authority to bring
> >videos into the virtual classroom space.
> >
> >
> >
> >"The court's tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss," U.S.
> >District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
> >"The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend."
> >
> >The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a
> >foregone conclusion.
> >
> >Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a
> >national trade association of educational content producers and
> >distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA
> >and top school administrators breached contracts and violated copyrights
> >when they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed students and
> >teachers to stream videos like "The Plays of William Shakespeare" over
> >the Internet.
> >
> >Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film's distributor, is
> >also a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming
> >service, Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.
> >
> >The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal
> >action, the school suspended use of its online streaming system. But
> >"after a winter-break period of reflection," the school brought the
> &g

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Brown, Roger]

Hi,

As a (relatively new) member of the UCLA community dealing with the
ramifications of this issue daily, I'd like to point out that not all the
facts expressed here on this listserv are correct in re UCLA's policies.

The real issue is in getting clarification on what is allowable in a
"virtual classroom environment" and what that is exactly.  And if digital
streaming of a legally acquired copies, with or without certain rights
stated or implied, can be part of (all of) our missions.

The rules, policies, and interpretations are changing almost daily on this
issue.  


Best, 


Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu




>
>--
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:09:51 +
>From: Susan Albrecht 
>Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>Message-ID:
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Thank you for the text, Peter.
>
>One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for
>*each* film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still
>doesn't address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm
>curious whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed
>offerings to those for which it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for
>instance, a feature film
>
>Susan
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
>Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
>To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
>Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
>Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the
>University of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of
>educational video makers when it implemented a system for streaming
>videos online to students and faculty.
>
>The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
>colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
>purchased with educational films give them the legal authority to bring
>videos into the virtual classroom space.
>
>
>
>"The court's tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss," U.S.
>District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
>"The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend."
>
>The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a
>foregone conclusion.
>
>Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a
>national trade association of educational content producers and
>distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA
>and top school administrators breached contracts and violated copyrights
>when they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed students and
>teachers to stream videos like "The Plays of William Shakespeare" over
>the Internet.
>
>Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film's distributor, is
>also a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming
>service, Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.
>
>The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal
>action, the school suspended use of its online streaming system. But
>"after a winter-break period of reflection," the school brought the
>system back online, according to the complaint.
>
>"We have exhibits showing that the decision to stop and restart streaming
>was made at the highest levels of the school's administration," attorney
>Arnold Lutzker, who represents the plaintiffs, told the judge.
>
>The complaint accuses UCLA of hypocrisy, applying for over 1,700
>copyrights in the past three decades and vowing in policy statements to
>uphold copyright law, even as its streaming system violated the
>copyrights of PBS Video, Icarus Films and other AIME members.
>
>The university's video streaming system "does not have to be an
>educational setting," the complaint said. "For example, the student with
>access to the UCLA network can be in a WiFi hot spot anywhere, such as at
>Starbucks coffee shops off campus."
>
>But attorneys for UCLA countered that the videos at issue had come with
>an unambiguous license printed in bold on the Ambrose video catalog: "All
>purchases by schools and libraries include public performance rights."
>
>The streaming system only allows students to play videos online if an
>instructor assigns the video and only if 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

No the studio titles I noticed would indeed have had copy protection on VHS.
The one that really cracked me up was that the digitized and streamed the
Warner Bros copy of THE TIN DRUM. This was released around 1982. Kino
remastered around 1992 for video than again for DVD and Criterion did an
even better job a few years ago but UCLA used a poor 25 year old transfer.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Shoaf,Judith P  wrote:

>  Jessica said: For the record not only did UCLA stream titles they had no
> right to , they also used crappy copies in many cases. They could not even
> be bothered to buy a recent DVD so they streamed 20 plus year old videos.
> I am sure they looked like utter crap but given the rest of their attitude I
> doubt they cared.
>
>
>
> Perhaps they were looking at the question of contravening copy protection
> codes on DVDs. In other words, ripping a DVD is less legal than ripping a
> VHS tape because most tapes do not have copy protection…?
>
>
>
> Judy
>
> 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] UCLA Case

[Allen Dohra]

You will note within this article that the ruling was offered as tentative.  It 
was offered before AIME's attorney was given an opportunity to respond both 
orally and in writing.  All sides still anxiously await the judge's decision.  
It would be strange to see this case decided on a new industry definition of 
public performance, one offered in defense after the fact, and in spite of the 
majority of UCLA's downloads being comprised of product that did not include 
public performance rights.  
 
The ruling in this case will be posted on the AIME web-site as soon as it is 
received.  Regardless of the decision, I believe it is fair to say that this 
will not be the end of this case.
 
Allen Dohra
President, AIME  
 
> From: pe...@landmarkmedia.com
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:59:42 -0400
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
> 
> Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
> Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the University
> of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of educational video
> makers when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to
> students and faculty.
> 
> The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
> colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
> purchased with educational films give them the legal authority to bring
> videos into the virtual classroom space.
> 
> 
> “The court’s tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss,” U.S.
> District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
> “The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend.”
> 
> The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a
> foregone conclusion.
> 
> Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a
> national trade association of educational content producers and
> distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA and
> top school administrators breached contracts and violated copyrights when
> they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed students and teachers
> to stream videos like “The Plays of William Shakespeare” over the
> Internet.
> 
> Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film’s distributor, is also
> a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming service,
> Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.
> 
> The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal
> action, the school suspended use of its online streaming system. But
> “after a winter-break period of reflection,” the school brought the system
> back online, according to the complaint.
> 
> “We have exhibits showing that the decision to stop and restart streaming
> was made at the highest levels of the school’s administration,” attorney
> Arnold Lutzker, who represents the plaintiffs, told the judge.
> 
> The complaint accuses UCLA of hypocrisy, applying for over 1,700
> copyrights in the past three decades and vowing in policy statements to
> uphold copyright law, even as its streaming system violated the copyrights
> of PBS Video, Icarus Films and other AIME members.
> 
> The university's video streaming system “does not have to be an
> educational setting,” the complaint said. “For example, the student with
> access to the UCLA network can be in a WiFi hot spot anywhere, such as at
> Starbucks coffee shops off campus.”
> 
> But attorneys for UCLA countered that the videos at issue had come with an
> unambiguous license printed in bold on the Ambrose video catalog: “All
> purchases by schools and libraries include public performance rights.”
> 
> The streaming system only allows students to play videos online if an
> instructor assigns the video and only if they are currently enrolled in
> the class, according to UCLA
> 
> This use, the university argues, was permitted by the public performance
> rights that Ambrose explicitly granted.
> 
> Attorneys for UCLA also claim that the plaintiffs’ state law causes of
> action are preempted by the federal Copyright Act., that AIME doesn’t have
> standing to bring suit on behalf of its members and that University of
> California administrators are constitutionally immune from suit in federal
> court.
> 
> In a statement issued in March 2010, UCLA's vice provost of information
> technology Jim Davis described the school's decision to restart streaming
> as a principled stance.
> 
> "We're well aware the outcome of this dispute could affect other
> educational institutions, and it's important that UCLA take a leadership
> role and demonstrate just how critical the appropriate use of technology
> is to our educational 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Shoaf,Judith P]

Jessica said: For the record not only did UCLA stream titles they had no right 
to , they also used crappy copies in many cases. They could not even be 
bothered to buy a recent DVD so they streamed 20 plus year old videos. I am 
sure they looked like utter crap but given the rest of their attitude I doubt 
they cared.

Perhaps they were looking at the question of contravening copy protection codes 
on DVDs. In other words, ripping a DVD is less legal than ripping a VHS tape 
because most tapes do not have copy protection...?

Judy
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] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

No they streamed thousands of films without PPR even in at least one case
where they had literally signed a contract not to, in theory this was the
perfect case because UCLA admitted to streaming the thousands of films,
unfortunately it appears the judge looked only narrowly at the Ambrose
titles. The studios and their reps have basically done nothing though I
suspect as they realize how much more widespread this is, they may wake up.
For the record not only did UCLA stream titles they had no right to , they
also used crappy copies in many cases. They could not even be bothered to by
a recent DVD so they streamed 20 plus year old videos. I am sure they looked
like utter crap but given the rest of their attitude I doubt they cared.

Despite the image you get in the media of things like this , it was small
educational companies fighting a much better financed university. If and
when the big rights holders get involved I am sure things will be different.


On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Susan Albrecht wrote:

> Thank you for the text, Peter.
>
> One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for *each*
> film UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still doesn't
> address, for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm curious
> whether UCLA really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed offerings to
> those for which it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for instance, a
> feature film
>
> Susan
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
> Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the University
> of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of educational video
> makers when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to students
> and faculty.
>
> The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
> colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
> purchased with educational films give them the legal authority to bring
> videos into the virtual classroom space.
>
>
>
> "The court's tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss," U.S.
> District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
> "The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend."
>
> The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a
> foregone conclusion.
>
> Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a
> national trade association of educational content producers and
> distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA and
> top school administrators breached contracts and violated copyrights when
> they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed students and teachers to
> stream videos like "The Plays of William Shakespeare" over the Internet.
>
> Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film's distributor, is also
> a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming service,
> Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.
>
> The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal
> action, the school suspended use of its online streaming system. But "after
> a winter-break period of reflection," the school brought the system back
> online, according to the complaint.
>
> "We have exhibits showing that the decision to stop and restart streaming
> was made at the highest levels of the school's administration," attorney
> Arnold Lutzker, who represents the plaintiffs, told the judge.
>
> The complaint accuses UCLA of hypocrisy, applying for over 1,700 copyrights
> in the past three decades and vowing in policy statements to uphold
> copyright law, even as its streaming system violated the copyrights of PBS
> Video, Icarus Films and other AIME members.
>
> The university's video streaming system "does not have to be an educational
> setting," the complaint said. "For example, the student with access to the
> UCLA network can be in a WiFi hot spot anywhere, such as at Starbucks coffee
> shops off campus."
>
> But attorneys for UCLA countered that the videos at issue had come with an
> unambiguous license printed in bold on the Ambrose video catalog: "All
> purchases by schools and libraries include public performance rights."
>
> The streaming system only allows students to play videos online if an
> instructor assigns the video and only if they are currently e

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Susan Albrecht]

Thank you for the text, Peter.  

One further question.  Is anyone in a position to know whether, for *each* film 
UCLA streamed, it truly had paid for PPR?  I know that still doesn't address, 
for a lot of us, the issue of format change, but I'm curious whether UCLA 
really thought ahead enough to limit its streamed offerings to those for which 
it had obtained PPR, and never streamed, for instance, a feature film

Susan


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Hartogs
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:00 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated 
Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the University of 
California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of educational video makers 
when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to students and 
faculty.

The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of colleges 
and universities that argue the public performance rights they purchased with 
educational films give them the legal authority to bring videos into the 
virtual classroom space.



"The court's tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss," U.S.
District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
"The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend."

The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a foregone 
conclusion.

Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a national 
trade association of educational content producers and distributors, filed an 
amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA and top school administrators 
breached contracts and violated copyrights when they deployed Video Furnace, a 
system that allowed students and teachers to stream videos like "The Plays of 
William Shakespeare" over the Internet.

Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film's distributor, is also a 
plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming service, Ambrose 
2.0, the complaint says.

The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal 
action, the school suspended use of its online streaming system. But "after a 
winter-break period of reflection," the school brought the system back online, 
according to the complaint.

"We have exhibits showing that the decision to stop and restart streaming was 
made at the highest levels of the school's administration," attorney Arnold 
Lutzker, who represents the plaintiffs, told the judge.

The complaint accuses UCLA of hypocrisy, applying for over 1,700 copyrights in 
the past three decades and vowing in policy statements to uphold copyright law, 
even as its streaming system violated the copyrights of PBS Video, Icarus Films 
and other AIME members.

The university's video streaming system "does not have to be an educational 
setting," the complaint said. "For example, the student with access to the UCLA 
network can be in a WiFi hot spot anywhere, such as at Starbucks coffee shops 
off campus."

But attorneys for UCLA countered that the videos at issue had come with an 
unambiguous license printed in bold on the Ambrose video catalog: "All 
purchases by schools and libraries include public performance rights."

The streaming system only allows students to play videos online if an 
instructor assigns the video and only if they are currently enrolled in the 
class, according to UCLA

This use, the university argues, was permitted by the public performance rights 
that Ambrose explicitly granted.

Attorneys for UCLA also claim that the plaintiffs' state law causes of action 
are preempted by the federal Copyright Act., that AIME doesn't have standing to 
bring suit on behalf of its members and that University of California 
administrators are constitutionally immune from suit in federal court.

In a statement issued in March 2010, UCLA's vice provost of information 
technology Jim Davis described the school's decision to restart streaming as a 
principled stance.

"We're well aware the outcome of this dispute could affect other educational 
institutions, and it's important that UCLA take a leadership role and 
demonstrate just how critical the appropriate use of technology is to our 
educational mission."

The complaint lists 11 counts, including copyright infringement, breach of 
license agreement and illegal circumvention of copyright protection systems 
under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It seeks injunctive relief, actual 
and punitive damages, statutory damages, and attorneys'
fees.

A representative for AIME declined to comment Monday. A representative for UCLA 
pointed to the school's March 2010 

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Jessica Rosner]

P.
>
> The defendants are represented by Keker & Van Nest LLP.
>
> The case is Association of Information Media and Equipment et al. v. The
> Regents of the University of California et al., case number 2:10-cv-09378,
> in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
>
> --Editing by Chris Giganti.
>
> Peter Hartogs
> Vice President, Business Development
> Landmark Media
> 3450 Slade Run Drive
> Falls Church, VA 22042
> pe...@landmarkmedia.com
> www.landmarkmedia.com
> 703-241-2030
> 1-800-342-4336
> 703-536-9540 (fax)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Susan Albrecht
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:56 AM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> Since I don't feel like signing up for a free trial, do you care to
> summarize the juicy bits?  Does it offer any explanation for the judge's
> inclination?
>
> Susan
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of
> ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:37 AM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: [Videolib] UCLA Case
>
> Wow...I'm really surprised.
>
> http://www.law360.com/articles/242725/ucla-streaming-video-copyright-case-
> on-thin-ice
>
>
>
>
> Gary Handman
> Director
> Media Resources Center
> Moffitt Library
> UC Berkeley
>
> 510-643-8566
> ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC
>
> "I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
> --Francois Truffaut
>
>
> 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 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 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] UCLA Case

[Peter Hartogs]

Law360, New York (May 2, 2011) -- A federal judge in California indicated
Monday she would dismiss a breach of contract suit alleging the University
of California, Los Angeles, violated the copyrights of educational video
makers when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to
students and faculty.

The tentative ruling, if entered, would bring clarity to the rights of
colleges and universities that argue the public performance rights they
purchased with educational films give them the legal authority to bring
videos into the virtual classroom space.


“The court’s tentative would be to grant the motion to dismiss,” U.S.
District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall told attorneys in the case Monday.
“The big issue is whether plaintiffs' counsel will seek leave to amend.”

The judge indicated that granting leave to amend in the case was not a
foregone conclusion.

Attorneys for the Association for Information Media and Equipment, a
national trade association of educational content producers and
distributors, filed an amended complaint in February arguing that UCLA and
top school administrators breached contracts and violated copyrights when
they deployed Video Furnace, a system that allowed students and teachers
to stream videos like “The Plays of William Shakespeare” over the
Internet.

Ambrose Video Publishing Inc., the Shakespeare film’s distributor, is also
a plaintiff in the action. AVP offers its own video streaming service,
Ambrose 2.0, the complaint says.

The plaintiffs argue that after they confronted UCLA with possible legal
action, the school suspended use of its online streaming system. But
“after a winter-break period of reflection,” the school brought the system
back online, according to the complaint.

“We have exhibits showing that the decision to stop and restart streaming
was made at the highest levels of the school’s administration,” attorney
Arnold Lutzker, who represents the plaintiffs, told the judge.

The complaint accuses UCLA of hypocrisy, applying for over 1,700
copyrights in the past three decades and vowing in policy statements to
uphold copyright law, even as its streaming system violated the copyrights
of PBS Video, Icarus Films and other AIME members.

The university's video streaming system “does not have to be an
educational setting,” the complaint said. “For example, the student with
access to the UCLA network can be in a WiFi hot spot anywhere, such as at
Starbucks coffee shops off campus.”

But attorneys for UCLA countered that the videos at issue had come with an
unambiguous license printed in bold on the Ambrose video catalog: “All
purchases by schools and libraries include public performance rights.”

The streaming system only allows students to play videos online if an
instructor assigns the video and only if they are currently enrolled in
the class, according to UCLA

This use, the university argues, was permitted by the public performance
rights that Ambrose explicitly granted.

Attorneys for UCLA also claim that the plaintiffs’ state law causes of
action are preempted by the federal Copyright Act., that AIME doesn’t have
standing to bring suit on behalf of its members and that University of
California administrators are constitutionally immune from suit in federal
court.

In a statement issued in March 2010, UCLA's vice provost of information
technology Jim Davis described the school's decision to restart streaming
as a principled stance.

"We're well aware the outcome of this dispute could affect other
educational institutions, and it's important that UCLA take a leadership
role and demonstrate just how critical the appropriate use of technology
is to our educational mission."

The complaint lists 11 counts, including copyright infringement, breach of
license agreement and illegal circumvention of copyright protection
systems under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It seeks injunctive
relief, actual and punitive damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’
fees.

A representative for AIME declined to comment Monday. A representative for
UCLA pointed to the school's March 2010 statement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lutzker & Lutzker and Mulcahy LLP.

The defendants are represented by Keker & Van Nest LLP.

The case is Association of Information Media and Equipment et al. v. The
Regents of the University of California et al., case number 2:10-cv-09378,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

--Editing by Chris Giganti.

Peter Hartogs
Vice President, Business Development
Landmark Media
3450 Slade Run Drive
Falls Church, VA 22042
pe...@landmarkmedia.com
www.landmarkmedia.com
703-241-2030
1-800-342-4336
703-536-9540 (fax)

-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Susan Albrecht
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:56 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

Since I don

Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case

[Susan Albrecht]

Since I don't feel like signing up for a free trial, do you care to summarize 
the juicy bits?  Does it offer any explanation for the judge's inclination?

Susan


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of 
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:37 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: [Videolib] UCLA Case

Wow...I'm really surprised.

http://www.law360.com/articles/242725/ucla-streaming-video-copyright-case-on-thin-ice




Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley

510-643-8566
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

"I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
--Francois Truffaut


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 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] UCLA Case

[ghandman]

Wow...I'm really surprised.

http://www.law360.com/articles/242725/ucla-streaming-video-copyright-case-on-thin-ice




Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley

510-643-8566
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

"I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
--Francois Truffaut


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.