I think those would be off the table because they were films that are not even legally distributed. Also on a point of law , most of them actually go out UPS or non post office methods and if it ever became an issue I can assure no one would mail them.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Brewer, Michael < brew...@u.library.arizona.edu> wrote: > My interest would be in festival prints. I know that many of the titles > shown at festival never become available on DVD (or never became > commercially available on VHS), especially with subtitles. When I was a > graduate student, I had colleagues (faculty) who had large private > collections of these that were given to them by the filmmakers or others > associated with films, and those collections were invaluable for study (mine > and others) Of course, they were only available to those who were good > friends of the faculty members and could be trusted to not damage the > copies. Grads from the program who have gone on to teach now want to be > able to assign students to view some of these titles, or use them themselves > for their research, but, because they are not held in libraries, that is not > (legally) possible. > > > > mb > > > > Michael Brewer > > Team Leader for Instructional Services > > University of Arizona Library > > brew...@u.library.arizona.edu > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:07 AM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] First Sale Doctrine-Interesting Copyright case > > > > I think it is a little different with DVDs mainly for more practical > reasons. Most Academy or Emmy type screeners come with the warnings > > plastered ON the image as opposed to just being in the boxing. In such > cases I don't even know why a library would want something like that. Also > Academy and Emmy screeners would really never fall under this because the > recipients actually do have to sign what amounts to a contract not to let > them out. Screeners of DVDS sent to critics for RETAIL titles ( i.e not > films in theaters) might fall under whatever the court decides. > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Jaeschke, Myles <mjae...@tulsalibrary.org> > wrote: > > Don’t run and start placing those Academy promo DVDs and promo CDs in your > library collection just yet, *but *if the 9th circuit upholds the district > court’s decision (and there is no appeal to US Supreme Court) I think > libraries would be well within the law to do just so. I’m sure this has a > ways to go to play out yet… > > > > Best, > Myles Jaeschke > > Tulsa City-County Library > > Media Collections > > > > > > > > “The Ninth Circuit has posted to its web site an audio recording of > Monday's oral > arguments<http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000005582>in > *UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto*, an important case about the scope of > the first sale doctrine<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109> > . > > The facts are this: UMG (like other record labels) sends out promotional > CDs to radio stations, music reviewers, and other industry insiders. The CDs > contain labels that say the following (or something very close): > > This CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the > intended recipient for personal use only. Acceptance of this CD shall > constitute an agreement to comply with the terms of the license. Resale or > transfer of possession is not allowed and may be punishable under federal > and state laws. > > Of course, some recipients don't follow these instructions, and sell these > promo CDs. Troy Augusto made a business of buying them at record stores or > online, and re-selling them. UMG sued Augusto for copyright infringement, > alleging a violation of its exclusive right to distribute its works under 17 > USC <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>* > *<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>§ > 106(3). Augusto defended by claiming that under the first sale doctrine, > he's perfectly free to re-sell the CDs he bought, the "promotional use only" > labels notwithstanding. > > The district court sided with > Augusto<http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/umg_v_augusto/LA07CV03106SJO-O.pdf>, > ruling that UMG transferred title in the physical CDs to the initial > recipients, and did not, as it argued, merely license them for a limited > purpose to a limited group. The court relied in part on an obscure postal > statute, 39 USC § 3009 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/3009.shtml>, > which characterizes unordered merchandise" as a "gift." (The purpose of the > statute is evidently to protect consumers against scammers who mail goods to > consumers even when they don't request it, and then demand payment.) > > When I listened to UMG attorney Russ > Frackman<http://www.msk.com/attorneys/bio.cfm?ID=216>face the panel, I was > skeptical of the label's chances. The court > practically begged him to give them a way not to follow the postal statute; > he had to fall back on arguments based on the purpose of the law, the > legislative history, and an insistence that words such as "recipient" and > "merchandise" had some special meaning in this context other than their > dictionary definitions. But I thought the panel was even tougher on > Augusto's attorney Joseph Gratz<http://www.durietangri.com/people_gratz.html>. > The court seemed a bit surprised by Gratz's concession that Augusto has the > burden of proof on the first sale issue (at least one panel member had > previously stated that it may be an open question), and it expressed > considerable sympathy for the argument that UMG's relationship with the > recipients of the promo CDs was indeed that of licensor/licensee -- or at > least that Augusto may not have met his burden of proving otherwise. > > In sum, I thought UMG came out of the argument with a slight edge, but > predicting the result of the opinion would be a bit of a fool's errand. Listen > for > yourself<http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000005582>and > give your prediction in the comments. EFF collects the relevant > documents here <http://www.eff.org/cases/umg-v-augusto>.” > > > > > 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.
