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 +0000 >From: Susan Albrecht <albre...@wabash.edu> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] UCLA Case >To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" <videolib@lists.berkeley.edu> >Message-ID: > ><eb1e4106a574f649aeed38d97d0273bc6668f...@ex2010mailstore.wabash.main> >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 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'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. > > > >End of videolib Digest, Vol 42, Issue 110 >***************************************** 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.
