One more thing. While the list did not include films made exclusively for educational instruction, they did include indeed many, many titles sold only for the educational market. Titles released by places like Bullfrog, Women Make Movies, California Newsreel ( and don't kill me guys) really do not have a broad interest and most are NOT sold to individuals, only to institutions. Legally I don't think it matters ( although nearly all probably came with PPR), but I think as you may have noticed many of us think morally it is very disturbing. It would less than honest to not to admit that people might be less upset if the films being streamed without rights were owned by Newscorp, as opposed to the diminishing number of independent distributors who have been providing quality films exclusively to the University & library market for many years ( as well as some new comers who are naive enough to believe that schools won't digitize and stream a work without permission)
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Shoaf,Judith P <jsh...@ufl.edu> wrote: > Jessica, **** > > ** ** > > From the Ambrose website:**** > > The Content is licensed solely for classroom teaching, research, > educational non-commercial multimedia projects, classroom presentations, and > individual presentations for use in educational institutions or public > libraries. *PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHTS *A "public performance" is any > performance of a videocassette, DVD, videodisc or film which occurs outside > of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family > members, such as in a school or library. In most cases titles sold by video > and retail outlets are restricted to home use only and do not include public > performance rights. All of the prices listed on the individual film pages > include public performance rights. **** > > http://www.ambrosevideo.com/order.cfm#terms**** > > ** ** > > And of course they explicitly forbid anything else, change of format, > broadcast, etc.**** > > You are right--It is a red herring. I’m just saying that Ambrose calls this > PPR and UCLA calls it PPR (and is in fact allowing use only for classroom > teaching and research). I guess that the definition assumes that the > face-to-face exception is an exception to PPR, and therefore forms part of > PPR—the part you normally don’t need permission for in the U.S. Also, > Ambrose apparently does not have tiered pricing—you are not paying more for > the PPR, or rather you have no way to buy the item without this very limited > “PPR.” I find the text above shockingly misleading, though. **** > > ** ** > > NB as you know, one reason Ambrose is the plaintiff is that they actually > have the streaming service to offer. I think few other potential plaintiffs > can claim that—that 100% of their material being streamed by UCLA is > available from them digitally, so UCLA is not only usurping their rights but > also depriving them of income from their property. I also noticed that they > have been careful not to stream anything that was made specifically for an > educational-institution market. It’s all entertainment or documentaries of > broad interest. **** > > ** ** > > Judy**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!**** > > ** ** > > Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film > being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always > meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think > the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement > virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State > School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't > go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with > a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( > hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was > streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course > the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources > to sue UCLA. Does that make it right?**** > > ** ** > > Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in > terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions.**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P <jsh...@ufl.edu> wrote:*** > * > > I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose’s license for public > performance is very restricted—basically it is a limited version of > face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to > enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. > So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to > ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt “it means whatever we say it means” > and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library > viewing.**** > > **** > > Judy**** > > **** > > ****************** > > I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): > **** > > **** > > What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few > lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — > that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive > right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed > right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, > as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general > dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for “failure to state a claim > upon which relief can be granted.” Thus this ruling does not offer the > higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a > couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument.**** > > **** > > What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, > in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, *as a potentially > public performance*, was justified under section 110. Is that what the > UCLA attorneys would likely have argued – that having PPR licenses meant > they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I > guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself > (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public > performance. Or is that really neither here nor there?**** > > **** > > Susan at Wabash **** > > **** > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hallman, Philip > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!**** > > **** > > **** > > Two articles of interest this morning:**** > > **** > > **** > > > http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ > **** > > **** > > http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=111004120000* > *** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Philip Hallman**** > > Film Studies Librarian**** > > Donald Hall Collection**** > > Dept of Screen Arts & Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library**** > > 105 S. State Street**** > > 6330 North Quad**** > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109**** > > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors.**** > > > > > -- > Jessica Rosner > Media Consultant > 224-545-3897 (cell) > 212-627-1785 (land line) > jessicapros...@gmail.com**** > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. > > -- 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.
