I was going to stay out of this -- I think VideoLib has become too adversary and everybody needs to step back and have a mental margarita -- but I believe that Jessica (a graduate of Francis W. Parker School which is much in the news today because the death of a producer of mine) has produced a fairly reasonable objection to the report and I hope it can be * gently* viewed to see why there is such disappointment (my word) by distributors in our current views of institutions. I'm all for 108 but it has restrictions. One thing that wasn't discussed, but "copies" is used in Pat's report in an ambiguous way. 108 says that "one" copy can be made.
Dennis Milestone On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Jessica Rosner <jessicapros...@gmail.com>wrote: > Actually what you have listed below is not what is in 108 but a clever > version reworded to justify certain activities as "fair use" First it > does not say "likely to deteriorate" it says it applies to copy that " > IS ( emphasis mine") damaged deteriorating, lost or stolen". There is > HUGE difference between "likely to deteriorate" and "Is" . Basically > this has been used as an excuse to transfer ANY VHS to DVD because it > "might deteriorate " This interpretation is exactly the reason there > is so much distrust. Perhaps you can tell me how ARL code would define > "likely to deteriorate"? > > Also it is not "difficult to access formats" that is another > deliberate misstatement of copyright law. The law requires that the > machine needed to view the film is "No longer manufactured" There are > numerous VHS players (combos) still available in the retail market, > but note again how the words of the actual copyright law are being > twisted to make it easier to just copy VHS to DVD. > > Also nowhere does copyright law say "Off-premises access to > preservation copies circulated as substitutes for original copies > should be limited to authenticated members of a library’s patron > community, e.g., students, faculty, staff, affiliated scholars, and > other accredited users " What it says is the item shall not be made > available to the public outside the premise of the library or archive. > A standard interpretation of that has been that the copy does not > circulate beyond the library, but again ARL decides it means it can be > shown or used anywhere on a campus and it basically in terms of > rights identical to the original since few academic libraries allow > material to be checked out by non students/faculty anyway. > > Basically what the rights holder see ( and with good reason) is that > academic libraries want to make copies of anything they ever bought in > digital format if it is not available for purchase right now and this > is hardly a small point. What exactly is the point of spending money > to to obtain rights, remaster and releasea film on DVD if libraries ( > who are the intended market for much of this) have just made their own > copies and use them routinely in classes? > > Again there has been a deliberate policy by ARL and others to freeze > rights holders out and just > produce their own interpretation of copyright law and tell libraries > this is how it is. You mock me for this view but please tell me which > rights holders or filmmakers were consulted in determining the code? > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Simpkins, Terry W. > <tsimp...@middlebury.edu> wrote: > > > > Dear list, > > > > Many of the questions people are posing with respect to the ARL code > could be solved by, radical as this idea may be, actually reading the > code. However, since it’s apparently much easier to complain than to > learn, I will summarize what the code actually says on this issue. > > > > > > > > The principle: It is fair use to make digital copies of collection items > that are likely to deteriorate, or that exist onl in difficult-to-access > formats, for purposes of preservation, and to make those copies available > as surrogates for fragile or otherwise inaccessible materials. > > > > > > > > Limitations > > > > · Preservation copies should not be made when a fully equivalent > digital copy is commercially available at a reasonable cost > > > > · Libraries should not provide access to or circulate original and > preservation copies simultaneously > > > > · Off-premises access to preservation copies circulated as > substitutes for original copies should be limited to authenticated members > of a library’s patron community, e.g., students, faculty, staff, affiliated > scholars, and other accredited users > > > > · Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the > field, should be provided for all items made available online, to the > extent it can be determined with reasonable effort > > > > > > > > Additional recommendations (called “enhancements” in the code’s lingo) > > > > · Fair use claims will be enhanced when libraries take > technological steps to limit further redistribution of digital surrogates… > > > > · Fair use claims will be further enhanced when libraries provide > copyright owners a simple tool for registering objections to use of digital > surrogates… > > > > > > > > So, to answer Ms. Rosner’s question: the effort that the code recommends > taking is ascertaining whether or not something is still commercially > available before preserving/reformatting, and to not use the preservation > copy as a “free” (or, if you will, “stolen”) 2nd copy. It does not say > anything strictly about contacting the rights holder. However, the > statement that “I think it sums up the entire attitude of the ARL code of > basically under no circumstances involve or consult with rights holders on > the material they own or made because they are the enemy” is completely > farcical and not at all supported by the actual text of the code, much as > most of Ms. Rosner’s understanding of fair use seems to be unsupported by > the actual text of US Code 17. > > > > > > > > On a side note: I’m not entirely sure why Ms. Rosner conflates what one > “top NYU” person says with the beliefs and practices of the entire ARL > and/or academic community. Would the media distribution community would be > entirely comfortable with me assuming that Ms. Rosner speaks > representatively for them? I hope not. > > > > > > > > Terry > > > > > > > > Terry Simpkins > > > > Director, Research and Collection Services > > > > Library & Information Services > > > > Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 > > > > (802) 443-5045 > > > > > > > > From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:48 PM > > To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > > Subject: Re: [Videolib] Video at Risk's Relationship to new ARL Code of > Best Practices > > > > > > > > Gary. > > I know I have mentioned this before but never directly asked you, is it > your belief that in determining if an item is rare and should be > "preserved" that no effort should ever be made to contact the rights > holder/filmmaker? I ask because that is exactly what one of the top NYU > people told a group of librarians at ALA meeting a few years ago and that > is a key reason I have so little trust in the "code", this project and to > be honest acedemic libraries. I think it sums up the entire attitude of the > ARL code of basically under no circumstances involve or consult with rights > holders on the material they own or made because they are the enemy. > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM, <ghand...@library.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > > > Hi Debra > > > > Berkeley is a principle partner in this project (along with NYU). A > > significant part of the project will be identifying materials in > > collections which are eligible for reformatting, primarily under the > > provisions of Section 108, but possibly under the mantle of fair use, as > > well. > > > > None of us on the project have had contact with the developers of the ARL > > code (to my knowledge). > > > > gary > > > > > > > > > Hi- > > > > > > Does anyone know if the Video at Risk project (dealing with > reformatting > > > of VHS tapes) has a relationship with the new ARL "Code of Best > > > Practices" undertaking ? Have there been a conversation between these > > > parties? > > > > > > Just Curious. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > Debra > > > > > > Debra H. Mandel, > > > Head, Digital Media Design Studio > > > Northeastern University Libraries > > > 360 Huntington Ave. > > > 200 SL > > > Boston, MA 02115 > > > 617-373-4902; 617-373-5409-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. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > -- 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.comebackafrica.com www.yougottomove.com www.ontheboweryfilm.com www.arayafilm.com www.exilesfilm.com www.wordisoutmovie.com www.killerofsheep.com <http://www.killerofsheep.com> Join "Milestone Film" on Facebook and Twitter! and the Association of Moving Image Archivists <http://www.amianet.org>! Follow Milestone on Twitter! <http://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>
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.
