Jessica, I believe that the webinar presenter was not relying on the GSU case for the question of streaming an entire video, but on Judge Marshall's opinion in the UCLA case. The defendants argued that streaming the video was time-shifting (as in the Sony Betamax case) of a classroom viewing (allowed under Section 110). She said that was a good argument.
Since Section 110 is also pretty specific about excluding this type of streamed dramatic video in more than "reasonable and limited portions," the plaintiffs could certainly make a strong counter-argument. However, this case can't be appealed (because it was dismissed on other grounds and Ambrose/A.I.M.E. does not seem to be able to bring a meaningful suit). So it will take another case to determine whether the time-shifting argument is stronger than the "reasonable AND LIMITED portion" argument. 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.
