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.

Reply via email to