How could the GSU case be used to justify digitizing ENTIRE works when it was very clear that only limited portions qualified and even used 10% as a nearly hard rule? I would also point out that the appeal arguments seemed to go very badly for Georgia State even on the limited portions though the no decision has been issued. The GSU judge even ruled that 3 of the pieces did not seem to qualify under the 10% rule ( theirs not mine as I think both sides hated that) as they seemed to cover the "heart of the work"
Ironically I think the GSU case is by far the closest ruling that makes streaming anything other than portions of films clearly illegal. Bad for publishers but good for filmmakers. On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Deg Farrelly <deg.farre...@asu.edu> wrote: > Farhad > > No, you are correct. > > The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity from > being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the copyright). > Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied > the waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in > question, and other points. The the case was NOT decided based on merits. > > Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a > victory for libraries and essentially permitting digitization. But long > story short, there has been no case law established on either side of the > issue of libraries digitizing without permission. > > SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally > acquired content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in > the Georgia State University case. > > Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in > academic libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in > November, and published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes > some data on the extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their > collections. > > -deg farrelly > > deg farrelly > ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian > Arizona State University Libraries > Tempe, AZ 85287-1006 > 602.332.3103 > > > > On 9/29/14 11:36 AM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu" > <videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > > > >It is my understanding that according to the copyright law, you?re not > >allowed to change the format of audiovisual materials without permission. > >The famous case of Berkeley vs. Ambrose Video was dismissed due to > >technicalities and Berkeley being a state institution. It was not > >dismissed based on copyright law. Am I wrong on this? > > > >Farhad Moshiri, MLS > > > 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.
