Sorry but you are mixing copyright laws again. The Teach Act does specifically and explicitly exempt dramatic works, musicals and audiovisual works and say that only "reasonable and limited portions" may be used. Deg and Michael will confirm that TEACH does NOT allow streaming entire dramatic, musical or audiovisual .You can find this at pretty much any university site on copyright that explains TEACH. There are in fact many in the academic community who think TEACH is a Trojan horse that is more limiting than "fair use" since it so explicitly exempts plays, operas, fiction films etc. I am pretty stunned that you are unaware of this because it more or less obliterates your claim that TEACH would support streaming full operas online.
Now 110 is face to face which absolutely allows entire films though limits it to a classroom or a place "devoted to instruction." It was put in place specifically for films to be allowed to shown in an actual class because without it it was not clear you could even use a film in a class at all as it would probably have violated current copyright rules when video came into use in the 70s. I totally agree that "fair use" is flexible but FYI the history of copyright is that "creative" works are much harder to justify and use longer sections than non fiction. Basically factual works have always had less protection than fiction works. I believe nearly every one of the GSU pieces involved non fiction and even there the judge accepted the majority because they did not exceed 10% ( her rule not mine) and she said 5 others probably did violate "fair use" and none was even close to an entire work. If "fair use" for classes covered entire works being made available online why is the only case to address this issue have a ruling that rejects this? I would hardly consider anything from Duke authoritative or accurate since they are the folks who said streaming Citizen Kane was OK because it "transformed" it from "entertainment " to "educational" but refused to answer if the same rule allowed Catcher on the Rye to be digitized and posted online for classroom use. They are hardly an unbiased source. We have an actual case ( and it is on appeal by the publishers who don't like the 10% as too much) which deals with the specific issues and sorry but it states pretty clearly you can't stream/post an entire work . Generally court rulings have more validity than speculation. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Carla Myers <cmye...@uccs.edu> wrote: > Hi, Jessica > > I think we need to agree to disagree here! I’ll leave you and everyone > else with a few thoughts… > > > > In Maxtone-Graham v. Burchael (803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir.)) Justice Kaufman > states that: > > “There are no absolute rules as to how much of a copyrighted work may be > copied and still be considered a fair use. In some instances, copying a > work wholesale has been held to be fair use, Sony Corp.; Williams & Wilkins > Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 > <http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/487/1345/>, 203 > Ct.Cl. 74 (1973), aff'd (per curiam), 420 U.S. 376 > <http://supreme.justia.com/us/420/376/>, 95 S.Ct. 1344, 43 L.Ed.2d 264 > (1975), while in other cases taking only a tiny portion of the original > work has been held unfair.” > > I use this quote to illustrate that looking at the overall history of fair > use lawsuits there generally are no defined percentages assigned to how > much of a work can be copied under this statute. In the Georgia State case > Judge Evans did use a 10% of a work as a measure for many of the readings, > however in her ruling she also states that: > > “the Guidelines establish numerical caps on how many words a teacher may > copy and still stay within the safe harbor. This brightline restriction > stands in contrast to the statutory scheme described in § 107, which > codified a multi-factorial analysis in which no factor is dispositive. > Thus, the Guidelines’ absolute cap, which would preclude a use from > falling within the safe harbor solely on the basis of the number of words > copied, is not compatible with the language and intent of § 107.” > > Judge Evans’ 10% test can be a bit confusing in light of this particular > statement! You can find some expert exlpinations of both the case and her > decision in these resources: > > > http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/05/12/the-gsu-decision-not-an-easy-road-for-anyone/ > > > http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2010/10/01/going-forward-with-georgia-state-lawsuit/ > > http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO1204.pdf > > > > Here’s a link to the text of 17 U.S.C. § 110(2): > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110. While it does forbid the > use of “a work produced or marketed primarily for performance or display > as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital > networks, or a performance or display that is given by means of a copy or > phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired under this title, and > the transmitting government body or accredited nonprofit educational > institution knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made and acquired > ,” I cannot find any part that explicity forbids the use of creative > works. Can you point us to the part you are refering to in your post? I’m > also curious as to how you are using/definging the term “creative works” > here. Is it as a synonym for the term “dramatic works?” Again, any > citations for statues or cases that you can provide to help us better > understand your use of this term would be helpful. > > > > As for defining the use of a “reasonable and limited” portion of a work > under the TEACH Act, I’ll utilize fair use to quote from the book *Copyright > Law for Librarians and Educators* (3rd edtion, 978-0838910924), which is > written by the wise and wonderful Dr. Kenneth D. Crews. When discussing the > TEACH Act he states that > > “A report from the Congressional Research Service suggested that someitmes > an entire audiovisual work may be allowed: > > [T]he legislative history of the Act suggests that determining what amount > is permissable should take into account the nature of the market for that > type of work and the instructional purposes of the performance. For > example, the exhibition of an entire film may possibly constitute a > “reasonable and limited” demonstration if the film’s entire viewing is > exceedingly relevant toward achieving [an] educational goal; however, the > likelyhood of an entire film portrayal being “reasonable and limited” may > rare.” > > So, while these instances may be rare, they could certianly exist! > > > > Judge Pierre Leval provides a wonderful definition of “transformative use” > in his article *Toward a Fair Use Standard*, which can be found here: > http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/levalfrustd.htm. He states that a > transformative use… > > “must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different > purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely > repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in > Justice Story's words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the > original. If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the > original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the > creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and > understandings-- this is the very type of activity that the fair use > doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.” > > Here are some great articles regarding how educational uses of works can > be transformative: > > > http://policynotes.arl.org/post/24061943604/what-does-the-gsu-decision-mean-for-the > > http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html > > > > In my example I can see that I’ve inserted a bit of the TEACH Act into my > fair use analysis in stating that streaming works should be posted to a > password protected content mangement system. Fair use certianly does not > require this! I’m just picky when it comes to ensuring that when I do reuse > any type of protected work I am making a good faith effort to balance > copyright with the needs of our users. To me, making sure that only those > student who need to access the work have access to it is one of the > stipulations of the TEACH Act that could compliment the utilization of fair > use. I’m not certain what part of my fair use example incorporated the > face-to-face teaching provision (§ 110(1)), however I think that Deg gave a > great explination of that statute in his post. > > > > The TEACH Act was written specifically for utilizing copyrighted works for > distance education. While there are a lot of points of compliance involved > in utilizing the TEACH Act, I would still encourage all of you to consider > how it may help you in deliveirng library resources and services in online > education. > > Best, > > Carla > > > > Assistant Professor > > Faculty Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications > > Kraemer Family Library > > The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs > > 719-255-3908 > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:15 PM > > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > OOPS that went way too early so start again > > sigh. There is a court ruling in which a school which put up works for > students and while it does not 100% rule out ever using an entire work it > says more than 10% would be the cut off point, it rejects 5 of the pieces > not merely for being more than 10% but for being the "heart of a work" yet > you say there is nothing written that says you can't use an entire work. > For the record opera is far more protected than most works in terms of > "Fair Use.You literally have it backwards. Creative works are given MORE > copyright protection not less than non fiction work and Opera more still > because you have music rights involved. > > > > > > The fact that an item is not available free online is totally irrelevant > as is the fact that it might or might not be on Netflix. As for "not > readily available" ( even if I thought the law covered that and I don't) > are you saying that you can't buy retail copies and it can not be licensed > from any company? Again just because it is not $3.00 does not mean it is > not available the pricing issue applies ONLY to replacing lost or damaged > copies not to being able to stream something. > > > > However the real problem is that like many you are mixing three totally > separate parts of copyright law "fair use" " Face to Face" and the Teach > Act to justify something none of them applies to. > > > > First I am totally stunned you are unaware that The Teach Act expressly > forbids the use of entire creative works and specifically mentions musical > productions. Even Michael will back me up on that. You are simply dead > wrong. TEACH specifically says that you may only use REASONABLE and > LIMITED portions" ( my emphasis) of "dramatic literary (plays). Musical > (like operas) or Audio Visual works ( fiction films)"t The entire work is > in now way covered under TEACH Feel free to look it up > > > > "Face to Face" is again VERY explicit and says it covers films shown in a > physical classroom with the instructor present. > > > > > "Fair Use" is of course the catch all for I think it is fair so I will use > it. Pretty much ignore it's entire legal history of using portions to > create new works . What exactly is transformative about your showing them > to students? What new work have you created using the least amount of > material? > > > > Again I still don't get why people are so willing to illegally stream > entire films but I would sincerely doubt they would digitize and post > entire books. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Jessica Rosner <maddux2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > sigh. There is a court ruling in which a school which put up works for > students and while it does not 100% rule out ever using an entire work it > says more than 10% would be the cut off point, it rejects 5 of the pieces > not merely for being more than 10% but for being the "heart of a work" yet > you say there is nothing written that says you can't use an entire work. > For the record opera is far more protected than most works in terms of use. > First it is as you noted a 'creative" work these are given far more > protection than factual works and music has its own seperate protection. > > > > The fact that an item is not available free online > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Carla Myers <cmye...@uccs.edu> wrote: > > Hi, Jessica > > I am not aware of any statute in that law that explicitly states “go ahead > and stream films!” However I can think of no statue in the law that states > “you absolutely cannot stream films.” > > > > Again, everything comes down to performing a thoughtful and thorough fair > use analysis in which you consider all of the facts of the situation. I > agree that streaming a film online for purely entertainment purposes would > most likely not be a fair use. However if you’re thinking of streaming a > film, be it a documentary or a popular film, to a password protected campus > content management system (like Blackboard) you could have a strong case > for fair use, especially when the subject of the film is directly related > to the course topic and will be utilized as part of class instruction > activities. For example… > > > > Say I’m teaching an online class on the history of opera. As part of my > instruction I want my students to view five different operas from five > different time periods so that they can compare and contrast operatic > styles over the ages. First I’m going to check to see if any performances > of the operas in question can be found freely available online, e.g. they > are already legally streamed by the rightsholder. If that’s the case then > I’ll post links to those websites so that my students can go watch them > there (this also generates traffic to these websites, which the > rightsholders appreciate!). If they are not freely available online I’ll > next check to see if they are available through another online avenue such > as Amazon.com. If they are available there, even if it will cost the > student $3.99 to watch each film, then I’m going to send them there to > purchase access. If I’ve done my homework and cannot find them readily > and/or legally available online I would next consider fair use… > > 1. Purpose: educational, especially if they are directly tied to my > class pedagogy and we will be providing comment and criticism on them. > > 2. Nature of the work: operas, which are highly creative. > > 3. Amount used: here’s where you want to carefully consider how > much of the work students must view in order to effectively teach a > subject. With teaching an opera history class I think I would have a strong > argument for streaming the entire work, especially if we are comparing and > contrasting operatic styles over the ages. If I was teaching a class > looking at operatic arias then I would probably only want to stream the > arias from each opera, rather than the entire work. > > 4. Effect on the market: I would say negligible as online access is > not readily available. This is an online class which has students from > across the state and perhaps even across the county participating in it, so > placing physical copies on print reserve for the students to use is not a > viable option. > > In a situation such as this I think I would have a strong argument for > posting a streaming copy of the film to a password protected content > management system such as Blackboard. > > > > There are a lot of points of compliance association with the TEACH Act > however I cannot find any part of the statute that says the law cannot be > utilized for fiction films (or did you mean feature films?)! It does also > not say that you *cannot* use an entire work. If the work is > *non-dramatic* then you are free to use the whole work. If it is > *dramatic* then the law says you can use reasonable and limited portions, > but this is not the same as saying you cannot use the entire thing! What I > interpret it to mean is that you can use the entire work so long as you > have a reasonable argument for doing so. > > > > Best, > > Carla > > > > Assistant Professor > > Faculty Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications > > Kraemer Family Library > > The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs > > 719-255-3908 > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:26 PM > > > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > Carla > > > > We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about > digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference > > > > There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan > provision that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed > in certain circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most > definitely not allowed when the work is widely available such as KANE & > CATCHER. The closest case law is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a > work allowed.. It is often forgotten that GSU WAS digitizing and > streaming entire books but took them down as soon as they were challenged > by the publishers. > > > > Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge > anyone to provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film ( > which is basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done > by some institutions) the "argument" that films were made for > "entertainment" but using them in classes is "transformative" which is the > one advanced by some at ALA is plainly absurd. If it were true than > basically any book, movie etc ever made could be streamed or posted online > for academic use. > > > > We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even > there the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass". > > > > As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the key > one being that it does not apply to fiction films > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers <cmye...@uccs.edu> wrote: > > Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire > book but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one. > First off, there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire > book could be considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this > type of statement you are generalizing about all types of use, however fair > use does not work that way. Fair use assessments must be made on a > case-by-case basis, applying the facts of the situation to each individual > item your wish to copy. I agree that it would be challenging for anyone to > claim fair use in digitizing a work as popular as *Cather in the Rye*, > however there are millions of titles that have been published that are not > as readily available this particular title that someone could make a strong > fair use argument for digitizing, especially when their purpose is > educational and/or transformative. > > > > In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film > could be considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make > sure that they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather > than just parts of it. > > > > Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has > provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works > for educational purposes. > > > > Best, > > Carla Myers > > > > Assistant Professor > > Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications > > Kraemer Family Library > > The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs > > 719-255-3908 > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM > > > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) < > brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > > 108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it. 108(i) details > which portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years > (h) and the making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do > apply to media. The copying and distribution of portions of, or entire > works to users do not apply. > > > > Here is the text: > > > > (i) The rights of reproduction and distribution under > this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or > sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than > an audiovisual work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall > apply with respect to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or > with respect to pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, > diagrams, or similar adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or > distributed in accordance with subsections (d) and (e). > > > > mb > > > > Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Cindy Wolff > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:35 AM > > > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > In some cases even though someone would be within their rights to copy > something, the rights holder tries to sue. Film companies have sued people > even for the intent of fair use. The onus is put on the entity doing the > copying. I’m not really think 108 encompasses film. > > > > The late Jack Valenti, the past president of the MPAA, did not believe in > the concept of fair use. > > > > Cindy Wolff > > > > > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [ > mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu > <videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Brewer, Michael M - > (brewerm) > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:06 PM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire > works is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, > I like to remind people that the law does allow for this in certain > circumstances. > > > > Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin > commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a > reasonable price. > > > > Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [ > mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu > <videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of > copyright ( which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it > is not in print and the rights holder does not object you could stream it. > > > > Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being > used in classes? > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) < > brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > > Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, > display, or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or > research. > > > > (h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term > of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a > nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, > distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or > phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of > preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has > first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of > the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph > (2) apply. > > > > (2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized > under this subsection if— > > > > (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation; > > > > (B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable > price; or > > > > (C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to > regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the > conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies. > > > > (3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any > subsequent uses by users other than such library or archives. > > > > > > > > Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM > > > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making > copies. > > Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting > material online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it > is pretty clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much > when it took down whole books as soon as it was sued. > > > > Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY > different. > > > > I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this. > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) < > brew...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > > Jessica, > > > > It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the > circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something > like Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of > protection that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale > at a reasonable price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation > about films (which, by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under > Section 108(h) if the they meet the same criteria). I just wanted to > clarify that it is not illegal to digitize entire works that are still > under copyright under certain circumstances, so that others are aware. > > > > mb > > > > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 > > > > Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning > > > > *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM > > > *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > > > You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly > what GSU did BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and cut > back to "chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly > the same as digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work > digitizing it and putting up for many to access without paying for rights. > Even the current GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals > court but no ruling has been issued) made it clear that you could not use > entire works and they did in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use > probably violated "fair use" and sent them back ( though this is on hold > because of the appeal). > > > > Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire > book but legal to digitize and post an entire film? When I asked this at > ALA of one of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting > question" > > > > Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works > are given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less > worthy of copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted > collection policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often > the exception but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before) > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham <rgrah...@unl.edu> wrote: > > How do you stream a book? > > Richard Graham > Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian > > N220 Love Library > University of Nebraska-Lincoln > Lincoln, NE 68588-4100 > > phone: 402.472.5410 > email: rgrah...@unl.edu > > > ________________________________________ > From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [ > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] on behalf of Jessica Rosner [ > maddux2...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM > To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim > it is "fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the > same with all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean > if it "fair use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)? > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros <milefi...@gmail.com<mailto: > milefi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Dear deg (and all), > > I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit > Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read > the word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming > out by February. > > Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I > appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much > more. $300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus > $10 for a DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's > students to buy even though its ten times better quality than streaming and > comes with context and content. > > And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm > not disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just > partaking of gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a thing as a > Grapefruit Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped > going out to bars together when he discovered that I had to use Google to > spell his name correctly. > > > > > Best regards, > Dennis Doros > Milestone Film & Video > PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640 > Phone: 201-767-3117<tel:201-767-3117> / Fax: 201-767-3035<tel:201-767-3035> > / Email: milefi...@gmail.com<mailto:milefi...@gmail.com> > > Visit our main website! www.milestonefilms.com< > http://www.milestonefilms.com/> > Visit our new websites! www.mspresents.com<http://www.mspresents.com>, > www.portraitofjason.com<http://www.portraitofjason.com>, > www.shirleyclarkefilms.com<http://www.shirleyclarkefilms.com/>, > To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here< > http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0150/7896/files/2014MilestoneVideoCatalog.pdf?75 > >! > > Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook< > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milestone-Film/22348485426> and Twitter< > https://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>! > > See the website: Association of Moving Image Archivists< > http://www.amianet.org/> and like them on Facebook< > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-of-Moving-Image-Archivists/86854559717 > > > AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 2014< > http://www.amianet.org/> > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad <mosh...@uiwtx.edu > <mailto:mosh...@uiwtx.edu>> wrote: > Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care. > > Farhad > > -----Original Message----- > From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> [mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto: > videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>] On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM > To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu> > Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles > > 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<tel:602.332.3103> > > > > On 9/29/14 11:36 AM, "videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto: > videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu>" > > <videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto: > 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. > > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential or > contain privileged information and are intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this email in > error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of > this email and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this email in error, please immediately delete the email and any > attachments from your system and notify the sender. Any other use of this > e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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.
