TEACH is ostensibly geared to another one of those compromise conceptions
as far as distance ed. is concerned. In effect, even while it abandons the
classroom as a physical space, it tries to retain the concept of a class as
a quasi-meeting environment structured into a sequentially developing event
with an overall time limit.
A mouthful that produces the following ideas from TEACH:
1. The network replaces the classroom facility--but students do NOT have to
access the same material at the same time. E.g., asynchronous access is
fine. In this respect the equivalence between a physical and virtual class
is compromised in the educator's favor.
2. Even though you could show an entire video program in a physical space
"class session"--TEACH limits you only to "reasonable portions". In this
respect the idea of equivalence between physical and virtual class is
compromised NOT in the educator's favor.
3. The asynchronous access by students is limited/compromised by another
idea, too: that the material made available cannot necessarily be left up
on the server for the entire duration of the course (e.g., a semester). The
thinking, apparently: You have to make progress through a course--whether
it's got class periods where you meet, or online "modules" to move through
and master. Once the material for a module or section of the course is
over, it should not be accessible. (Until, perhaps, you make it available
again as a "review" module near the course's end.)
You can see that the conception of DE here is limited by these provisions.
That's because working out TEACH *was* a compromise between educators/users
and copyright holders. People in ed are aware it doesn't give everything
we'd like for totally flexible DE. And the compromises help alleviate
content owners' concerns about unrestricted access and duplication of their
property. So, for example: You need password access, and at least some
attempt to educate and restrict unauthorized duplication of material under
TEACH. But we know none of that is perfectly practical yet. On the other
hand, by not making such material available for the longest period it could
be--the entire course length (#3 above)--and not making the entirety of a
work available, you help damage control the existing weaknesses in perfect
protection for the time the material *is* available from the server and the
amount of it as well. The window of abuse becomes narrower. Even as the
burden on the educator becomes a little greater. Still, the advantage to an
educator is more than most institutions have felt comfortable in
undertaking on their own without new legislative sanction.
How all of this will play out in the everyday world of DE (once TEACH is
real) will be interesting.
As for Barbara's question re: the definition of "performance video", I'm
not sure I understand what you mean here?
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:42 AM -0700 Barbara Black
> My questions:
> Does this bill address streaming an entire video for students enrolled in
> a specific on-campus course to access 24/7 for a specific number of days
> or weeks, assuming access to the viewing is password protected?
> Or, does this mean all enrolled in the course viewing just a portion of a
> video at one specific time (this seems impossible because many servers
> could not handle the traffic of many simultaneous hits and this is not
> true distance education).
> And what is this definition of performance video ala The Technology
> Harmonization and Education Act?
> Curious minds NEED to know.
> Barbara Black
> Video Library
> Information Technology Services
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> Stadium 343, Gate 11
> 379 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0379
> Voice: (303) 492-1816
> FAX: (303) 492-7017
> E-mail: Barbara.Black@colorado.edu
>> thinking about your question, what is the difference between this and
>> showing it in an auditoreum as a required class assingment? Not much in
>> my opinion. I think that you have a good argument here that this is
>> replacing mass screenings (which I schedule all of the time for the
>> language instructors). We don't need public performance rights for that.
>> Interested in how this turns out...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jessica Rosner [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:15 PM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
>> Subject: Re: video streaming on course reserve web site
>> Two questions
>> Did it in fact become law?
>> The article referred to "portions" of films so I assume this means it
>> would not cover a WHOLE film thus not help Jeff in this case.
>> Still open to other ideas on this but it does not seem on point
>> Jessica Rosner
>> Kino International
>> 333 W 39th St. 503
>> NY NY 10018
>>> From: Gary Handman <email@example.com>
>>> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
>>> Subject: Re: video streaming on course reserve web site
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>>> Hi Jeff:
>>> The Technology Harmonization and Education Act (but can you tap your
>>> foot to it?) may (may may may) cover our backsides on this point. Check
>>> out: http://chronicle.com/free/2002/07/2002071801t.htm
>>> At 02:18 PM 9/17/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>>>> We are starting to think about streaming video, and of course pubic
>>>> performance issues arise. Would public performance permission be
>>>> required if a video is being streamed over a course reserve web site
>>>> where only students enrolled in the class could access and view the
>>>> stream? An argument could be made that the face-to-face teaching
>>>> exemption would apply. (Those faces are just a bit farther apart.)
>>>> ~~~~ Jeffrey W. Pearson Phone: (734) 763-3758
>>>> Librarian, Film & Video Library Fax: (734) 764-7087
>>>> University of Michigan e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>> Shapiro Library, Room 2178
>>>> 919 S. University
>>>> Ann Arbor MI 48109-1185
>>> Gary Handman
>>> Media Resources Center
>>> Moffitt Library
>>> UC Berkeley
>>> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>>> Hi Jeff:<br>
>>> The Technology Harmonization and Education Act (but can you tap your
>>> foot to it?) may (may may may) cover our backsides on this point.
>>> Check out:
>>> <a href="http://chronicle.com/free/2002/07/2002071801t.htm"
>>> At 02:18 PM 9/17/2002 -0700, you wrote:<br>
>>> <blockquote type=cite cite>We are starting to think about streaming
>>> video, and of course pubic <br>
>>> performance issues arise. Would public performance permission be <br>
>>> required if a video is being streamed over a course reserve web site
>>> where only students enrolled in the class could access and view the
>>> stream? An argument could be made that the face-to-face teaching <br>
>>> exemption would apply. (Those faces are just a bit farther apart.)<br>
>>> -- <br>
>>> ~~~<br> Jeffrey W.
>>> Pearson<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>
>>> nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &nb
>>> sp;&nbs p; </x-tab>Phone:
>>> (734) 763-3758<br>
>>> Librarian, Film & Video
>>> Library<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>
>>> & nbsp;</x-tab>Fax:
>>> (734) 764-7087<br>
>>> University of
>>> Michigan<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>
>>> </x-tab><x-tab> &n
>>> bsp;</x -tab>e-mail:
>>> Shapiro Library, Room 2178<br>
>>> 919 S. University<br>
>>> Ann Arbor MI 48109-1185</blockquote><br>
>>> <div>Gary Handman</div>
>>> <div>Media Resources Center</div>
>>> <div>Moffitt Library</div>
>>> <div>UC Berkeley</div>
>>> <a href="http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC"
Media Resources (MSC 1701)
James Madison University