Apart from the technical issues involved in the use of its content for
TEACH-type distance ed applications, DVD is the format that most often came
up in the Copyright Office's rulemaking on proposed exemptions 3 years ago.
It's risen again, this time in the current rulemaking. As you may know, the
major means for "cracking" DVD content--DeCSS--lost in the courts as a
violation of the DMCA 1201 prohibition on circumventing "access controls"
to copyrighted works.
(By the way, whatever DVD's usefulness (or not) for distance ed purposes,
its inclusion in the Chronicle article as an illustration was not my own
suggestion but the article writer's.)
TEACH, in a nutshell, (1) requires you to use the digital version of a work
where it is available, unless (2) the digital version is technically
protected in a manner that thwarts networked use under provisions of TEACH.
Then you can use the analog version. If it exists.
The point made in the article is, what about the possibility that an analog
version doesn't exist, but (2) applies? You'd need an exemption to be legal
to operate under TEACH, as well as fair use.
However, I doubt this will come up much. I can't think of an example at
present, and the market--as well as our desire to collect digital for the
future--will probably take care of the issue by offering what we need,
whether for use under TEACH, under license arrangements, or fair use for
that matter. But one can't be absolutely sure this will happen in every
case as we start to apply TEACH....
--On Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:06 PM -0500 "Mark W. Kopp"
> DVD, which is basically an MPEG-2 format, is not a good format for
> On-line delivery. The files are extremely large and don't make good
> "candidates" for that process. The MPEG-1 (Windows Media Player, Real,
> etc.) are very common, and the .mov files used with Quicktime look to be
> the most promising, not to say that there aren't others that could work.
> That said, I am watching for the first issues to well up regarding the
> argument that the DVD IS a Digital Format and that conversion to a
> "deliverable" format will not be allowed. It is my opinion that, going
> forward, a Media Center should want to purchase the Digitized material
> from a vendor, as it is a very time consuming and costly process, to
> encode and encrypt a file the size of a full length, full motion digital
> video. It is also my opinion that we should be viewing the TEACH Act as
> the legislation that keeps our CURRENT collection a viable resource, in
> that it is digitizable only if needed. Our future purchase decisions need
> to take into consideration whether or not the Media Center wishes to
> deliver a Digital product or not.
> In our situation, we are most likely looking at some level of duality,
> where we will purchase the VHS and Digital (not DVD) file for a limited
> time and in limited qty's until such time that the VHS copies are no
> longer the format of choice. We transformed our library from 16mm to VHS
> at one time. Now it's time for another transformation.
> Whatever format shakes itself out to be the format of choice, the Media
> Centers need to maintain control of the delivery process by establishing
> the infrastructure and resources necessary to carry us to the next
> generation of Educational Media.
> At 08:56 AM 3/25/03 -0800, you wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have a question concerning something I read in some TEACH materials.
> It said that if something was digital you could not make an analog copy
> to use. Now DVD are digital media and VHS is analog, so if that is the
> case, then we can't use DVDs for the source material for online content,
> correct? And if that is so, then we don't have to worry about breaking
> the code to put the material up for access. Does this make sense?
> John H. Streepy
> Media Assistant III
> Library-Media Circulation
> Central Washington University Library
> 400 E. 8th AVE
> Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548
> (509) 963-2861
>>>> firstname.lastname@example.org 03/25/03 07:59AM >>>
> And from last week's Chronicle...
> -----Original Message-----
> This article is available online at this address:
> Tuesday, March 18, 2003
> College Media Group Cautions That 2 Copyright Laws Could
> By ANDREA L. FOSTER
> A group representing college media centers is warning the U.S.
> Copyright Office about a possible conflict between two federal
> laws, one meant to limit electronic access to copyrighted
> material and the other designed to broaden access to the same
> material for online education.
> At issue are the Technology Education and Copyright
> Harmonization Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
> The first measure is known as the Teach Act and was signed
> into law in November. It amended copyright law to allow
> college instructors to use nondramatic works, such as news
> articles and novels, and portions of dramatic works, such as
> movies, in online courses without paying fees and without
> seeking the copyright holder's permission.
> The second law, which took effect in 1998, has a section that
> makes it illegal to bypass technologies that block access to
> copyrighted material. In a letter sent last month to the
> Copyright Office, the Consortium of College and University
> Media Centers says it wants clarification of that section of
> the digital-copyright law, known as the anti-circumvention
> What worries the media centers is that colleges might not be
> allowed to bypass copying protections even when they need to
> do so to use materials from CDs and DVDs for distance
> education, as permitted by the Teach Act in certain
> circumstances. The problem arises when digital materials are
> not also released in non-digital formats that the colleges can
> fall back on, such as print.
> The group represents 312 college media centers, many of which
> are responsible for helping faculty members create online
> The group's letter was among dozens sent to the copyright
> office. It is considering exceptions to the anti-circumvention
> provision, as it is legally required to do every three years.
> Noting that colleges have barely begun to apply the provisions
> of the Teach Act, the group says that given the law's "great
> promise and its expected wholesale adoption by nonprofit
> higher education ... we cannot wait another three years to
> deal with the impact of this conflict after the fact."
> Jeff Clark, the chairman of the college media group's
> government regulations and public-policy committee, wrote the
> letter. He says he knows of no specific cases in which
> colleges have felt constrained from taking advantage of the
> Teach Act because of the anti-circumvention provision.
> "It was more a proactive measure," he says.
> Allan R. Adler, vice president for legal and governmental
> affairs for the Association of American Publishers, which
> helped draft the Teach Act, says the kind of conflict that Mr.
> Clark's letter describes would be "very rare." Publishers of
> books and journals almost always have analog versions of
> digital material. Those that do not often market digital
> material specifically for educational purposes, he says.
> Later this year, the Copyright Office is expected to reveal
> its opinions on the comments it has received during hearings
> on the issue.
> You may visit The Chronicle as follows:
> Copyright 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
> Videolib mailing list
> Videolib mailing list
> *** Mark W. Kopp
> Circulation Coordinator
> Appalachia Intermediate Unit 8
> Instructional Materials Services Department
> 580 Foot of Ten Road
> Duncansville, Pa 16635
> (814) 695-1972 Phone
> (814) 695-3018 Fax
> See us on the Web at:
> Click on; "Instructional Materials Services"
Media Resources (MSC 1701)
James Madison University
Videolib mailing list