I would add "collusion" to his list but I can't spell it.
Allow me to complicate this even more:
Digital rights and digital transmission rights and digital
delivery I take as three distinct animals.
I can pay for the right to make a digital copy of a title
(or several copies) which I can then circulate like a VHS
tape. But it does not give me permission to transmit or
deliver the content.
Digital transmission I further reduce to IP Delivery Rights
to make plain that the content will be delivered over the
Internet rather by digital cablecast or digital broadcast.
Delivery is an important distinction to make clear that the
content is delivered at the request of the client - just as
a VHS tape is delivered on request - as opposed to
Transmission at a specific time or according to a published
schedule (notably to multiple points as in a broadcast,
cablecast or a webcast).
In our case (non streaming - download on demand), we
make it clear to the vendors that caching is to be expected
and is a necessity of some client locations. Our track
record of continual training of clients in copyright and
license obligations continues from VHS into digital
delivery. We could never stop a user from hooking two vcr's
together anymore than we can stop them from ripping an mpg
disc or storing it on a server locally.
Ironically, it is easier for us to find these little
stashes of video content on client servers then to find a
closet full of illegal educational video tapes.
But the original question went to "documentary" video from
a "small producer." I suspect that the copyright holder
will come up with a vastly over stated value of the
production based on a poor understanding of how digital
video is used in education and it will make more sense for
the university to buy the hard copy video.
Starting in 1999 when we began negotiating (read
pleading) for digital IP rights of titles we already owned
(some five deep, and some with dupe rights already) and
agreeable figure could not be reached. Today, some of the
same vendors (in the extreme) are giving away IP rights as
bonus product. (See I can talk this way because I'm not a
seller and I'm not quoting anything that can't be found in
a vendors catalog or web site.)
Reminds me of the good old days when duplication
rights were going to ruin the industry . . .
But, I could be wrong.
"The obscure we see eventually, the completely obvious
Edward R. Morrow
Rick Faaberg wrote:
> On 4/2/03 7:07 AM "Jonathan Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org> sent this out:
> > Well I think it'd be great if there'd be more discussion on list, I think
> > its appropriate, because this is an issue I think many of us are facing
> > more and more and specific comments, ideas and experiences from both
> > vendors and video users on this list would be very interesting and helpful.
> > I think.
> It (discussion on a public list) about product pricing and such would be
> very useful in the legal sense of demonstrating in spades the concepts of
> "restraint of trade" and "price fixing" or "insert similar legal
> catch-phrase of choice here".
> I have an attorney's opinion about such discussions on public email lists
> and/or forums and his recommendation is loosely "don't do it" and "if you
> are, stop it right now".
> I can't find his email right now, but if anybody wants it I'll look for it.
> I might also need to get his clearance to further share it.
> But beyond that... I believe that once you have come to agreement with your
> vendor of choice as to how you are implementing 100% security on your
> streaming delivery system, many distributors have viewed streaming rights as
> roughly equivalent to "duplication rights" (some exceptions of course). So
> as a rough estimate, hark back to dupe rights' average cost and that would
> probably be close enough for budget purposes FOR DOCUMENTARY, EDUCATIONAL
> materials. Feature films - no go, believe me! :-)
> > ............................ ...........
> Videolib mailing list
Videolib mailing list