Re: [Videolib] public performance in public libraries

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Maybe in reply to: TMontri: "[Videolib] public performance in public libraries"
• Next in thread: John Muller: "Re: [Videolib] public performance in public libraries"

In a message dated 6/4/03 11:45:32 AM, JedH@videopipeline.com writes:

> I know I am not DEAD wrong. I have just completed a documentary on this
> subject and have consulted numerous copyright attorneys and scholars for t=
he
> last three years.=A0 =A0 There are important differences between a screeni=
ng
> with paid admission, a screening in a money making establishment, a public
> screening in a library, a screening to a private group in a library and a
> viewing by three library patrons who check out a video in a viewing
> equipment room. None of these meet the definition of your mythical 'home u=
se
> only'.=A0 The right to control public performances covered in copyright la=
w is
> very limited but has been expanded by backroom settlements in courthouses.
> We are not obligated to those settlements regardless of what our fearful o=
r
> your aggressive lawyers may say.
>=20

Dear Jed,
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. I would not usually respond to informatio=
n=20
so out in left field but to have these messages permanently archived just=20
grates on me. Gary is definitely an expert on Title 17 and its ramifications=
, and=20
Jessica in her years in the business is just as knowledgable. As for=20
copyright, I have a fairly extensive background in this field, took many cou=
rses in=20
media law in college, and have indeed lectured on copyright law in regard to=
=20
film. I have read all the laws and many, many of the decisions.

Unless you can cite laws and examples to support your argument, Title 17 of=20
the US Copyright Law found at <A HREF=3D"http://www.copyright.gov/title17/">=
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/</A> is quite=20
explicit. There are no "backroom settlements" that can alter law, and courtr=
oom=20
decisions are part of EVERY law in the US. That's why courts exist -- to int=
erpret=20
laws and set precedents. If you're talking about the Sonny Bono copyright=20
extension passed by Congress, it was definitely influenced and bought for by=
the=20
music and film industries, but as much as you may dislike the conditions,=20
that's also part of the legal system. How many roads, buildings and projects=
are=20
started because politicians benefit by them? And frankly, none of that matte=
rs,=20
as none of this even effects the definition of what is public performance an=
d=20
what is home use. Please see link above.

I'm sorry, but if you've talked to lawyers and copyright experts who say=20
otherwise, I would love to know their names and phone numbers so I could lea=
rn=20
more.

As for the other emails that asked about being ethical when administrators=20
and professors don't want to listen, I completely understand the problem and=
=20
sympathize. I also understand the desire not to pry into an individual's usa=
ge of=20
materials and equipment -- especially after recent federal decisions and=20
demands. Few decisions are ever black and white in reality and on the whole,=
I=20
believe the people on this listserv are here because they do treat their job=
s=20
seriously and have a high level of professionalism.=20

And may I point out, Kino nor Milestone has EVER sued a library or=20
institution or individual over public performance nor have we ever had backr=
oom=20
settlements to take advantage over anybody. We are distributors because we l=
ove film=20
and want to share this love. But we also have to protect the interests of th=
e=20
filmmakers who entrust their films to us.

The end of my rant. I will not speak on this subject until the next time its=
=20
brought up. (Shall we meet again next year?)

Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: (800) 603-1104 or (201) 767-3117
Fax: (201) 767-3035
Email: milefilms@aol.com
www.milestonefilms.com

--part1_1ef.a487f66.2c0fb8a9_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 6/4/03 11:45:32 AM, JedH@v= ideopipeline.com writes:

I know I am not DEAD=20= wrong. I have just completed a documentary on this
subject and have consulted numerous copyright attorneys and scholars for the=
last three years.=A0 =A0 There are important differences between a screening=
with paid admission, a screening in a money making establishment, a public screening in a library, a screening to a private group in a library and a viewing by three library patrons who check out a video in a viewing
equipment room. None of these meet the definition of your mythical 'home use=
only'.=A0 The right to control public performances covered in copyright law=20= is
very limited but has been expanded by backroom settlements in courthouses. We are not obligated to those settlements regardless of what our fearful or<= BR> your aggressive lawyers may say.