There are an awful lot on confusing if not contractory things in this
section but I believe it was intended to protect rare material from
disappearing , and clearly restricts both the type of material to be copied
AND the way in which the copy may be accesseed
Back to lunch
( technically not at work Gary)
-- Jessica Rosner Kino International 333 W 39th St. 503 NY NY 10018 jrosner@kino.com 212-629-6880> From: Troy Davis <tdavis@email.lib.utk.edu> > Reply-To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu > Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:57:01 -0400 > To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu > Subject: Re: [Videolib] Copyright ( My last word) > > This is an interesting conversation because it allows us to articulate > (and ultimately balance) a constellation of rights outlined in the statute. > > Section 108 does allow libraries to reproduce copyrighted works (again, > under certain conditions, which have little to do with belief). Your > question is interesting...I've always thought that was rather funny, > libraries are able to reproduce stolen works?? (see an analysis/opinion > of this below). > > Ok, I'm not trying to be anthemic or contrary, but here's a respectfully > submitted argument (remember, I'm not an expert!); given that section > 110(1) says that the following is not an infringement: "performance or > display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face > teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a > classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, UNLESS, in the case > of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the > display of individual images, is given by means of a COPY THAT WAS NOT > LAWFULLY MADE UNDER THIS TITLE, and that the person responsible for the > performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made" > (emphasis added) > > Didn't we just articulate that copies made under section 108 are in fact > "lawfully made" copies. > > So, one could argue that its NOT very clear that copies lawfully made > under section 108 cannot then be performed or displayed under the > conditions of 110(1). > > It IS unfortunate that there's no statutory definition for > "deteriorating," and "fair price." There is for obsolescence...and > according to the definition, 16mm and VHS are not obsolete. > > And finally, if all the conditions of the statute are met, then yes, > reproducing copyrighted works is lawful. > > And for the record, I appreciate your candor and the great job you do! > We should all worry about the slippery slope and we can at least make > every attempt to avoid it by doing our best to understand the law, and, > extending, as you suggest, common courtesies to rightsholders if necessary. > > Best, > Troy > > > > Here's an analysis from Kenneth Crews.... > http://www.dml.indiana.edu/html/crews-sec108/section108overview.html > "Consider again the vinyl LP. The library will need to evaluate the work > to determine that in fact it is "deteriorating" and then conduct an > investigation of the market to affirm that an unused replacement is not > available. The language of these provisions leaves much for the library > staff to evaluate without further guidance from the law. Neither the > statute nor any judicial decision defines the meaning of > "deteriorating," so the library must reach its own conclusion about the > condition of the work and the defensibility of that conclusion. The wear > and distortion on the LP may well be grounds for deeming the work > "deteriorated," and the library should document the condition of the > original and maintain records to justify the conclusion, should its > actions ever by questioned. > > Similarly, the statute makes clear that the library need only search for > an "unused" replacement and thus need not search the secondary markets, > but the law does not clarify the meaning of a "fair price." The library > staff will need to make a judgment in light of customary prices for > similar works. Moreover, the notion of a "replacement" can be > complicated. Researchers may want only an analog recording, while a > digital version on CD-ROM might be readily available for purchase. > Whether the CD is in fact an available "replacement" for the LP probably > depends on specific needs of the library and its users and whether the > CD can be satisfactory, or if a copy of the analog version is necessary. > In all of these instances, the statute ultimately calls on the library > to evaluate circumstances reasonably and to justify the decisions. > > Jessica Rosner wrote: > >> Well after two Cub blowouts in AZ I am too deflated to go on with this >> and I am sure everyone is suitably bored but a few random points >> >> Assume that you believe that section 108 allows you to copy any damaged , >> lost or stolen work ( by the way how do you copy a lost or stolen video ?) >> work that you can't replace at "reasonable" price, one thing that is VERY >> clear is that this for research/ archival use and could not therefor ever be >> used in a class which I confess is my main paranoia. I am also curious on >> defining terms like damaged ( is a 16mm doing red, a vhs getting jumpy?) and >> even more the concept of replacement at fair price. If you were referring >> for instance to a 16mm FEATURE film , most of these cost over $1,000 and in >> fact costs have gone up but SWANK for instance will still lease a 16mm of >> most of their library but they run $3,000 on up for something you probably >> really want on DVD anyway. Here is a video example I was thinking about. >> Kino used to own the home video rights to Aki Kaurismaki's THE MATCH FACTORY >> GIRL ( one of my favorites) but they expired a few years ago and a deal to >> license them for DVD to another company from the owner fell through and the >> are currently being "shopped" around. Suppose your video copy was damaged, >> and you can't get a new one because it out of print. Do you believe section >> 108 allows you to make a DVD under these circumstances. I am just asking but >> personally I don't believe this is either the intent or letter of the law >> and this is the kind of thing I worry about. > > " > > >> >> Lastly I never meant to imply that anyone would really get sued because >> as a practical matter you could burn your entire media collection on DVD >> and be pretty sure you would never get caught. My point was that if you >> believe that you what are doing is legal , you should inform the rights >> holder ( assuming that you know who it is) and be willing to stand up >> for your position. >> >> I am more or less feature film centric and I realize that there are >> serious issues with legitimately rare, impossible to replace or track down >> educational material but I worry about the slippery slope. >> >> For the record I think you guys do a great job trying to protect >> rights especially in relation to academics & students who often >> seem to have little concern or understanding of the issues involved >> >> Now if Maddux does not win tonight I am going be REALLY, REALLY >> Grumpy > > -- > M. Troy Davis > Media Services Librarian > University of Tennessee Libraries :: The Studio > 245 John C. Hodges Library > Knoxville, TN 37996 > (865)974-6396 > troydavis@utk.edu > http://www.lib.utk.edu/mediacenter/studio > > _______________________________________________ > Videolib mailing list > Videolib@library.berkeley.edu > http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib
_______________________________________________ Videolib mailing list Videolib@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib