Lording one's corporate legal budget over librarians is what is
reprehensible. The collateral damage to our 'free' society is that we are
rapidly becoming a 'permission based' one.
PS. This has nothing to do with the previews sent to my business per our
but applies to unsolicited copies of movies and records sent to an
individual. It is like junk mail and spam.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Jessica
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Re: promotional copies
Normally I would leave this alone since the answer is an obvious no
but the idea that you would be setting a good "moral" example by using them
is so absurd I have to comment. Screeners are sent by companies to critics
Academy voters etc who agree NOT to give them out, that is WHY they have the
notice to begin with. The person offering the "donation" is in my mind
committing the immoral act by offering something he was told not to give out
These are SCREENERS not intended for public use which is EXACTLY why they
have the warning right on the box and the tape. This IS a contract in black
On the PRACTICAL side most screeners have pop up warnings throughout the
tape and I would startled if some or most of these did not so they would
be unlikely to be of any use anyway.
On a personal note, I find it reprehensible that Jed thinks it is fine
to give away screeners with clear warnings from companies that presumably
sent them as review copies or to be used on his search engine
Don't expect any from Kino
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
> From: "Jed Horovitz" <JedH@internetvideoarchive.com>
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:59:46 -0400
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: RE: [Videolib] Re: promotional copies
> As someone who has been getting all kinds of promos, since they were
> I can tell you it comes down to the issue of do you believe that 'shrink
> wrap' licenses supercede the 'first sale doctrine'. If you do, then you
> can't use them because they are limited by that license. If you think
> a one sided notification is not a contract or if you think that a contract
> between two other parties is not binding on a third or if you think that
> agreement is made moot by a 'constitutional right' than you can use them.
> On a practical note, what is your liability? Copyright does not pertain
> the object just the copying and certain performances. If it is a valid
> contract, than are you a party?
> In my opinion it is a moral question. What does your institution believe
> and what example does it want to set? I think you should use them. I
> been donating mine to the FOL for years and will continue to do so unless
> the sender(s) asks me to return them after viewing and pays the shipping.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of John F.
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:34 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [Videolib] Re: promotional copies
> One of our patrons has donated his collection of videos to the library.
> catch: He's votes on the Emmys and these are all copies given to him for
> review. I told the branch manager that I don't belive we can add them, all
> have "Not for sale or distribution" labels. Anyone care to share their
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. —
> Charles Darwin
> John F. Fossett
> Media Librarian
> Kitsap Regional Library
> 1301 Sylvan Way
> Bremerton, WA 98310
> Videolib mailing list
> Videolib mailing list
Videolib mailing list