Jessica
PS You might get a second copy of this because due to my confusion
with Ryan's name being first it hit the UCB censor and I could not figure
out why
-- Jessica Rosner Kino International 333 W 39th St. 503 NY NY 10018 jrosner@kino.com 212-629-6880> From: "Ryan Whitehead" <ryan@facets.org> > Reply-To: ryan@facets.org, videolib@library.berkeley.edu > Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:41:36 -0500 > To: <videolib@library.berkeley.edu> > Subject: RE: [Videolib] Re: promotional copies > > I just looked at the sticker on several promotional copies. It reads "FOR > PREVIEW ONLY - Not For Sale of Rental." Even if you assume that any time > someone places a disclaimer anywhere on an object or message that you are > obliged to abide by the stated terms as if they were contractual, this > doesn't specifically forbid library "lending"; it is not "sale" or "rental"; > right? Nor, strictly speaking, is it "distribution." And aren't library > patrons merely "previewing" the film? Perhaps they will later purchase a > copy? One can dismiss this as semantics, but Jed's point that copyright > pertains only to copying and certain types of performances is the real item > under contention, not his contention that lending screeners is a moral act > of disobedience. I can see why many will consider staking claim to the moral > high ground to be a stretch. > > Sincerely, > > Ryan Whitehead > > DISCLAIMER: Reading this message implies a contractual agreement to send me > 85% of your current net worth. Failure to do so will be considered a breach > of contract and appropriate legal action will be taken. You have been > warned! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu > [mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu]On Behalf Of Jessica > Rosner > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:39 AM > To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu > 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 > and white > 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 > > Jessica Rosner > Kino International > 333 W 39th St. 503 > NY NY 10018 > jrosner@kino.com > 212-629-6880 > >> From: "Jed Horovitz" <JedH@internetvideoarchive.com> >> Reply-To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu >> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:59:46 -0400 >> To: <videolib@library.berkeley.edu> >> Subject: RE: [Videolib] Re: promotional copies >> >> As someone who has been getting all kinds of promos, since they were > vinyl, >> 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 > that >> 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 > the >> 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 > to >> 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 > have >> 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. > I >> never sell them. These are my personal terms of use. >> >> Jed >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu >> [mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu]On Behalf Of John F. >> Fossett >> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:34 PM >> To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu >> Subject: [Videolib] Re: promotional copies >> >> >> Hey, >> One of our patrons has donated his collection of videos to the library. > The >> 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 >> knowledge? >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. — >> Charles Darwin >> >> John F. Fossett >> Media Librarian >> Kitsap Regional Library >> 1301 Sylvan Way >> Bremerton, WA 98310 >> (360)405-9101 >> john@krl.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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