RE: [Videolib] Eyes on the Prize

Mark W. Kopp (iu8film@iu08.org)
Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:50:19 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C50516.64FFC3F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've been curious about an issue somewhat related to this whole
discussion. The "issue" that seems to cause the most angst, seems to be
the idea that there are "time-limited" rights, vs rights in perpetuity.
My opinion (the value of which wouldn't get ya a cup of coffee), is that
"time-limited" rights are absolutely loathsome, but.....

Is there ANY place in the current text/definition of Copyright
legislation, that spells out the legalities, or permissions, or
responsibilities, or differences between, etc, etc, etc, "time-limited"
rights, vs. "rights in perpetuity". WHY should someone need to
"re-purchase" a right? Is it a mutually negotiated/contracted civil
"deal", or is there actual legislation that spells out that the rights
CAN be limited?

Please excuse my lack of deep knowledge of the Copyright Act. I'm not in
the same "trenches" as many of you. I do know that in the current K-12
media market, there are many digital offers, that come with a "time
limit". I can tell you that, as long as I am making the purchase
decisions, OUR LIBRARY WILL NOT PURCHASE (vendors take note) A TIME
LIMITED PRODUCT! It's perpetuity or nothing. Heck, we don't even have
the resources to track what's in perpetuity and what is "time limited".

For those of you who are working to make changes, maybe this should be
the direction to aim your solicitors.

Thanks,

Mark
************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Eileen
Karsten
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:57 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Eyes on the Prize

I think it was mentioned on this list, but there was an article in Wired
in December, 2004 about the problems we rereleasing Eyes on the Prize.
It is not just one scene in the series. To quote the article: "
Filmmakers must pay for the rights to use every song, photograph or
video clip included in the film." Also in the article it states: " it
will cost nearly $500,000 to clear rights. Forman hopes to get the
series back on television by 2006." If you have not seen the article,
it is at:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Bgbwi2yPQ4AJ:www.wired.com/news/cul
ture/0,1284,66106,00.html+%22eyes+on+the+prize%22+article
<http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Bgbwi2yPQ4AJ:www.wired.com/news/cu
lture/0,1284,66106,00.html+%22eyes+on+the+prize%22+article&hl=en> &hl=en

Eileen Karsten
Head of Technical Services
Lake Forest College
555 N. Sheridan Road
Lake Forest, IL 60045


------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C50516.64FFC3F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Message

I've = been curious=20 about an issue somewhat related to this whole discussion. The "issue" = that seems=20 to cause the most angst, seems to be the idea that there are = "time-limited"=20 rights, vs rights in perpetuity. My opinion (the value of which wouldn't = get ya=20 a cup of coffee), is that "time-limited" rights are absolutely = loathsome,=20 but.....
 
Is = there ANY=20 place in the current text/definition of Copyright legislation, that = spells out=20 the legalities, or permissions, or responsibilities, or differences = between,=20 etc, etc, etc, "time-limited" rights, vs. "rights in perpetuity". WHY = should=20 someone need to "re-purchase" a right? Is it a mutually = negotiated/contracted=20 civil "deal", or is there actual legislation that spells out that the = rights CAN=20 be limited?
 
Please excuse my=20 lack of deep knowledge of the Copyright Act. I'm not in  the same=20 "trenches" as many of you. I do know that in the current K-12 media = market,=20 there are many digital offers, that come with a "time limit". I can tell = you=20 that, as long as I am making the purchase decisions, OUR LIBRARY WILL = NOT=20 PURCHASE (vendors take note) A TIME LIMITED PRODUCT!  It's = perpetuity or=20 nothing. Heck, we don't even have the resources to track what's in = perpetuity=20 and what is "time limited". 
 
For = those of you=20 who are working to make changes, maybe this should be the direction to = aim your=20 solicitors.
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20 [mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of = Eileen=20 Karsten
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:57 PM
To: = videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Eyes on = the=20 Prize

I think it was mentioned on this list, but = there was=20 an article in Wired in December, 2004 about the problems we = rereleasing=20 Eyes on the Prize.  It is not just one scene  in the = series. To=20 quote the article: " Filmmakers must pay for the rights to use every = song,=20 photograph or video clip included in the film."   Also in the=20 article  it states: " it will cost nearly $500,000 to clear rights. = Forman=20 hopes to get the series back on television by 2006."   If you = have not=20 seen the article, it is at:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=3Dcache:Bgbwi2yPQ4AJ:www.wired.com/= news/culture/0,1284,66106,00.html+%22eyes+on+the+prize%22+article&hl=3D= en

Eileen=20 Karsten
Head of Technical Services
Lake Forest College
555 N. = Sheridan=20 Road
Lake Forest, IL 60045


  

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C50516.64FFC3F0--