[Videolib] Purchase vs license modeles - WAS RE: Digital Streaming

Deg Farrelly (DEG.FARRELLY@asu.edu)
Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:15:05 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_X3y9o8KDU2I8KE/ePOtgyQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I am coming late to this discussion, and admit that I have not read the
entire thread.

=20

Here is an observation on the $1000 per anum model that Jonathan
mentioned earlier, in relation to Gary's model of purchased use crumbles
to dust...

=20

The "access to all" model that Jonathan references is similar to
electronic journals packaging models. You pay $X, you can use all that
we publish. (Some of that was built on pricing models that guarantee a
revenue stream to the publisher, based on what the library was already
paying. "You subscribe to X # of journals at $X per year. Guarantee us
that $ figure and you can have access to all we publish. - This is a
gross * over simplification * of the model).

=20

The advantage to this is that our users (and I'm speaking of journals
users) are able to and DO access articles in journals we otherwise would
not have subscribed to. We don't have to receive them, check them in,
label them, re-shelve them, etc.

=20

Win win all around.

=20

Same thing, in theory, for licensed digital media content. We get a
wider array of content, for significantly reduced cost per use.

=20

But in an earlier note, Jonathan indicated their (and I don't mean FRIF
in particular, but any media distributor) distribution rights are not in
perpetuity, but for set periods. What happens when the rights to FRIF
or WGBH or PBS,etc. programs expire. (Think, NOVA, Eyes on the Prize,
and countless other programs)

=20

In the purchased copy model, we retain the copy and the right to use
that copy until it deteriorates. Under US Copyright (and I raise this
point with some trepidation) under certain limited conditions we are
guaranteed the right to make a * copy * and continue to use that
program.

=20

Under the licensed access model, if FRIF/WGBH/PBS rights go away, so
does the access.

=20

With journals, library licenses are now demanding ongoing access. That
is, when the library ceases to subscribe to a title, access to what it
previously subscribed to will be maintained and guaranteed. (Library Y
subscribed to the Journal of Z from 1980-2004. Subscription included
electronic access from 1990 on. In 2004 the subscription was cancelled,
but the publisher continues to provide Library Y guaranteed access to
the electronic files of Journal of Z from 1990 to 2004).

=20

In some cases publishers allow the subscribing library to archive
backfiles.

=20

It's the questions around modes that continue to provide access to the
content after distribution rights have expired, or a company has gone
belly-up that interest me.

=20

=20

=20

=20

________________________________

From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Miller
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:18 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions

=20

Well Yes and No:=20

=20

1) If you ALSO continue to buy a DVD or VHS of selected titles
(not all titles) think of it as giving all your students and faculty
access to watch a stream of all those films, PLUS all our hundreds of
other films you may not even know about (not YOU, but, you know) for - $
1.11 each per year. That's not a good deal?=20

=20

2) You could cut back on your purchase of hard copies, and just
access our collection and get all our new films, basically, for a lower
per film cost as our library continues to grow (as it does).=20

=20

Also, you aren't paying for the same piece of "property" - you are
paying for another way to access and use that "property".

=20

I am assuming that at some point people will stop buying physical
copies. Some will want access to a server in the sky, some will build
their own servers, etc. - then we will not be caught up in this question
of buying something "twice" (which arises because in fact you (well not
YOU, but, you know) do want it twice - rather - we will be back where it
has always been - about what price the commodity is worth.=20

=20

(To illustrate that another way: if you (Gary) promise to buy 50 films
from me a year at list price, I WILL (me) give you some sort of digital
license for only $1000 extra!)=20

=20

JM

=20

=20

=20

________________________________

From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Gary Handman
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:14 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions

=20

Hi Jon...

Here's my take: $1000 for digital rights to the FRIF library is an
incredible buy; $1000 per year is not. =20

Look: in the old order, I buy a video or DVD from you once; I use it
until it shreds, crumbles, or vanishes... Then I get a replacement copy
for a deeply discounted price. I show the film in classrooms and the
media center...sometimes dozens of times over the course of year...

Why in the world would I pay for the same damn piece of intellectual
property over and over again? In the case of tape/dvd it ain't as if
you (I'm using you generically...) are gonna get any more money out of
me...one sale--that's it. How is digital different.

I also want to bring up an issue here that hasn't been brought up
previously in this thread. A number of distributors are making digital
files available "off the shelf" in various formats (windows media,
quicktime, etc.). There are other access models brewing (e.g. FMG's
remote access model...) Nonetheless: the fact is that for a large
number of distributors offering licensing rights now and probably in the
future, if we want to go digital, we're gonna have to do the work
ourselves...we're going to have to encode, store, and provide public
access to the content. How does this factor into the whole pricing
structure for digital rights (or does it?). And what's more, maybe
those of us headed in this direction need to be talking about
cooperative projects: it would be nuts if ten of us got busy encoding
the same damn piece of video, no?

Gary

At 12:09 PM 2/13/2006, you wrote:

Dear Claire=20

Sorry, I am getting a bit confused (and not just from your email below,
but
the entire thread).=20

Let's try it this way: When I introduce the FRIF Online Documentary
Database
on 1/1/07, and offer you all the chance to subscribe for $1000 per year
per
campus, and in return you can access streams of all the films we have
rights
to and distribute: Would that be a good deal? (we distribute about 900
films).=20

If so, then, aren't we only talking about a) price (most of all) and b)
available infrastructure and c) bureaucracy (in the good sense)?=20

As I understand your position: we should provide this service (access to
these works) for free.=20

Or maybe your position is: if we put them on a server then yes you might
pay
something, but if we let you put them on a server, then no you shouldn't
have to?

I travel all over the world (someone has to) to find films to bring to
this
country, many of which won't be distributed here if I (or someone else)
doesn't do that. Who pays for that? You do: and I think you pay for it
(via
the prices you pay for our films) because you think it's worth it.

The filmmakers give us those rights to bring their films to you because
we
pay them something for that right. (and, n.b. we NEVER have gotten those
rights "in perpetuity", there is ALWAYS a term on them).

Do you want that entire system to collapse? Fine: you will have access
in
future to a) pirated films via bit torrent etc or b) films available on
servers in other countries or, c) films people put out there without
expecting any compensation, or d) what?=20

It's one thing if you are talking about "orphaned" works: no one owns or
claims them. I don't care what you do with them.

But FRIF is an ongoing business and part of my job is to look out for
the
rights and interests of the filmmakers, our staff, and myself, and to
ensure
that they (and we) receive some compensation for the use of their work
(and
the work that we do).=20

How do you propose to maintain that in the ground is as slippery and
soft
and malleable as you suggest, apparently out of a desire to get more
value
out of the media while lowering your costs (or eliminating even) at our
(collectively, the field's) expense?=20

Or have I missed something? Probably I have. Please tell me what it is.=20

Thanks,

Jonathan Miller=20

-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[ mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
<mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu> ] On Behalf Of M. Claire
Stewart
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:26 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions

In addition to the great questions that you list below, I hope our=20
review committees also ask: why are we considering purchasing these=20
licenses? Is it really necessary? How are the materials being used,=20
and does fair use or TEACH apply? There are four fair use factors; I=20
think often the amount used is what makes video librarians think fair=20
use doesn't apply, but that is only one factor among four. So far,=20
our colleagues in music and visual resources have argued this more=20
successfully than we have; they've been making the whole works case=20
since CONFU and have recommended copyright policies to back it up.

I realize that this comment may provoke the usual response from some=20
on this list. I strongly disagree with the perspective that=20
digitizing and streaming titles which the institution legally owns=20
without purchasing an additional "digital license" is necessarily=20
illegal.

I would like to hear from others who are typically silent when these=20
debates arise on VIDEOLIB. I'm curious where the people not=20
represented on Monique's list stand. I know not everyone has the=20
technological resources to support a local streaming service; waiting=20
for the video equivalent of a Naxos/Classical Music online service=20
and paying a subscription fee makes sense in those cases (or maybe in=20
all cases: Northwestern has both a robust local music streaming=20
service and subscriptions to music streaming databases). But if it's=20
not a question of technical resources, and faculty are requesting=20
streaming, has the institution chosen not to make a legal decision,=20
leaving the question hanging? What strikes me most are the cases=20
where licenses are being purchased but no services provided. We may=20
have taken to electronic journals like ducks to water, but there were=20
significant new services being offered with ejournals: centrally=20
delivered electronic content, vastly improved access through search=20
services, etc. What exactly are we paying for now?

If folks want to email me offlist please do:
claire-stewart@northwestern.edu
.

Claire

At 3:23 PM -0600 2/11/06, Bergman, Barbara J wrote:
>I'm okay with paying a reasonable higher price for digital access, but
>cost aside, digital rights that have to be renewed create a purchasing
>problem because I am no longer making a one-time purchase.
>
>Anything with an ongoing cost is considered a serial, with ongoing
staff
>time as well as ongoing financial commitments. It will be treated the
>same as if we were purchasing access to a journal database.
>So, in order to purchase digital rights with a time limit, I lose a lot
>of my autonomy in making purchasing decisions. I am going to have to go
>make my case to our Serials Review Committee - who are going to ask all
>the same questions that we're asking (while also getting over the
>sticker shock of how much many educational videos cost in the first
>place). Other questions they will ask - Whose budget is going to pay
>for the renewal? Who will keep track of the length of the license? Who
>will decide whether to continue access? Who is responsible for making
>sure the renewal gets paid? What if we decide that our budget can't
>absorb the renewal costs?
>
>Will I be looking at acquiring digital access? Yes.
>Are we jumping in? Not yet.
>Will perpetual access be a selling point? Definitely.
>
>
>Barb Bergman
>Media Services Librarian
>Minnesota State University-Mankato
>(507) 389-5945 =20
>
>_______________________________________________
>Videolib mailing list
>Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib
<http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib>=20

--=20
____________________________________________________
M. Claire Stewart
Head, Digital Media Services, Marjorie I. Mitchell Multimedia Center
Coordinator of Digitization Projects, Northwestern University Library
(847) 467-1437
claire-stewart@northwestern.edu
http://www.library.northwestern.edu/cstewart/
http://copyrightreadings.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
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

Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

*****

"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail,
all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of
spectacles."
--Guy Debord=20

--Boundary_(ID_X3y9o8KDU2I8KE/ePOtgyQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I am coming late to this = discussion, and admit that I have not read the entire thread.

 

Here is an observation on the $1000 = per anum model that Jonathan mentioned earlier, in relation to Gary’s = model of purchased use crumbles to dust…

 

The “access to all” = model that Jonathan references is similar to electronic journals packaging = models.  You pay $X, you can use all that we publish.  (Some of that was = built on pricing models that guarantee a revenue stream to the publisher, based = on what the library was already paying.  “You subscribe to X # of = journals at $X per year.  Guarantee us that $ figure and you can have access = to all we publish.  – This is a gross * over simplification * of the model).

 

The advantage to this is that our = users (and I’m speaking of journals users) are able to and DO access = articles in journals we otherwise would not have subscribed to.  We = don’t have to receive them, check them in, label them, re-shelve them, = etc.

 

Win win all = around.

 

Same thing, in theory, for licensed = digital media content.  We get a wider array of content, for significantly = reduced cost per use.

 

But in an earlier note, Jonathan = indicated their (and I don’t mean FRIF in particular, but any media = distributor) distribution rights are not in perpetuity, but for set periods.  = What happens when the rights to FRIF or WGBH or PBS,etc. programs expire. = (Think, NOVA, Eyes on the Prize, and countless other programs)

 

In the purchased copy model, we = retain the copy and the right to use that copy until it deteriorates.  Under = US Copyright (and I raise this point with some trepidation) under certain = limited conditions we are guaranteed the right to make a * copy * and continue = to use that program.

 

Under the licensed access model, if FRIF/WGBH/PBS rights go away, so does the access.

 

With journals, library licenses are = now demanding ongoing access.  That is, when the library ceases to = subscribe to a title, access to what it previously subscribed to will be = maintained and guaranteed.  (Library Y subscribed to the Journal of Z from 1980-2004.  Subscription included electronic access from 1990 = on.  In 2004 the subscription was cancelled, but the publisher continues to = provide Library Y guaranteed access to the electronic files of Journal of Z from 1990 to = 2004).

 

In some cases publishers allow the subscribing library to archive backfiles.

 

It’s the questions around = modes that continue to provide access to the content after distribution rights have expired, or a company has gone belly-up that interest = me.

 

 

 

 


From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Miller
Sent: Monday, February = 13, 2006 4:18 PM
To: = videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] = Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions

 

Well Yes and No:

 

1)       If you ALSO = continue to buy a DVD or VHS of selected titles (not all titles) think of it as = giving all your students and faculty access to watch a stream of all those films, = PLUS all our hundreds of other films you may not even know about (not YOU, but, = you know) for - $ 1.11 each per year.  That’s not a good deal? =

 

2)       You could cut = back on your purchase of hard copies, and just access our collection and get all = our new films, basically, for a lower per film cost as our library continues = to grow (as it does).

 

Also, you aren’t paying for = the same piece of “property” – you are paying for another way = to access and use that “property”.

 

I am assuming that at some point = people will stop buying physical copies. Some will want access to a server in = the sky, some will build their own servers, etc. – then we will not be = caught up in this question of buying something “twice” (which arises = because in fact you (well not YOU, but, you know) do want it twice - rather = – we will be back where it has always been – about what price the = commodity is worth.

 

(To illustrate that another way: if = you (Gary) promise to buy 50 films from me a year at list price, I WILL (me) = give you some sort of digital license for only $1000 extra!) =

 

JM

 

 

 


From: = videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Gary Handman
Sent: Monday, February = 13, 2006 5:14 PM
To: = videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] = Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions

 

Hi Jon...

Here's my take:  $1000 for digital rights to the FRIF library is an = incredible buy; $1000 per year is not.  

Look: in the old order, I buy a video or DVD from you once; I use it = until it shreds, crumbles, or vanishes... Then I get a replacement copy for a = deeply discounted price.  I show the film in classrooms and the media center...sometimes dozens of times over the course of year...

Why in the world would I pay for the same damn piece of intellectual = property over and over again?  In the case of tape/dvd it ain't as if you = (I'm using you generically...) are gonna get any more money out of me...one sale--that's it.  How is digital different.

I also want to bring up an issue here that hasn't been brought up = previously in this thread.  A number of distributors are making digital files = available "off the shelf" in various formats (windows media, quicktime, etc.).   There are other access models brewing (e.g. FMG's = remote access model...)   Nonetheless:  the fact is that for a = large number of distributors offering licensing rights now and probably in the future, if we want to go digital, we're gonna have to do the work ourselves...we're going to have to encode, store, and provide public = access to the content.   How does this factor into the whole pricing = structure for digital rights (or does it?).  And what's more, maybe those of = us headed in this direction need to be talking about cooperative = projects:  it would be nuts if ten of us got busy encoding the same damn piece of = video, no?

Gary



At 12:09 PM 2/13/2006, you wrote:

Dear Claire

Sorry, I am getting a bit confused (and not just from your email below, = but
the entire thread).

Let's try it this way: When I introduce the FRIF Online Documentary = Database
on 1/1/07, and offer you all the chance to subscribe for $1000 per year = per
campus, and in return you can access streams of all the films we have = rights
to and distribute: Would that be a good deal? (we distribute about = 900
films).

If so, then, aren't we only talking about a) price (most of all) and = b)
available infrastructure and c) bureaucracy (in the good sense)?

As I understand your position: we should provide this service (access = to
these works) for free.

Or maybe your position is: if we put them on a server then yes you might = pay
something, but if we let you put them on a server, then no you = shouldn't
have to?

I travel all over the world (someone has to) to find films to bring to = this
country, many of which won't be distributed here if I (or someone = else)
doesn't do that. Who pays for that? You do: and I think you pay for it = (via
the prices you pay for our films) because you think it's worth it.

The filmmakers give us those rights to bring their films to you because = we
pay them something for that right. (and, n.b. we NEVER have gotten = those
rights "in perpetuity", there is ALWAYS a term on them).

Do you want that entire system to collapse? Fine: you will have access = in
future to a) pirated films via bit torrent etc or b) films available = on
servers in other countries or, c) films people put out there without
expecting any compensation, or d) what?

It's one thing if you are talking about "orphaned" works: no = one owns or
claims them. I don't care what you do with them.

But FRIF is an ongoing business and part of my job is to look out for = the
rights and interests of the filmmakers, our staff, and myself, and to = ensure
that they (and we) receive some compensation for the use of their work = (and
the work that we do).

How do you propose to maintain that in the ground is as slippery and = soft
and malleable as you suggest, apparently out of a desire to get more = value
out of the media while lowering your costs (or eliminating even) at = our
(collectively, the field's) expense?

Or have I missed something? Probably I have. Please tell me what it is. =

Thanks,

Jonathan Miller




-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[ mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of M. = Claire
Stewart
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:26 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions

In addition to the great questions that you list below, I hope our
review committees also ask: why are we considering purchasing these
licenses? Is it really necessary? How are the materials being used,
and does fair use or TEACH apply?  There are four fair use factors; = I
think often the amount used is what makes video librarians think fair =
use doesn't apply, but that is only one factor among four. So far,
our colleagues in music and visual resources have argued this more
successfully than we have; they've been making the whole works case
since CONFU and have recommended copyright policies to back it up.

I realize that this comment may provoke the usual response from some =
on this list. I strongly disagree with the perspective that
digitizing and streaming titles which the institution legally owns
without purchasing an additional "digital license" is = necessarily
illegal.

I would like to hear from others who are typically silent when these =
debates arise on VIDEOLIB. I'm curious where the people not
represented on Monique's list stand. I know not everyone has the
technological resources to support a local streaming service; waiting =
for the video equivalent of a Naxos/Classical Music online service
and paying a subscription fee makes sense in those cases (or maybe in =
all cases: Northwestern has both a robust local music streaming
service and subscriptions to music streaming databases). But if it's =
not a question of technical resources, and faculty are requesting
streaming, has the institution chosen not to make a legal decision,
leaving the question hanging? What strikes me most are the cases
where licenses are being purchased but no services provided. We may
have taken to electronic journals like ducks to water, but there were =
significant new services being offered with ejournals: centrally
delivered electronic content, vastly improved access through search
services, etc.  What exactly are we paying for now?

If folks want to email me offlist please do: = claire-stewart@northwestern.edu
.

Claire

At 3:23 PM -0600 2/11/06, Bergman, Barbara J wrote:
>I'm okay with paying a reasonable higher price for digital access, = but
>cost aside, digital rights that have to be renewed create a = purchasing
>problem because I am no longer making a one-time purchase.
>
>Anything with an ongoing cost is considered a serial, with ongoing = staff
>time as well as ongoing financial commitments. It will be treated = the
>same as if we were purchasing access to a journal database.
>So, in order to purchase digital rights with a time limit, I lose a = lot
>of my autonomy in making purchasing decisions. I am going to have to = go
>make my case to our Serials Review Committee - who are going to ask = all
>the same questions that we're asking (while also getting over = the
>sticker shock of how much many educational videos cost in the = first
>place).  Other questions they will ask - Whose budget is going = to pay
>for the renewal?  Who will keep track of the length of the = license? Who
>will decide whether to continue access? Who is responsible for = making
>sure the renewal gets paid? What if we decide that our budget = can't
>absorb the renewal costs?
>
>Will I be looking at acquiring digital access? Yes.
>Are we jumping in? Not yet.
>Will perpetual access be a selling point? Definitely.
>
>
>Barb Bergman
>Media Services Librarian
>Minnesota State University-Mankato
>(507) 389-5945           = ;     
>
>_______________________________________________
>Videolib mailing list
>Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> = http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib


--
____________________________________________________
M. Claire Stewart
Head, Digital Media Services, Marjorie I. Mitchell Multimedia Center
Coordinator of Digitization Projects, Northwestern University = Library
(847) 467-1437
claire-stewart@northwestern.edu
http://www.library.northwestern.edu/cstewart/
http://copyrightreadings.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
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

Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

*****

"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail,
           all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles."
            &= nbsp;  --Guy Debord

--Boundary_(ID_X3y9o8KDU2I8KE/ePOtgyQ)--