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

jrosner@kino.com
Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:52:25 -0500

Deg
This is fascinating point and one which may alas highlights
the problem for media distributors. We simply don't own the rights
in perpetuity and the people we buy them from would never allow us
to sell a title in essense forever. This is exactly why films disappear
and sometimes hopefully come back. We have been able to convince a number
of rights holders to sell us streaming or downloading rights but all except
PD titles come with time limits. I suppose I am the resident cynic but
since I see on a daily basis how these contracts are drawn I don't see
ANY solution. Here is one simple example. At the end of June we will lose
the rights to EAST SIDE STORY a wonderful documentary about Eastern European
musicals. We lose the rights because the licensing term on the clips used
in the films are expiring and unlike EYES ON THE PRIZE no one is going
to throw a pile of money out to reclear them and it is very unlikely the
film will ever be in distribution again. This is one example of one tiny
film and you have hundreds of thousands maybe more films out there.
The technology may be there but the rights are not.

Happy thoughts for the night

Jessica

Quoting Deg Farrelly <DEG.FARRELLY@asu.edu>:

> 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
> <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
> <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."
> --Guy Debord

_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib