RE: [Videolib] RE: Insight Media's policy on digitization and

Mark Kopp (iu8film@iu08.org)
Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:34:41 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6319D.B39FBEAA
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Gee-whiz form of delivery"...now THAT brought smiles to my face.
=20
As with any new technology, the more that embrace it, the lower the
price. Look at the "old" Internet in the late 80's. I remember people
saying, "what do we need that for?"...or, "what would I do with
something like that?" Of course, Bill Gates once said, "why does anyone
need more than 64meg?"
=20
Mark this date...you heard it here...I'm going out on a limb...Internet2
(or some derivative thereof) WILL BE the standard connection for
educational mediums within 5 years...probably less. There's already
close to 300 universities and educational consortia with Internet2
access, and the number is growing fast. MPAA and RIAA are already
members. They've experimented, successfully, with High Def as well.=20
=20
I agree, with regards to a diverse clientele...your collection is quite
different from my collection mainly because your patrons are quite
different from my patrons...especially given you are college level and
we are K-12. I've actually stalled, in my "collection" endeavors, until
we finish our "gee-whiz" delivery mechanism. I'll be starting over,
establishing a "Digital Library". For now, we will depend on a
"vendor-delivered" model, but we'll eventually acquire our own materials
as well. I'm definitely not saying to throw away your VCR's and DVD
players, but we are, most definitely, on the verge of a paradigm shift
in educational technology.
=20
Gee-whiz delivery....*smiling and shaking my head*...I like it!
=20
Mark

________________________________

From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Gary Handman
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:10 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] RE: Insight Media's policy on digitization and
streaming- comments on 4 references

Here's what I'm concerned about (well, one thing among many many many
things)...

One of my favorite classical allusions (pardon me if I've already flung
this one out...) is the story of Procustes...nasty thuggy guy who
invited travellers into his home, let them sleep on a tiny little
bed...in middle of nite, cut off their heads and feet to match the size
of the bed...

What's this have to do with streamed media? Wellllllll....

You got a large content universe that is used in diverse ways by a
diverse clientele. You got a teeeeeny little part of that universe that
is available in a gee-whiz form of delivery (an expensive form of
delivery, at that). I have a strong feeling that there's gonna be a lot
of head-and-feet lopping off going on...all (and only) the media that's
fit to stream.

The fact of the matter is (with profound apologize to my many colleagues
and friends on the distribution side...you know I love you!): when I
look at the range of titles in my collection that are typically screened
in class or assigned for viewing outside of class over the course of a
semester, very few (and I mean VERY few) are titles from distributors
that offer digital rights (or are likely to offer such rights in the
near future). If use or projected use of titles is the key benchmark
in determining which rights to buy, we've got problems, Huston... =20

I'm not willing (and probably wouldn't be able) to go down the Procustes
road...trying to cut classroom and research need to fit the size of the
digital bed. Scoring rights and going thru the effort to digitize
materials in vague anticipation of need or use just ain't gonna cut it,
either...

Anyone else?

Gary

At 09:04 AM 2/14/2006, you wrote:

This all gets VERY interesting when vendors finally realize that
Internet2 is a viable mode of delivery, with astronomical data
transfer
rates allowing for full motion, full screen streamed video. The
first to
hang their product on Internet2 will be a landmark leader!
=09
Sooooooo....who's steppin up!!?? Who is gunna lead the pack with
Educational Media via Internet2?
=09
Gary, it wasn't barely a year or two ago, when you mentioned the
"limitations" of digitally delivered media...look how far
technology has
come in such a short time. I soooooooo love technology, but also
remember an infamous line someone used, in discussing
technology...
"When you're on the cutting edge, make sure it's not the bloody
edge!"
=09
Mark
***********************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[ mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
<mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu> ] On Behalf Of Gary
Handman
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:21 AM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] RE: Insight Media's policy on
digitization and
streaming- comments on 4 references
=09
Thanks for the clarifications, Mark
=09
Another clarification...
=09
I have to say that I think the invocation of the TEACH Act in
the
context of these discussions is not particularly relevant in the
long
run. What most of this discussion centers on is the building of
standing, cataloged collections (if digitial can be said to be
"standing"). The TEACH Act really only covers digital rights in
a
fairly narrowly defined type of use (synchronous teaching).
TEACH has
nothing to do with traditional collection development
practice: select...acquire...catalog...retain for the long
haul.
=09
Gary
=09
=09
At 07:07 AM 2/14/2006, you wrote:
>Just to clarify.... I also asked.. ["Are you making the
materials=20
>available in a digital format? If so, then that's a totally
different=20
>position."] If the producers provides/sells a digital format,
then it=20
>MUST be purchased to be streamed. We are in agreement, in
general. MY=20
>problem is, and always will be, a business model with recurring
costs.=20
>THAT was the original issue. Things tend to "morph" in
videolib, given=20
>all the "angles" of it's readers.
>
>Just to clarify...My organization has never digitized any of
it's=20
>titles....we do not intend to digitize any titles...the VERY
REASON why
=09
>TEACH states that you MUST purchase the digital format from the

>producer WHEN AVAILABLE. Personally, I am not interested in any

>digitization of our materials. I would buy the digital format,
before I
=09
>would attempt that kind of work.
>
>[When Mark further states to Elana in his post, "IF said
institution=20
>meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they are allowed
BY LAW,=20
>to provide said video materials." This is a most troubling
statement.]=20
>I don't know why that would be troubling. Meeting the
requirements of=20
>the TEACH Act includes the need to purchase digital format from
the=20
>producer, when available.
>
>I have also had a number of discussions "off-list", from media=20
>centers/librarians and producers. What troubles me most (and
probably=20
>is the cause of MY consternation) is the idea that the majority
of=20
>discussion centers on the idea that we, as media centers and
libraries,
=09
>are somehow conducting all-out copying/pirating, or are GOING
to, if=20
>digital licenses are offered. There seems to be a fear that we
will=20
>suddenly become criminals, if a digital copy is permitted. The=20
>assumption is as disconcerting as the accusation.
>
>So...all that said...Chip, I'm NOT digitizing any of your=20
>materials...under the TEACH Act, or any other legislation, or
for any=20
>other reason. IF an institution meets all of the requirements
of the=20
>TEACH Act, it CAN digitize video materials for=20
=09
>"other-than-brick-and-mortar-classroom-non-face-to-face-instruction".
>Since YOUR company provides a digital format and offers digital

>licensing, YOUR materials are not going to be digitized for
digital=20
>distribution...ESPECIALLY by us law-abiding citizens! Of
course, I was=20
>merely the EXAMPLE, and of course it wasn't an insinuation that
I MIGHT
=09
>have broken any laws or any terms of any agreement.
>
>After all this verbiage, last time I met Chip he was with Chip
Taylor=20
>Communications, so I'LL USE HIM AS AN EXAMPLE. The TEACH Act
doesn't=20
>affect YOU since you offer a digital format...you've done your
part...
>nor does it affect me since I don't digitize anything...I buy
the=20
>digital format offered, thereby obeying the law.
>
>Let me know if you are still "troubled".
>
>Mark
>
>
=09
>***********************************************************************
>*
>******
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
>[ mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
<mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu> ] On Behalf Of chip
>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:32 PM
>To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
>Cc: kpatters@pct.edu; mthreatt@indiana.edu;
elana@insight-media.com;=20
>John@bullfrogfilms.com; denise@pyramidmedia.com;
Landmrkmed@aol.com;=20
>jgrason@comcast.net
>Subject: [Videolib] RE: Insight Media's policy on digitization
and
>streaming- comments on 4 references
>
>I want to thank Elana Joffe of Insight Media for posting
Insight=20
>Media's
>(IM's) revised policy (#1), which clearly states IM "cannot and
does=20
>not grant anyone rights to digitize or to digitally distribute
any work
=09
>under the TEACH Act." When I first read Karen's post (#2) which

>incorrectly stated, "All titles purchased (via IM) may be
streamed," I=20
>immediately contacted Elana, asking her to clarify to Karen
(and=20
>Monique
>(#3) and the Listserv) that although IM does re-sell DVDs/VHS
from=20
>companies such as Chip Taylor Communications, which include
Public=20
>Performance Rights, those DVDs/Video copies do not include a=20
>Digitization/Streaming license, which must be acquired
separately. I=20
>also noticed two other producer/distributor companies,
Annenberg Media=20
>and BioMedia, posted that exact information on the Listserv
regarding=20
>IM not being able to extend digitization and/or streaming
rights to=20
>their programs.
>Elana acted quickly and correctly and I applaud her for wanting
to set=20
>the record straight.
>
>I then read Mark Kopp's post (#4), stating he did not fully
understand=20
>Elana's explanation.
>Then he added, "does Insight Media intend to trump US Law?"
>As attorney Arnold Lutzker makes very clear many times in the=20
>"Copyright Compliance Series,"
>(Website Link: http://www.chiptaylor.com/ttlmnp4526-.cfm) -
Licensing=20
>and Contract law does trump Copyright Law.
>
>I did not see Mark's email in the post, but the last time I met
him he=20
>worked at IU #8; so I will use IU #8 as an example. IU #8 owns
16=20
>programs on VHS it acquired with Public Performance Rights from
CTC. If
=09
>IU #8 wants to digitize and/or stream any of those VHS
programs, it has
=09
>to obtain a digitization and/or streaming license from CTC or
else it=20
>would be violating the license it now has with CTC. If IU #8
purchased=20
>DVDs or VHS from IM, it would receive only a Public Performance

>License; again, if it wanted a digitization and/or streaming
license,=20
>that would have to be obtained from CTC.
>
>When Mark further states to Elana in his post, "IF said
institution=20
>meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they are allowed
BY LAW,=20
>to provide said video materials." This is a most troubling
statement.=20
>IU
>#8 has never ordered a digitization and/or streaming license
for any=20
>VHS it acquired from CTC. If IU #8 has digitized and/or
streamed any of
=09
>the above-mentioned CTC programs, IU #8 would be in violation
of the=20
>terms of its licensed agreement with CTC.
>
>This example is one reason why I produced the "Copyright
Compliance=20
>Series"
>with an attorney who is an expert in copyright and contract
law. I hope
=09
>this example shows to educators and librarians on this Listserv
how=20
>important it is to know what licensing you acquire when you
order your=20
>programs, even if you order from a re-seller. IM is a re-seller
of=20
>programs with certain licensed rights. Digitization and/or
streaming=20
>rights of CTC programs are available from CTC; thus if a
customer wants
=09
>to digitize and/or stream a CTC program the customer may have
acquired=20
>from IM, that customer still must obtain those rights from CTC.
Perhaps
=09
>Mark's post could have suggested to Elana that IM should
consider=20
>informing customers, if they want other licensing they should
contact=20
>the producer/distributor directly (and since this is being cc'd
to her,
=09
>she'll read that suggestion.)
>
>I have seen several comments about digitization and licensing=20
>concerning pricing. I encourage those customers who may be
troubled by=20
>certain pricing to contact companies such as CTC, as well as
Annenberg=20
>Media, Landmark Media, Bullfrog Films, and Pyramid Media, who,
like me,
=09
>have negotiated very fair pricing and terms with producers
regarding=20
>these important licenses.
>
>One last point, vendors are willing to work with customers
regarding=20
>licensing and as attorney Lutzker advises in the "Copyright
Compliance=20
>Series," it is much less expensive to secure the proper
licensing than=20
>to face potential litigation. He explains very clearly that
producers=20
>whose licensing has been violated do seek damages and because
today's'
>technology leaves a "digital trail," it is wise not to take
unnecessary
=09
>chances.
>
>I apologize if this post may seem like a plug for a series that
I've=20
>released; however, that really is not the case at all. After
being part
=09
>of a legal case which ended upsetting a large number of
vendors,=20
>educators and librarians, not to mention the students and
parents who=20
>lost out while an expensive legal settlement was reached, I
volunteered
=09
>for over 12 months to work closely with attorney Lutzker in
order to=20
>produce this much-needed and comprehensive series, which is now
finally
=09
>available and should help every educator and librarian better=20
>understand copyright and protect his/her institution from any
potential
violations.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Chip Taylor, President
> www.chiptaylor.com <http://www.chiptaylor.com>=20
>
>Four references:
>
>1)
>In the light of the recent discussions on the list, I just
wanted to=20
>clarify any confusion that may exist on Insight Media's policy
on=20
>granting rights to stream and digitize products purchased from
us.
>
>Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:
>
>Insight Media cannot and does not grant anyone rights to
digitize or to
=09
>digitally distribute any work under the TEACH Act. A school's
right, if
=09
>any, to digitize and/or distribute a work arises under the law.
It's up
=09
>to the school to determine in each case whether the school has
any=20
>rights under the TEACH Act with regard to a particular work.
That=20
>requires the school to review among other things whether it is
an=20
>institution covered by the law, it has the proper procedures in
place=20
>to comply with the law, and whether the work is eligible under
the law,
=09
>taking into account how and with what rights it was obtained.
Insight=20
>Media does not give advice on whether a school has rights under
the=20
>TEACH Act, which is a decision the school should make in
consultation=20
>with legal counsel.
>
>Elana Joffe
>Vice President, Acquisitions & Development Insight Media, Inc.
>212-721-6316 x103
>elana@insight-media.com
>
>----------
>2)
>Insight Media should be on your list. All titles purchased may
be=20
>streamed.
>The only stipulation is to stay within the parameters of The
Teach Act.
>Also, Ambassador and School Media do not (currently) provide
any=20
>streaming.
>When I spoke with customer service representatives, there was
no plan=20
>to even consider on-demand streaming. I applaud any efforts to
maintain
=09
>a list and will assist in any way I can.
>
>Karen L. Patterson
>kpatters@pct.edu
>Acquisitions Specialist for Books and Nonprint Media
Pennsylvania=20
>College of Technology 1-570-320-2400, ext.7781
>
>3)
> >>> mthreatt@indiana.edu 2/8/2006 6:16 PM >>>
>
>Group,
>Has anyone put together a growing list of film distributors who
provide
=09
>on-demand streaming, or the digital right to encode films owned
by the=20
>media center and/or library? I know you can get this
information when=20
>you register for the National Media Market, but the specifics
aren't=20
>included i.e., license agreement loans for 1, 3, 5 years, etc.
I'm not
=09
>interested in Broadcast rights via closed circuit.
>I'm trying to create an internal list that will include the
name of the
=09
>company, and the types of digital access available, especially
for=20
>asynchronous streaming.
>For example: (this is only a draft, and may not be complete
>information)
>Media Digital Streaming License and/Rights Distributors:
>Annenberg Media Free access (registration required) Films
Media Group
> 30 day free access (registration required), 1 year license

>agreement, 3 year license agreement, on-
> demand streaming via FMG Interface, digital right to
encode copy
>owned by library, digital file to be
>stored on local server in MPEG1, MPEG4, Windows Media, QT
formats Feel=20
>free to contact me off-line if you wish, or I'm willing to work
with=20
>someone to create the list and have it published in a
non-referred=20
>journal.
>Best,
>Monique Threatt
>Librarian for Media, Comm & Culture
>Herman B Wells Library
>Indiana University Bloomington
>812 855 9857
>
>-----
>4)
>[Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:] [Insight Media
cannot and
=09
>does not grant anyone rights to digitize or to digitally
distribute any
=09
>work under the TEACH Act. A school's right, if any, to digitize
and/or=20
>distribute a work arises under the law. It's up to the school
to=20
>determine in each case whether the school has any rights under
the=20
>TEACH Act with regard to a particular work. That requires the
school to
=09
>review among other things whether it is an institution covered
by the=20
>law, it has the proper procedures in place to comply with the
law, and=20
>whether the work is eligible under the law, taking into account
how and
=09
>with what rights it was obtained. Insight Media does not give
advice on
=09
>whether a school has rights under the TEACH Act, which is a
decision=20
>the school should make in consultation with legal counsel.]
>
>Ummmmmm.... I've read and re-read the aforementioned post,
trying to=20
>understand the implication....
>
>Forgive me if I am less-than-enlightened in this regard, but
does=20
>Insight Media intend to trump US Law? How does one exempt
themselves=20
>from the LAW? "Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:"
>??????????...that's very interesting... You could possibly,
under a=20
>PURCHASE CONTRACT, limit your licensing, but I don't see how
you can=20
>exempt yourself from the TEACH Act. After having read the TEACH
Act=20
>several times, I do not recall anywhere, where it said
"....unless the
=09
>company doesn't want ya to..."
>
>Are you making the materials available in a digital format? If
so, then
=09
>that's a totally different position.
>
>If you are making a digital version, capable of a "digital=20
>transmission, then said educational institution must purchase
that=20
>format from you...if not, the TEACH Act exemption provides for=20
>it...CONTRARY to "Our policy as drafted by our legal
counsel:"...once=20
>again, that's the whole point of the TEACH Act...they want you
to step=20
>up to digital format...not steal your product.
>
>IF said institution meets all said requirements of the TEACH
Act, they=20
>are allowed BY LAW, to provide said video materials. THAT'S THE
POINT=20
>OF THE TEACH ACT... If you put something "out there", it's
eligible for
=09
>educational exemption. Besides, why would you NOT WISH to have
a school
=09
>use your material??? I don't even understand the mindset...you
produce=20
>an educational product, but attempt to limit it's educational
use!!!??
>The TEACH Act provides protections for your rights.
>
>What do YOU see as the difference between the rights for a VHS
tape, vs
=09
>the rights for a digitized work? If the very same piece of
information=20
>can be viewed in perpetuity on a VHS tape, then why not, in
some=20
>digital format? What are you seeing, that I am not??? It is
merely a=20
>shift in the playback format of the very same materials! My
video tape=20
>can sit on my shelf for years, and the same material on that
tape is=20
>somehow viewable for years and years, but NOT the very same
material in
=09
>a digital format??? Is that your claim??
>
>Mark Kopp
>*****************************************************
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Videolib mailing list
>Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib
<http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib>=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
=09
Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC
=09
*****
=09
"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail,
all of life presents itself as an immense
accumulation of
spectacles."
--Guy Debord =20
=09
=09
_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib
=09
=09
=09
_______________________________________________
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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6319D.B39FBEAA
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

"Gee-whiz form of delivery"...now THAT brought = smiles to my=20 face.
 
As with any new technology, the more that embrace = it, the=20 lower the price. Look at the "old" Internet in the late 80's. I remember = people=20 saying, "what do we need that for?"...or, "what would I do with = something like=20 that?" Of course, Bill Gates once said, "why does anyone need more than=20 64meg?"
 
Mark this date...you heard it here...I'm going = out on a=20 limb...Internet2 (or some derivative thereof) WILL BE the standard=20 connection for educational mediums within 5 years...probably less. = There's=20 already close to 300 universities and educational consortia with = Internet2=20 access, and the number is growing fast. MPAA and RIAA are already = members.=20 They've experimented, successfully, with High Def as well.=20
 
I agree, with regards to a diverse = clientele...your=20 collection is quite different from my collection mainly because your = patrons are=20 quite different from my patrons...especially given you are college level = and we=20 are K-12. I've actually stalled, in my "collection" endeavors, until we = finish=20 our "gee-whiz" delivery mechanism. I'll be starting over, establishing a = "Digital Library". For now, we will depend on a "vendor-delivered" = model, but=20 we'll eventually acquire our own materials as well. I'm definitely not = saying to=20 throw away your VCR's and DVD players, but we are, most definitely, on = the verge=20 of a paradigm shift in educational technology.
 
Gee-whiz delivery....*smiling and shaking my = head*...I like=20 it!
 
Mark


From: = videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20 [mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Gary=20 Handman
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:10 PM
To: = videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] RE: = Insight=20 Media's policy on digitization and streaming- comments on 4=20 references

Here's what I'm concerned about (well, one thing among many = many many=20 things)...

One of my favorite classical allusions (pardon me if = I've=20 already flung this one out...) is the story of Procustes...nasty thuggy = guy who=20 invited travellers into his home, let them sleep on a tiny little = bed...in=20 middle of nite, cut off their heads and feet to match the size of the=20 bed...

What's this have to do with streamed media? =20 Wellllllll....

You got a large content universe that is used in = diverse=20 ways by a diverse clientele.  You got a teeeeeny little part of = that=20 universe that is available in a gee-whiz form of delivery (an expensive = form of=20 delivery, at that).  I have a strong feeling that there's gonna be = a lot of=20 head-and-feet lopping off going on...all (and only) the media that's fit = to=20 stream.

The fact of the matter is (with profound apologize to my = many=20 colleagues and friends on the distribution side...you know I love = you!):  when I look at the range of titles in my collection that = are=20 typically screened in class or assigned for viewing outside of class = over the=20 course of a semester, very few (and I mean VERY few) are = titles=20 from distributors that offer digital rights (or are likely to offer such = rights=20 in the near future).   If use or projected use of titles is = the key=20 benchmark in determining which rights to buy, we've got problems,=20 Huston... 

I'm not willing (and probably wouldn't be able) = to go=20 down the Procustes road...trying to cut classroom and research need to = fit the=20 size of the digital bed.  Scoring rights and going thru the effort = to=20 digitize materials in vague anticipation of need or use just ain't gonna = cut it,=20 either...

Anyone else?

Gary


At 09:04 AM = 2/14/2006, you=20 wrote:
This all gets VERY = interesting when=20 vendors finally realize that
Internet2 is a viable mode of = delivery, with=20 astronomical data transfer
rates allowing for full motion, full = screen=20 streamed video. The first to
hang their product on Internet2 will = be a=20 landmark leader!

Sooooooo....who's steppin up!!?? Who is gunna = lead the=20 pack with
Educational Media via Internet2?

Gary, it wasn't = barely a=20 year or two ago, when you mentioned the
"limitations" of digitally=20 delivered media...look how far technology has
come in such a short = time. I=20 soooooooo love technology, but also
remember an infamous line = someone used,=20 in discussing technology...
"When you're on the cutting edge, make = sure=20 it's not the bloody=20 = edge!"

Mark
***********************************************
= -----Original=20 Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[=20 mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Gary=20 Handman
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:21 AM
To:=20 videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] RE: Insight = Media's=20 policy on digitization and
streaming- comments on 4=20 references

Thanks for the clarifications, Mark

Another=20 clarification...

I have to say that I think the invocation of = the TEACH=20 Act in the
context of these discussions is not particularly = relevant in the=20 long
run.  What most of this discussion centers on is the = building=20 of
standing, cataloged collections (if digitial can be said to=20 be
"standing").  The TEACH Act really only covers digital = rights in=20 a
fairly narrowly defined type of use (synchronous teaching).  = TEACH=20 has
nothing to do with traditional collection=20 development
practice:  select...acquire...catalog...retain for = the=20 long haul.

Gary


At 07:07 AM 2/14/2006, you=20 wrote:
>Just to clarify.... I also asked.. ["Are you making the=20 materials
>available in a digital format? If so, then that's a = totally=20 different
>position."] If the producers provides/sells a = digital=20 format, then it
>MUST be purchased to be streamed. We are in = agreement,=20 in general. MY
>problem is, and always will be, a business = model with=20 recurring costs.
>THAT was the original issue. Things tend to = "morph"=20 in videolib, given
>all the "angles" of it's=20 readers.
>
>Just to clarify...My organization has never = digitized=20 any of it's
>titles....we do not intend to digitize any = titles...the=20 VERY REASON why

>TEACH states that you MUST purchase the = digital=20 format from the
>producer WHEN AVAILABLE. Personally, I am not=20 interested in any
>digitization of our materials. I would buy = the=20 digital format, before I

>would attempt that kind of=20 work.
>
>[When Mark further states to Elana in his post, = "IF said=20 institution
>meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they = are=20 allowed BY LAW,
>to provide said video materials." This is a = most=20 troubling statement.]
>I don't know why that would be = troubling.=20 Meeting the requirements of
>the TEACH Act includes the need to = purchase digital format from the
>producer, when=20 available.
>
>I have also had a number of discussions = "off-list",=20 from media
>centers/librarians and producers. What troubles me = most=20 (and probably
>is the cause of MY consternation) is the idea = that the=20 majority of
>discussion centers on the idea that we, as media = centers=20 and libraries,

>are somehow conducting all-out = copying/pirating, or=20 are GOING to, if
>digital licenses are offered. There seems to = be a=20 fear that we will
>suddenly become criminals, if a digital copy = is=20 permitted. The
>assumption is as disconcerting as the=20 accusation.
>
>So...all that said...Chip, I'm NOT = digitizing any=20 of your
>materials...under the TEACH Act, or any other = legislation, or=20 for any
>other reason. IF an institution meets all of the = requirements=20 of the
>TEACH Act, it CAN digitize video materials for=20 =
>"other-than-brick-and-mortar-classroom-non-face-to-face-instructi= on".
>Since=20 YOUR company provides a digital format and offers digital =
>licensing,=20 YOUR materials are not going to be digitized for digital=20
>distribution...ESPECIALLY by us law-abiding citizens! Of = course, I was=20
>merely the EXAMPLE, and of course it wasn't an insinuation = that I=20 MIGHT

>have broken any laws or any terms of any=20 agreement.
>
>After all this verbiage, last time I met = Chip he was=20 with Chip Taylor
>Communications, so I'LL USE HIM AS AN = EXAMPLE. The=20 TEACH Act doesn't
>affect YOU since you offer a digital = format...you've=20 done your part...
>nor does it affect me since I don't digitize=20 anything...I buy the
>digital format offered, thereby obeying = the=20 law.
>
>Let me know if you are still=20 = "troubled".
>
>Mark
>
>
>******************= *****************************************************
>*
>***= ***
>
>-----Original=20 Message-----
>From: = videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
>[=20 mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of=20 chip
>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:32 PM
>To:=20 videolib@library.berkeley.edu
>Cc: kpatters@pct.edu;=20 mthreatt@indiana.edu; elana@insight-media.com; =
>John@bullfrogfilms.com;=20 denise@pyramidmedia.com; Landmrkmed@aol.com;=20
>jgrason@comcast.net
>Subject: [Videolib] RE: Insight = Media's=20 policy on digitization and
>streaming- comments on 4=20 references
>
>I want to thank Elana Joffe of Insight Media = for=20 posting Insight
>Media's
>(IM's) revised policy (#1), = which=20 clearly states IM "cannot and does
>not grant anyone rights to = digitize=20 or to digitally distribute any work

>under the TEACH Act." = When I=20 first read Karen's post (#2) which
>incorrectly stated, "All = titles=20 purchased (via IM) may be streamed," I
>immediately contacted = Elana,=20 asking her to clarify to Karen (and
>Monique
>(#3) and = the=20 Listserv) that although IM does re-sell DVDs/VHS from =
>companies such=20 as Chip Taylor Communications, which include Public =
>Performance=20 Rights, those DVDs/Video copies do not include a=20
>Digitization/Streaming license, which must be acquired = separately. I=20
>also noticed two other producer/distributor companies, = Annenberg Media=20
>and BioMedia, posted that exact information on the Listserv = regarding=20
>IM not being able to extend digitization and/or streaming = rights to=20
>their programs.
>Elana acted quickly and correctly and I = applaud=20 her for wanting to set
>the record straight.
>
>I = then read=20 Mark Kopp's post (#4), stating he did not fully understand =
>Elana's=20 explanation.
>Then he added, "does Insight Media intend to trump = US=20 Law?"
>As attorney Arnold Lutzker makes very clear many times in = the=20
>"Copyright Compliance Series,"
>(Website Link:=20 http://www.chiptaylor.com/ttlmnp4526-.cfm) - Licensing
>and = Contract=20 law does trump Copyright Law.
>
>I did not see Mark's = email in the=20 post, but the last time I met him he
>worked at IU #8; so I = will use IU=20 #8 as an example. IU #8 owns 16
>programs on VHS it acquired = with=20 Public Performance Rights from CTC. If

>IU #8 wants to = digitize=20 and/or stream any of those VHS programs, it has

>to obtain a = digitization and/or streaming license from CTC or else it =
>would be=20 violating the license it now has with CTC. If IU #8 purchased =
>DVDs or=20 VHS from IM, it would receive only a Public Performance =
>License;=20 again, if it wanted a digitization and/or streaming license, =
>that=20 would have to be obtained from CTC.
>
>When Mark further = states to=20 Elana in his post, "IF said institution
>meets all said = requirements of=20 the TEACH Act, they are allowed BY LAW,
>to provide said video=20 materials." This is a most troubling statement.
>IU
>#8 = has never=20 ordered a digitization and/or streaming license for any
>VHS it = acquired from CTC. If IU #8 has digitized and/or streamed any=20 of

>the above-mentioned CTC programs, IU #8 would be in = violation of=20 the
>terms of its licensed agreement with = CTC.
>
>This=20 example is one reason why I produced the "Copyright Compliance=20
>Series"
>with an attorney who is an expert in copyright = and=20 contract law. I hope

>this example shows to educators and = librarians=20 on this Listserv how
>important it is to know what licensing = you=20 acquire when you order your
>programs, even if you order from a = re-seller. IM is a re-seller of
>programs with certain licensed = rights.=20 Digitization and/or streaming
>rights of CTC programs are = available=20 from CTC; thus if a customer wants

>to digitize and/or = stream a CTC=20 program the customer may have acquired
>from IM, that customer = still=20 must obtain those rights from CTC. Perhaps

>Mark's post = could have=20 suggested to Elana that IM should consider
>informing = customers, if=20 they want other licensing they should contact
>the = producer/distributor=20 directly (and since this is being cc'd to her,

>she'll read = that=20 suggestion.)
>
>I have seen several comments about = digitization=20 and licensing
>concerning pricing. I encourage those customers = who may=20 be troubled by
>certain pricing to contact companies such as = CTC, as=20 well as Annenberg
>Media, Landmark Media, Bullfrog Films, and = Pyramid=20 Media, who, like me,

>have negotiated very fair pricing and = terms=20 with producers regarding
>these important = licenses.
>
>One=20 last point, vendors are willing to work with customers regarding=20
>licensing and as attorney Lutzker advises in the "Copyright = Compliance=20
>Series," it is much less expensive to secure the proper = licensing than=20
>to face potential litigation. He explains very clearly that = producers=20
>whose licensing has been violated do seek damages and because=20 today's'
>technology leaves a "digital trail," it is wise not to = take=20 unnecessary

>chances.
>
>I apologize if this = post may=20 seem like a plug for a series that I've
>released; however, = that really=20 is not the case at all. After being part

>of a legal case = which=20 ended upsetting a large number of vendors,
>educators and = librarians,=20 not to mention the students and parents who
>lost out while an=20 expensive legal settlement was reached, I volunteered

>for = over 12=20 months to work closely with attorney Lutzker in order to =
>produce this=20 much-needed and comprehensive series, which is now=20 finally

>available and should help every educator and = librarian=20 better
>understand copyright and protect his/her institution = from any=20 potential
violations.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Chip = Taylor,=20 President
>=20 www.chiptaylor.com
>
>Four=20 references:
>
>1)
>In the light of the recent = discussions on=20 the list, I just wanted to
>clarify any confusion that may = exist on=20 Insight Media's policy on
>granting rights to stream and = digitize=20 products purchased from us.
>
>Our policy as drafted by = our legal=20 counsel:
>
>Insight Media cannot and does not grant anyone = rights=20 to digitize or to

>digitally distribute any work under the = TEACH=20 Act. A school's right, if

>any, to digitize and/or = distribute a work=20 arises under the law. It's up

>to the school to determine in = each=20 case whether the school has any
>rights under the TEACH Act = with regard=20 to a particular work. That
>requires the school to review among = other=20 things whether it is an
>institution covered by the law, it has = the=20 proper procedures in place
>to comply with the law, and whether = the=20 work is eligible under the law,

>taking into account how and = with=20 what rights it was obtained. Insight
>Media does not give = advice on=20 whether a school has rights under the
>TEACH Act, which is a = decision=20 the school should make in consultation
>with legal=20 counsel.
>
>Elana Joffe
>Vice President, = Acquisitions &=20 Development Insight Media, Inc.
>212-721-6316=20 = x103
>elana@insight-media.com
>
>----------
>2)>Insight=20 Media should be on your list.  All titles purchased may be=20
>streamed.
>The only stipulation is to stay within the = parameters=20 of The Teach Act.
>Also, Ambassador and School Media do not = (currently)=20 provide any
>streaming.
>When I spoke with customer = service=20 representatives, there was no plan
>to even consider on-demand=20 streaming. I applaud any efforts to maintain

>a list and = will assist=20 in any way I can.
>
>Karen L.=20 Patterson
>kpatters@pct.edu
>Acquisitions Specialist for = Books and=20 Nonprint Media Pennsylvania
>College of Technology = 1-570-320-2400,=20 ext.7781
>
>3)
> >>> mthreatt@indiana.edu = 2/8/2006=20 6:16 PM >>>
>
>Group,
>Has anyone put = together a=20 growing list of film distributors who provide

>on-demand = streaming,=20 or the digital right to encode films owned by the
>media center = and/or=20 library?  I know you can get this information when
>you = register=20 for the National Media Market, but the specifics aren't =
>included i.e.,=20 license agreement loans for 1, 3, 5 years, etc.  I'm=20 not

>interested in Broadcast rights via closed = circuit.
>I'm=20 trying to create an internal list that will include the name of=20 the

>company, and the types of digital access available, = especially=20 for
>asynchronous streaming.
>For example:  (this is = only a=20 draft, and may not be complete
>information)
>Media = Digital=20 Streaming License and/Rights Distributors:
>Annenberg = Media  Free=20 access (registration required) Films Media=20 Group
>     30 day free access (registration = required), 1 year license
>agreement, 3 year license agreement, = on-
>     demand streaming via FMG = Interface,=20 digital right to encode copy
>owned by library,=20 = digital           =      =20 file to be
>stored on local server in MPEG1, MPEG4, Windows = Media, QT=20 formats Feel
>free to contact me off-line if you wish, or I'm = willing=20 to work with
>someone to create the list and have it published = in a=20 non-referred
>journal.
>Best,
>Monique=20 Threatt
>Librarian for Media, Comm & Culture
>Herman B = Wells=20 Library
>Indiana University Bloomington
>812 855=20 9857
>
>-----
>4)
>[Our policy as drafted by = our legal=20 counsel:] [Insight Media cannot and

>does not grant anyone = rights to=20 digitize or to digitally distribute any

>work under the = TEACH Act. A=20 school's right, if any, to digitize and/or
>distribute a work = arises=20 under the law. It's up to the school to
>determine in each case = whether=20 the school has any rights under the
>TEACH Act with regard to a = particular work. That requires the school to

>review among = other=20 things whether it is an institution covered by the
>law, it has = the=20 proper procedures in place to comply with the law, and
>whether = the=20 work is eligible under the law, taking into account how = and

>with=20 what rights it was obtained. Insight Media does not give advice=20 on

>whether a school has rights under the TEACH Act, which = is a=20 decision
>the school should make in consultation with legal=20 counsel.]
>
>Ummmmmm.... I've read and re-read the = aforementioned=20 post, trying to
>understand the = implication....
>
>Forgive=20 me if I am less-than-enlightened in this regard, but does =
>Insight=20 Media intend to trump US Law? How does one exempt themselves =
>from the=20 LAW? "Our policy as drafted by our legal = counsel:"
>??????????...that's=20 very interesting... You could possibly, under a
>PURCHASE = CONTRACT,=20 limit your licensing, but I don't see how you can
>exempt = yourself from=20 the TEACH Act. After having read the TEACH Act
>several times, = I do not=20 recall anywhere, where it said  "....unless = the

>company=20 doesn't want ya to..."
>
>Are you making the materials = available=20 in a digital format? If so, then

>that's a totally different = position.
>
>If you are making a digital version, capable = of a=20 "digital
>transmission, then said educational institution must = purchase=20 that
>format from you...if not, the TEACH Act exemption = provides for=20
>it...CONTRARY to "Our policy as drafted by our legal = counsel:"...once=20
>again, that's the whole point of the TEACH Act...they want you = to step=20
>up to digital format...not steal your = product.
>
>IF said=20 institution meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they =
>are=20 allowed BY LAW, to provide said video materials. THAT'S THE POINT =
>OF=20 THE TEACH ACT... If you put something "out there", it's eligible=20 for

>educational exemption. Besides, why would you NOT WISH = to have=20 a school

>use your material??? I don't even understand the=20 mindset...you produce
>an educational product, but attempt to = limit=20 it's educational use!!!??
>The TEACH Act provides protections = for your=20 rights.
>
>What do YOU see as the difference between the = rights=20 for a VHS tape, vs

>the rights for a digitized work? If the = very=20 same piece of information
>can be viewed in perpetuity on a VHS = tape,=20 then why not, in some
>digital format? What are you seeing, = that I am=20 not??? It is merely a
>shift in the playback format of the very = same=20 materials! My video tape
>can sit on my shelf for years, and = the same=20 material on that tape is
>somehow viewable for years and years, = but NOT=20 the very same material in

>a digital format??? Is that your=20 claim??
>
>Mark=20 = Kopp
>*****************************************************
>=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Vi= deolib=20 mailing list
>Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
>=20 = http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib
>
>=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Vi= deolib=20 mailing list
>Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
>=20 http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib

Gary=20 Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC = Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

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


_______________________________________________
Videolib=20 mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib<= /A>



_______________________________________________
Vid= eolib=20 mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib<= /A>

Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources = Center
Moffitt=20 Library
UC Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6319D.B39FBEAA--