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

Jessica Rosner (jrosner@kino.com)
Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:00:40 -0500

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3222774041_21900299
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> But on the bright side I am guessing a lot of the titles that guessed used
> are feature films and they are frankly pretty cheap to buy in the old
> fashioned
> formats of DVD and even VHS. Bottom line think content not delivery
>
>
>
> 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...
>
> 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!
>>
>> Sooooooo....who's steppin up!!?? Who is gunna lead the pack with
>> Educational Media via Internet2?
>>
>> 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!"
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Thanks for the clarifications, Mark
>>
>> Another clarification...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> At 07:07 AM 2/14/2006, you wrote:
>>> >Just to clarify.... I also asked.. ["Are you making the materials
>>> >available in a digital format? If so, then that's a totally different
>>> >position."] If the producers provides/sells a digital format, then it
>>> >MUST be purchased to be streamed. We are in agreement, in general. MY
>>> >problem is, and always will be, a business model with recurring costs.
>>> >THAT was the original issue. Things tend to "morph" in videolib, given
>>> >all the "angles" of it's readers.
>>> >
>>> >Just to clarify...My organization has never digitized any of it's
>>> >titles....we do not intend to digitize any titles...the VERY REASON why
>>
>>> >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
>>
>>> >would attempt that kind of work.
>>> >
>>> >[When Mark further states to Elana in his post, "IF said institution
>>> >meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they are allowed BY LAW,
>>> >to provide said video materials." This is a most troubling statement.]
>>> >I don't know why that would be troubling. Meeting the requirements of
>>> >the TEACH Act includes the need to purchase digital format from the
>>> >producer, when available.
>>> >
>>> >I have also had a number of discussions "off-list", from media
>>> >centers/librarians and producers. What troubles me most (and probably
>>> >is the cause of MY consternation) is the idea that the majority of
>>> >discussion centers on the idea that we, as media centers and libraries,
>>
>>> >are somehow conducting all-out copying/pirating, or are GOING to, if
>>> >digital licenses are offered. There seems to be a fear that we will
>>> >suddenly become criminals, if a digital copy is permitted. The
>>> >assumption is as disconcerting as the accusation.
>>> >
>>> >So...all that said...Chip, I'm NOT digitizing any of your
>>> >materials...under the TEACH Act, or any other legislation, or for any
>>> >other reason. IF an institution meets all of the requirements of the
>>> >TEACH Act, it CAN digitize video materials for
>>> >"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
>>> >distribution...ESPECIALLY by us law-abiding citizens! Of course, I was
>>> >merely the EXAMPLE, and of course it wasn't an insinuation that I MIGHT
>>
>>> >have broken any laws or any terms of any agreement.
>>> >
>>> >After all this verbiage, last time I met Chip he was with Chip Taylor
>>> >Communications, so I'LL USE HIM AS AN EXAMPLE. The TEACH Act doesn't
>>> >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
>>> >digital format offered, thereby obeying the law.
>>> >
>>> >Let me know if you are still "troubled".
>>> >
>>> >Mark
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >***********************************************************************
>>> >*
>>> >******
>>> >
>>> >-----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;
>>> >John@bullfrogfilms.com; denise@pyramidmedia.com; Landmrkmed@aol.com;
>>> >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
>>> >Media's
>>> >(IM's) revised policy (#1), which clearly states IM "cannot and does
>>> >not grant anyone rights to digitize or to digitally distribute any work
>>
>>> >under the TEACH Act." When I first read Karen's post (#2) which
>>> >incorrectly stated, "All titles purchased (via IM) may be streamed," I
>>> >immediately contacted Elana, asking her to clarify to Karen (and
>>> >Monique
>>> >(#3) and the Listserv) that although IM does re-sell DVDs/VHS from
>>> >companies such as Chip Taylor Communications, which include Public
>>> >Performance Rights, those DVDs/Video copies do not include a
>>> >Digitization/Streaming license, which must be acquired separately. I
>>> >also noticed two other producer/distributor companies, Annenberg Media
>>> >and BioMedia, posted that exact information on the Listserv regarding
>>> >IM not being able to extend digitization and/or streaming rights to
>>> >their programs.
>>> >Elana acted quickly and correctly and I applaud her for wanting to set
>>> >the record straight.
>>> >
>>> >I then read Mark Kopp's post (#4), stating he did not fully understand
>>> >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
>>> >"Copyright Compliance Series,"
>>> >(Website Link: http://www.chiptaylor.com/ttlmnp4526-.cfm) - Licensing
>>> >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
>>> >worked at IU #8; so I will use IU #8 as an example. IU #8 owns 16
>>> >programs on VHS it acquired with Public Performance Rights from CTC. If
>>
>>> >IU #8 wants to digitize 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 violating the license it now has with CTC. If IU #8 purchased
>>> >DVDs or VHS from IM, it would receive only a Public Performance
>>> >License; again, if it wanted a digitization and/or streaming license,
>>> >that would have to be obtained from CTC.
>>> >
>>> >When Mark further states to Elana in his post, "IF said institution
>>> >meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they are allowed BY LAW,
>>> >to provide said video materials." This is a most troubling statement.
>>> >IU
>>> >#8 has never ordered a digitization and/or streaming license for any
>>> >VHS it acquired from CTC. If IU #8 has digitized and/or streamed any of
>>
>>> >the above-mentioned CTC programs, IU #8 would be in violation of the
>>> >terms of its licensed agreement with CTC.
>>> >
>>> >This example is one reason why I produced the "Copyright Compliance
>>> >Series"
>>> >with an attorney who is an expert in copyright and contract law. I hope
>>
>>> >this example shows to educators and librarians on this Listserv how
>>> >important it is to know what licensing you 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. Digitization and/or streaming
>>> >rights of CTC programs are available from CTC; thus if a customer wants
>>
>>> >to digitize and/or stream a CTC program the customer may have acquired
>>> >from IM, that customer still must obtain those rights from CTC. Perhaps
>>
>>> >Mark's post could have suggested to Elana that IM should consider
>>> >informing customers, if they want other licensing they should contact
>>> >the producer/distributor directly (and since this is being cc'd to her,
>>
>>> >she'll read that suggestion.)
>>> >
>>> >I have seen several comments about digitization and licensing
>>> >concerning pricing. I encourage those customers who may be troubled by
>>> >certain pricing to contact companies such as CTC, as well as Annenberg
>>> >Media, Landmark Media, Bullfrog Films, and Pyramid Media, who, like me,
>>
>>> >have negotiated very fair pricing and terms with producers regarding
>>> >these important licenses.
>>> >
>>> >One last point, vendors are willing to work with customers regarding
>>> >licensing and as attorney Lutzker advises in the "Copyright Compliance
>>> >Series," it is much less expensive to secure the proper licensing than
>>> >to face potential litigation. He explains very clearly that producers
>>> >whose licensing has been violated do seek damages and because today's'
>>> >technology leaves a "digital trail," it is wise not to take unnecessary
>>
>>> >chances.
>>> >
>>> >I apologize if this post may seem like a plug for a series that I've
>>> >released; however, that really is not the case at all. After being part
>>
>>> >of a legal case which ended upsetting a large number of vendors,
>>> >educators and librarians, not to mention the students and parents who
>>> >lost out while an expensive legal settlement was reached, I volunteered
>>
>>> >for over 12 months to work closely with attorney Lutzker in order to
>>> >produce this much-needed and comprehensive series, which is now finally
>>
>>> >available and should help every educator and librarian better
>>> >understand copyright and protect his/her institution from any potential
>> violations.
>>> >
>>> >Sincerely,
>>> >
>>> >Chip Taylor, President
>>> > www.chiptaylor.com <http://www.chiptaylor.com>
>>> >
>>> >Four references:
>>> >
>>> >1)
>>> >In the light of the recent discussions on the list, I just wanted to
>>> >clarify any confusion that may exist on Insight Media's policy on
>>> >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
>>
>>> >digitally distribute any work under the TEACH Act. A school's right, if
>>
>>> >any, to digitize and/or distribute a work arises under the law. It's up
>>
>>> >to the school to determine in each case whether the school has any
>>> >rights under the TEACH Act with regard to a particular work. That
>>> >requires the school to review among other things whether it is an
>>> >institution covered by the law, it has the proper procedures in place
>>> >to comply with the law, and whether the work is eligible under the law,
>>
>>> >taking into account how and with what rights it was obtained. Insight
>>> >Media does not give advice on whether a school has rights under the
>>> >TEACH Act, which is a decision the school should make in consultation
>>> >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
>>> >streamed.
>>> >The only stipulation is to stay within the parameters of The Teach Act.
>>> >Also, Ambassador and School Media do not (currently) provide any
>>> >streaming.
>>> >When I spoke with customer service representatives, there was no plan
>>> >to even consider on-demand streaming. I applaud any efforts to maintain
>>
>>> >a list and will assist in any way I can.
>>> >
>>> >Karen L. Patterson
>>> >kpatters@pct.edu
>>> >Acquisitions Specialist for Books and Nonprint Media Pennsylvania
>>> >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
>>
>>> >on-demand streaming, or the digital right to encode films owned by the
>>> >media center and/or library? I know you can get this information when
>>> >you register for the National Media Market, but the specifics aren't
>>> >included i.e., license agreement loans for 1, 3, 5 years, etc. I'm not
>>
>>> >interested in Broadcast rights via closed circuit.
>>> >I'm trying to create an internal list that will include the name of the
>>
>>> >company, and the types of digital access available, especially for
>>> >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
>>> >free to contact me off-line if you wish, or I'm willing to work with
>>> >someone to create the list and have it published in a non-referred
>>> >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
>>
>>> >does not grant anyone rights to digitize or to digitally distribute any
>>
>>> >work under the TEACH Act. A school's right, if any, to digitize and/or
>>> >distribute a work arises under the law. It's up to the school to
>>> >determine in each case whether the school has any rights under the
>>> >TEACH Act with regard to a particular work. That requires the school to
>>
>>> >review among other things whether it is an institution covered by the
>>> >law, it has the proper procedures in place to comply with the law, and
>>> >whether the work is eligible under the law, taking into account how and
>>
>>> >with what rights it was obtained. Insight Media does not give advice on
>>
>>> >whether a school has rights under the TEACH Act, which is a decision
>>> >the school should make in consultation with legal counsel.]
>>> >
>>> >Ummmmmm.... I've read and re-read the aforementioned post, trying to
>>> >understand the implication....
>>> >
>>> >Forgive me if I am less-than-enlightened in this regard, but does
>>> >Insight Media intend to trump US Law? How does one exempt themselves
>>> >from the LAW? "Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:"
>>> >??????????...that's very interesting... You could possibly, under a
>>> >PURCHASE CONTRACT, limit your licensing, but I don't see how you can
>>> >exempt yourself from the TEACH Act. After having read the TEACH Act
>>> >several times, I do not recall anywhere, where it said "....unless the
>>
>>> >company doesn't want ya to..."
>>> >
>>> >Are you making the materials available in a digital format? If so, then
>>
>>> >that's a totally different position.
>>> >
>>> >If you are making a digital version, capable of a "digital
>>> >transmission, then said educational institution must purchase that
>>> >format from you...if not, the TEACH Act exemption provides for
>>> >it...CONTRARY to "Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:"...once
>>> >again, that's the whole point of the TEACH Act...they want you to step
>>> >up to digital format...not steal your product.
>>> >
>>> >IF said institution meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they
>>> >are allowed BY LAW, to provide said video materials. THAT'S THE POINT
>>> >OF THE TEACH ACT... If you put something "out there", it's eligible for
>>
>>> >educational exemption. Besides, why would you NOT WISH to have a school
>>
>>> >use your material??? I don't even understand the mindset...you produce
>>> >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
>>
>>> >the rights for a digitized work? If the very same piece of information
>>> >can be viewed in perpetuity on a VHS tape, then why not, in some
>>> >digital format? What are you seeing, that I am not??? It is merely a
>>> >shift in the playback format of the very same materials! My video tape
>>> >can sit on my shelf for years, and the same material on that tape is
>>> >somehow viewable for years and years, but NOT the very same material in
>>
>>> >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>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >Videolib mailing list
>>> >Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
>>> > http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib
>>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> <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

Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE

Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
jrosner@kino.com
212-629-6880

--B_3222774041_21900299
Content-type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Re: [Videolib] RE: Insight Media's policy on digitization and stream= ing- comments on 4 references

But on the bright side I am guessing a lot of the titles that guessed= used
are feature films and they are frankly pretty cheap to buy in the old fashi= oned
formats of DVD and even VHS. Bottom line think content not delivery



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

One of my favorite classical allusions (pardon me if I've already flung thi= s one out...) is the story of Procustes...nasty thuggy guy who invited trave= llers 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 ava= ilable in a gee-whiz form of delivery (an expensive form of delivery, at tha= t).  I have a strong feeling that there's gonna be a lot of head-and-fe= et 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 an= d friends on the distribution side...you know I love you!):  whe= n 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 seme= ster, very few (and I mean VERY few) are titles from distribut= ors that offer digital rights (or are likely to offer such rights in the nea= r future).   If use or projected use of titles is the key benchmar= k in determining which rights to buy, we've got problems, Huston...  
I'm not willing (and probably wouldn't be able) to go down the Procustes ro= ad...trying to cut classroom and research need to fit the size of the digita= l 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 rea= lize 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!

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

Gary, it wasn't barely a year or two ago, when you mentioned the
"limitations" of digitally delivered media...look how far technol= ogy 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!&= quot;

Mark
***********************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[ mailto:videolib-bo= unces@library.berkeley.edu <mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu> ] On Beha= lf 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

Thanks for the clarifications, Mark

Another clarification...

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 right= s 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.

Gary


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

>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=

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

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

>have broken any laws or any terms of any agreement.
>
>After all this verbiage, last time I met Chip he was with Chip Taylor <= BR> >Communications, so I'LL USE HIM AS AN EXAMPLE. The TEACH Act doesn't >affect YOU since you offer a digital format...you've done your part...<= BR> >nor does it affect me since I don't digitize anything...I buy the
>digital format offered, thereby obeying the law.
>
>Let me know if you are still "troubled".
>
>Mark
>
>
>***********************************************************************=
>*
>******
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
>[ mailto:videoli= b-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; >John@bullfrogfilms.com; denise@pyramidmedia.com; Landmrkmed@aol.com; >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
>Media's
>(IM's) revised policy (#1), which clearly states IM "cannot and do= es
>not grant anyone rights to digitize or to digitally distribute any work=

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

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

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

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

>this example shows to educators and librarians on this Listserv how >important it is to know what licensing you 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. Digitization and/or streaming >rights of CTC programs are available from CTC; thus if a customer wants=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>available and should help every educator and librarian better
>understand copyright and protect his/her institution from any potential=
violations.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Chip Taylor, President
> www.chiptaylor.com <http://www.= chiptaylor.com>
>
>Four references:
>
>1)
>In the light of the recent discussions on the list, I just wanted to >clarify any confusion that may exist on Insight Media's policy on
>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=

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

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

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

>taking into account how and with what rights it was obtained. Insight <= BR> >Media does not give advice on whether a school has rights under the >TEACH Act, which is a decision the school should make in consultation <= BR> >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=
>streamed.
>The only stipulation is to stay within the parameters of The Teach Act.=
>Also, Ambassador and School Media do not (currently) provide any
>streaming.
>When I spoke with customer service representatives, there was no plan <= BR> >to even consider on-demand streaming. I applaud any efforts to maintain=

>a list and will assist in any way I can.
>
>Karen L. Patterson
>kpatters@pct.edu
>Acquisitions Specialist for Books and Nonprint Media Pennsylvania
>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=

>on-demand streaming, or the digital right to encode films owned by the =
>media center and/or library?  I know you can get this information = when
>you register for the National Media Market, but the specifics aren't >included i.e., license agreement loans for 1, 3, 5 years, etc. I'm not<= BR>
>interested in Broadcast rights via closed circuit.
>I'm trying to create an internal list that will include the name of the=

>company, and the types of digital access available, especially for
>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 G= roup
>     30 day free access (registration required), 1 = year license
>agreement, 3 year license agreement, on-
>     demand streaming via FMG Interface, digital ri= ght to encode copy
>owned by library, digital        &nb= sp;       file to be
>stored on local server in MPEG1, MPEG4, Windows Media, QT formats Feel =
>free to contact me off-line if you wish, or I'm willing to work with >someone to create the list and have it published in a non-referred
>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=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>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/mail= man/listinfo/videolib>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Videolib mailing list
>Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> http:/= /www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib <http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mail= man/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."
            &nb= sp;  --Guy Debord  


_______________________________________________
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

 
<http://www.lib.berkeley= .edu/MRC> *****

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




Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE
 
Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
jrosner@kino.com
212-629-6880

--B_3222774041_21900299--