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

Christopher Lewis (clewis@american.edu)
Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:52:01 -0500

--0__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
Boundary="1__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A"

--1__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I interpreted Jonathan's reference to it as an "online documentary
database" to mean they would be the hosts. A video-on-demand service
similar to what Annenberg and FFH&S are doing. If the $1000 was merely =
to
have the streaming rights I would think twice but might still do it. Bu=
t
aren't most of us realizing the inevitable need for an infrastructure t=
o
digitize, store and deliver streaming video? Sure there will be additi=
onal
costs to making all those titles easily accessible to our users but I t=
hink
the benefit would justify the work.

Chris Lewis
Media Librarian/Acting Assistant University Librarian for Information
Services
American University Library
202.885.3257

=

Gary Handman =

<ghandman@library =

.berkeley.edu> =
To
Sent by: videolib@library.berkeley.edu =

videolib-bounces@ =
cc
library.berkeley. =

edu Subj=
ect
RE: [Videolib] Purchase vs licen=
se
modeles - WAS RE: Digital=

02/14/2006 05:33 Streaming =

PM Companiesandlicenseoptions =

=

=

Please respond to =

videolib@library. =

berkeley.edu =

=

=

Now all you have to do is digitize the stuff yourself, find server spac=
e,
catalog it and develop a campus network infrastructure thru which to st=
ream
it...
How much is that gonna add to the $1000 a year...?

Gary

At 01:19 PM 2/14/2006, you wrote:

Short and sweet.

At $1000 per year for digital access to the complete First Run Ic=
arus
catalog? Sign me up. I don't care if it only lasts one year. This=

kind of pricing is a fraction of what we would normally spend
annually and the enormous gain in content would justify what's lo=
st
in the buying vs. leasing tradeoff.

Chris Lewis
Media Librarian/Acting Assistant University Librarian for Informa=
tion
Services
American University Library
202.885.3257
Inactive hide details for "Rick Provine" <PROVINE@"Rick Provine"
<PROVINE@depauw.edu>

"Rick Provine" <PROVINE@depauw.edu> Sent =
by:
videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu

02/14/2006 10:56 AM
Please respond to
videolib@library.berkeley.edu
[]
=
To

<videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
[]
=
cc

[]
Sub=
ject

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

This is fun!

Maybe the in-between compromise answer here is pay per view. I a=
m
not
anxious to get my users hooked on a bunch if titles that I may no=
t be
able to keep. And your catalog could change any time, changing w=
hat
my
users have gotten used to.

We spend a lot of time making sure people know what we have and
securing access (cataloging, packaging, etc). Expensive in sever=
al
ways. Unless licensing is very broad and stable, I would be wary=
.

But a PPV model offers me the luxury of not tying up a lot of fun=
ds,
but still grants access to all titles in a vendor catalog. My
1000.00
will go a lot farther and be more targeted and efficient. Then t=
he
vendor gets paid for what I want. Many people would pay ten doll=
ars
(a
fictional number out of the ether) to view a title that cannot af=
fort
400.00 to purchase it. But over time, the vendor could still
amortize
the cost, and save on duping and "publishing" costs.

This presents obvious problems for the vendor. Expensive to buil=
d a
stable and scalable PPV set up. Maybe one of the more
feature-oriented
online services could serve as a distribution site. Just
brainstorming
here....

Rick

>>> jmiller@frif.com 2/14/2006 9:32 AM >>>
For what it's worth, I agree with this.
Well put. Jonathan

_____

From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[ mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Deg
Farrelly
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:15 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: [Videolib] Purchase vs license modeles - WAS RE: Digital=

Streaming
Companiesandlicenseoptions

I am coming late to this discussion, and admit that I have not re=
ad
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 revenu=
e
stream to
the publisher, based on what the library was already paying. "Yo=
u
subscribe
to X # of journals at $X per year. Guarantee us that $ figure an=
d
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 jour=
nals
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, lab=
el
them,
re-shelve them, etc.

Win win all around.

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

But in an earlier note, Jonathan indicated their (and I don't mea=
n
FRIF
in
particular, but any media distributor) distribution rights are no=
t 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 guarant=
eed
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 i=
t
previously subscribed to will be maintained and guaranteed. (Lib=
rary
Y
subscribed to the Journal of Z from 1980-2004. Subscription incl=
uded
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 t=
o
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 Jona=
than
Miller
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:18 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseopti=
ons

Well Yes and No:

1) If you ALSO continue to buy a DVD or VHS of selected tit=
les
(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 eac=
h
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 ar=
e
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 the=
ir
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 al=
ways
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 digita=
l
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 Companiesandlicenseopti=
ons

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 m=
edia
center...sometimes dozens of times over the course of year...

Why in the world would I pay for the same damn piece of intellect=
ual
property over and over again? In the case of tape/dvd it ain't a=
s if
you
(I'm using you generically...) are gonna get any more money out o=
f
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 file=
s
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 t=
o
encode,
store, and provide public access to the content. How does this
factor
into
the whole pricing structure for digital rights (or does it?). An=
d
what's
more, maybe those of us headed in this direction need to be talki=
ng
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 Documenta=
ry
Database
on 1/1/07, and offer you all the chance to subscribe for $1000 pe=
r
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 abou=
t
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 (ac=
cess
to
these works) for free.

Or maybe your position is: if we put them on a server then yes yo=
u
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 bri=
ng
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 f=
or
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 gotte=
n
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 availa=
ble
on
servers in other countries or, c) films people put out there with=
out
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, an=
d 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 m=
ore
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. Cla=
ire
Stewart
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:26 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseopti=
ons

In addition to the great questions that you list below, I hope ou=
r
review committees also ask: why are we considering purchasing the=
se
licenses? Is it really necessary? How are the materials being use=
d,
and does fair use or TEACH apply? There are four fair use factor=
s; 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 mor=
e
successfully than we have; they've been making the whole works ca=
se
since CONFU and have recommended copyright policies to back it up=
.

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

illegal.

I would like to hear from others who are typically silent when th=
ese
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; wai=
ting

for the video equivalent of a Naxos/Classical Music online servic=
e
and paying a subscription fee makes sense in those cases (or mayb=
e in

all cases: Northwestern has both a robust local music streaming
service and subscriptions to music streaming databases). But if i=
t's
not a question of technical resources, and faculty are requesting=

streaming, has the institution chosen not to make a legal decisio=
n,
leaving the question hanging? What strikes me most are the cases
where licenses are being purchased but no services provided. We m=
ay
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 sear=
ch
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 acces=
s,
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 ongoi=
ng
staff
>time as well as ongoing financial commitments. It will be treate=
d
the
>same as if we were purchasing access to a journal database.
>So, in order to purchase digital rights with a time limit, I los=
e a
lot
>of my autonomy in making purchasing decisions. I am going to hav=
e 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 th=
e
>sticker shock of how much many educational videos cost in the fi=
rst
>place). Other questions they will ask - Whose budget is going t=
o
pay
>for the renewal? Who will keep track of the length of the licen=
se?
Who
>will decide whether to continue access? Who is responsible for
making
>sure the renewal gets paid? What if we decide that our budget ca=
n'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 Cen=
ter
Coordinator of Digitization Projects, Northwestern University Lib=
rary
(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

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

=

--1__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I interpreted Jonathan's reference to it as an "online documen= tary database" to mean they would be the hosts. A video-on-demand = service similar to what Annenberg and FFH&S are doing. If the $1000= was merely to have the streaming rights I would think twice but might = still do it. But aren't most of us realizing the inevitable need for an= infrastructure to digitize, store and deliver streaming video? Sure t= here will be additional costs to making all those titles easily accessi= ble to our users but I think the benefit would justify the work.


Chris Lewis
Media Librarian/Acting Assistant University Librarian for Information S= ervices
American University Library
202.885.3257
3D"InactiveGary Handman <ghandman@library.berk= eley.edu>


=
          Gary Handman <ghandman@library.berkeley.edu&= gt;
          Sent by: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu

          02/14/2006 05:33 PM
          Please respond to
          videolib@library.berkeley.edu

=

To
3D""
videolib@library.berkeley.edu

cc
3D""

Subject
3D""
RE: [Videolib] Purchase vs license modeles - WAS RE:= Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions
=3D""3D""<= /td>

Now all you have to do is digitize the stuff yourself,= find server space, catalog it and develop a campus network infrastruct= ure thru which to stream it...
How much is that gonna add to the $1000 a year...?

Gary


At 01:19 PM 2/14/2006, you wrote:

To
cc
Subject
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 sp= ectacles."
--Guy Debord

= --1__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A-- --0__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A Content-type: image/gif; name="graycol.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="graycol.gif" Content-ID: <10__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df9@american.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: base64 R0lGODlhEAAQAKECAMzMzAAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAAQABAAAAIXlI+py+0PopwxUbpu ZRfKZ2zgSJbmSRYAIf4fT3B0aW1pemVkIGJ5IFVsZWFkIFNtYXJ0U2F2ZXIhAAA7 --0__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A Content-type: image/gif; name="pic06291.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="pic06291.gif" Content-ID: <20__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df9@american.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: base64 R0lGODlhWABDALP/AAAAAK04Qf79/o+Gm7WuwlNObwoJFCsoSMDAwGFsmIuezf///wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACH5BAEAAAgALAAAAABYAEMAQAT/EMlJq704682770RiFMRinqggEUNSHIchG0BCfHhOjAuh EDeUqTASLCbBhQrhG7xis2j0lssNDopE4jfIJhDaggI8YB1sZeZgLVA9YVCpnGagVjV171aRVrYR RghXcAGFhoUETwYxcXNyADJ3GlcSKGAwLwllVC1vjIUHBWsFilKQdI8GA5IcpApeJQt8L09lmgkH LZikoU5wjqcyAMMFrJIDPAKvCFletKSev1HBw8KrxtjZ2tvc3d5VyKtCKW3jfz4uMKmq3xu4N0nK BVoJQmx2LGVOmrqNjjJf2hHAQo/eDwJGTKhQMcgQEEAnEjFS98+RnW3smGkZU6ncCWav/4wYOnAI TihRL/4FEwbp28BXMMcoscQCVxlepL4IGDSCyJyVQOu0o7CjmLN50OZlqWmyFy5/6yBBuji0AxFR M00oQAqNIstqI6qKHUsWRAEAvagsmfUEAImyxgbmUpJk3IklNUtJOUAVLoUr1+wqDGTE4zk+T6FG uQb3SizBCwatiiUgCBN8vrz+zFjVyQ8FWkOlg4NQiZMB5QS8QO3mpOaKnL0Z2EKvNMSILEThKhCg zMKPVxYJh23qm9KNW7pArPynMqZDiErsTMqI+LRi3QAgkFUbXpuFKhSYZALd0O5RKa2z9EYKBbpb qxIKsjUPRgD7I2XYV6wyrOw92ykExP8NW4URhknC5dKGE4v4NENQj2jXjmfNgOZDaXb5glRmXQ33 YEWQYNcZFnrYcIQLNzyTFDQNkXIff0ExVlY4srziQk43inZgL4rwxxINMvpFFAz1KOODHiu+4aEw NEjFl5B3JIKWKF3k6I9bfUGp5ZZcdunll5IA4cuHvQQJ5gcsoCWOOUwgltIwAKRxJgbIkJAQZEq0 2YliZnpZZ4BH3CnYOXldOUOfQoYDqF1LFHbXCrO8xmRsfoXDXJ6ChjCAH3QlhJcT6VWE6FCkfCco CgrMFsROrIEX3o2whVjWDjoJccN3LdggSGXLCdLEgHr1lyU3O3QxhgohNKXJCWv8JQr/PDdaqd6w 2rj1inLiGeiCJoDspAoQlYE6QWLSECehcWIYxIQES6zhbn1iImTHEQyqJ4eIxJJoUBc+3CbBuwZE V5cJPPkIjFDdeEabQbd6WgICTxiiz0f5dBKquXF6k4senwEhYGnKEFJeGrxUZy8dB8gmAXI/sPvH ESfCwVt5hTgYiqQqtdRNHQIU1PJ33ZqmzgE90OwLaoJcnMop1WiMmgkPHQRIrwgFuNV90A3doNKT mrKIN07AnGcI9BQjhCBN4RfA1qIZnMqorJCogKfGQnxSCDilTVIA0yl5ciTovgLuBDKFUDE9aQcw 9SA+rjSNf9/M1gxrj6VwDTS0IUSElMzBfsj0NFXR2kwsV1A5IF1grLgLL/r1R40BZEnuBWgmQEyb jqRwSAt6bqMCOFkvKFN2GPPkUzIm/SCF8z8pVzpbjVnMsy0vOr1hw3SaSRUhpY09v0z0J1FnwzPl fmh+xl4WtR0zGu24I4KbMQm3lnVu2oNWxI9W/lcyzA+mCKF4DBikxb/+UWtOGRiFP8qEwAayIgIA Ow== --0__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A Content-type: image/gif; name="ecblank.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ecblank.gif" Content-ID: <30__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df9@american.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: base64 R0lGODlhEAABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAAQAAEAAAIEjI8ZBQA7 --0__=0ABBFB85DFDD091A8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBFB85DFDD091A--