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

Threatt, Monique L (mthreatt@indiana.edu)
Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:55:53 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6323F.EB2CA551
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C6323F.EB2CA551"

------_=_NextPart_002_01C6323F.EB2CA551
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,
=20
Gary -- I think consortium digitizing of orphan works, etc. is an =
excellent idea. At this time, I do not have the infrastructure to =
support full-out production, but I hope that will change within the next =
year. I'd be happy to participate in such an outstanding endeavor.
=20
Jonathan -- I think what you are suggesting is to have VOD similar to a =
database subscription? FRIF will digitize its catalog in-house, and we =
will pay the $1000 annual access fee? Is that correct? I have to =
admit, I think that's a great idea, and not an unreasonable price.
=20
Best,
M
*************************=20
Monique Threatt=20
Librarian for Media, and Communication & Culture=20
Herman B Wells Library, W121=20
Indiana University=20
Bloomington, IN 47405=20
T: (812) 855-9857=20
F: (812) 855-1649=20
E: mthreatt@indiana.edu=20
=20

________________________________

From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu =
[mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Gary Handman
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:34 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Purchase vs license modeles - WAS RE: Digital =
Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions

Now all you have to do is digitize the stuff yourself, find server =
space, catalog it and develop a campus network infrastructure 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:

Short and sweet.
=09
At $1000 per year for digital access to the complete First Run Icarus =
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 lost in the buying vs. =
leasing tradeoff.=20
=09
Chris Lewis
Media Librarian/Acting Assistant University Librarian for Information =
Services
American University Library
202.885.3257
"Rick Provine" <PROVINE@depauw.edu>
=09
=09

"Rick Provine" <PROVINE@depauw.edu> Sent by: =
videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20
=09
02/14/2006 10:56 AM=20
Please respond to videolib@library.berkeley.edu

=20
=09
To
=09

<videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
=20
=09
cc
=09

=20
=09
Subject
=09

RE: [Videolib] Purchase vs license modeles - WAS RE: Digital Streaming =
Companiesandlicenseoptions
=09
This is fun!
=09
Maybe the in-between compromise answer here is pay per view. I am not
anxious to get my users hooked on a bunch if titles that I may not be
able to keep. And your catalog could change any time, changing what my
users have gotten used to. =20
=09
We spend a lot of time making sure people know what we have and
securing access (cataloging, packaging, etc). Expensive in several
ways. Unless licensing is very broad and stable, I would be wary.
=09
But a PPV model offers me the luxury of not tying up a lot of funds,
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 the
vendor gets paid for what I want. Many people would pay ten dollars (a
fictional number out of the ether) to view a title that cannot affort
400.00 to purchase it. But over time, the vendor could still amortize
the cost, and save on duping and "publishing" costs.
=09
This presents obvious problems for the vendor. Expensive to build 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....
=09
Rick
=09
=09
=09
>>> jmiller@frif.com 2/14/2006 9:32 AM >>>
For what it's worth, I agree with this.=20
Well put. Jonathan=20
=09
=09
=09
_____ =20
=09
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20
[ mailto: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=20
Subject: [Videolib] Purchase vs license modeles - WAS RE: Digital
Streaming
Companiesandlicenseoptions
=09
I am coming late to this discussion, and admit that I have not read
the
entire thread.
=09
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.
=09
The "access to all" model that Jonathan references is similar to
electronic
journals packaging models. You pay $X, you can use all that we
publish.
(Some of that was built on pricing models that guarantee a revenue
stream to
the publisher, based on what the library was already paying. "You
subscribe
to X # of journals at $X per year. Guarantee us that $ figure and you
can
have access to all we publish. - This is a gross * over simplification
* of
the model).
=09
The advantage to this is that our users (and I'm speaking of journals
users)
are able to and DO access articles in journals we otherwise would not
have
subscribed to. We don't have to receive them, check them in, label
them,
re-shelve them, etc.
=09
Win win all around.
=09
Same thing, in theory, for licensed digital media content. We get a
wider
array of content, for significantly reduced cost per use.
=09
But in an earlier note, Jonathan indicated their (and I don't mean FRIF
in
particular, but any media distributor) distribution rights are not in
perpetuity, but for set periods. What happens when the rights to FRIF
or
WGBH or PBS,etc. programs expire. (Think, NOVA, Eyes on the Prize, and
countless other programs)
=09
In the purchased copy model, we retain the copy and the right to use
that
copy until it deteriorates. Under US Copyright (and I raise this point
with
some trepidation) under certain limited conditions we are guaranteed
the
right to make a * copy * and continue to use that program.
=09
Under the licensed access model, if FRIF/WGBH/PBS rights go away, so
does
the access.
=09
With journals, library licenses are now demanding ongoing access. That
is,
when the library ceases to subscribe to a title, access to what it
previously subscribed to will be maintained and guaranteed. (Library
Y
subscribed to the Journal of Z from 1980-2004. Subscription included
electronic access from 1990 on. In 2004 the subscription was
cancelled, but
the publisher continues to provide Library Y guaranteed access to the
electronic files of Journal of Z from 1990 to 2004).
=09
In some cases publishers allow the subscribing library to archive
backfiles.
=09
It's the questions around modes that continue to provide access to the
content after distribution rights have expired, or a company has gone
belly-up that interest me.
=09
=09
=09
=09
_____ =20
=09
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20
[ mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu =
<mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu> ] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Miller
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:18 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu=20
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions
=09
Well Yes and No:=20
=09
1) If you ALSO continue to buy a DVD or VHS of selected titles
(not
all titles) think of it as giving all your students and faculty access
to
watch a stream of all those films, PLUS all our hundreds of other films
you
may not even know about (not YOU, but, you know) for - $ 1.11 each per
year.
That's not a good deal?=20
=09
2) You could cut back on your purchase of hard copies, and just
access
our collection and get all our new films, basically, for a lower per
film
cost as our library continues to grow (as it does).=20
=09
Also, you aren't paying for the same piece of "property" - you are
paying
for another way to access and use that "property".
=09
I am assuming that at some point people will stop buying physical
copies.
Some will want access to a server in the sky, some will build their
own
servers, etc. - then we will not be caught up in this question of
buying
something "twice" (which arises because in fact you (well not YOU, but,
you
know) do want it twice - rather - we will be back where it has always
been -
about what price the commodity is worth.=20
=09
(To illustrate that another way: if you (Gary) promise to buy 50 films
from
me a year at list price, I WILL (me) give you some sort of digital
license
for only $1000 extra!)=20
=09
JM
=09
=09
=09
_____ =20
=09
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20
[ mailto: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=20
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions
=09
Hi Jon...
=09
Here's my take: $1000 for digital rights to the FRIF library is an
incredible buy; $1000 per year is not. =20
=09
Look: in the old order, I buy a video or DVD from you once; I use it
until
it shreds, crumbles, or vanishes... Then I get a replacement copy for
a
deeply discounted price. I show the film in classrooms and the media
center...sometimes dozens of times over the course of year...
=09
Why in the world would I pay for the same damn piece of intellectual
property over and over again? In the case of tape/dvd it ain't as if
you
(I'm using you generically...) are gonna get any more money out of
me...one
sale--that's it. How is digital different.
=09
I also want to bring up an issue here that hasn't been brought up
previously
in this thread. A number of distributors are making digital files
available
"off the shelf" in various formats (windows media, quicktime, etc.). =20
There
are other access models brewing (e.g. FMG's remote access model...)
Nonetheless: the fact is that for a large number of distributors
offering
licensing rights now and probably in the future, if we want to go
digital,
we're gonna have to do the work ourselves...we're going to have to
encode,
store, and provide public access to the content. How does this factor
into
the whole pricing structure for digital rights (or does it?). And
what's
more, maybe those of us headed in this direction need to be talking
about
cooperative projects: it would be nuts if ten of us got busy encoding
the
same damn piece of video, no?
=09
Gary
=09
=09
=09
At 12:09 PM 2/13/2006, you wrote:
Dear Claire=20
=09
Sorry, I am getting a bit confused (and not just from your email below,
but
the entire thread).=20
=09
Let's try it this way: When I introduce the FRIF Online Documentary
Database
on 1/1/07, and offer you all the chance to subscribe for $1000 per year
per
campus, and in return you can access streams of all the films we have
rights
to and distribute: Would that be a good deal? (we distribute about 900
films).=20
=09
If so, then, aren't we only talking about a) price (most of all) and
b)
available infrastructure and c) bureaucracy (in the good sense)?=20
=09
As I understand your position: we should provide this service (access
to
these works) for free.=20
=09
Or maybe your position is: if we put them on a server then yes you
might pay
something, but if we let you put them on a server, then no you
shouldn't
have to?
=09
I travel all over the world (someone has to) to find films to bring to
this
country, many of which won't be distributed here if I (or someone
else)
doesn't do that. Who pays for that? You do: and I think you pay for it
(via
the prices you pay for our films) because you think it's worth it.
=09
The filmmakers give us those rights to bring their films to you because
we
pay them something for that right. (and, n.b. we NEVER have gotten
those
rights "in perpetuity", there is ALWAYS a term on them).
=09
Do you want that entire system to collapse? Fine: you will have access
in
future to a) pirated films via bit torrent etc or b) films available
on
servers in other countries or, c) films people put out there without
expecting any compensation, or d) what?=20
=09
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.
=09
But FRIF is an ongoing business and part of my job is to look out for
the
rights and interests of the filmmakers, our staff, and myself, and to
ensure
that they (and we) receive some compensation for the use of their work
(and
the work that we do).=20
=09
How do you propose to maintain that in the ground is as slippery and
soft
and malleable as you suggest, apparently out of a desire to get more
value
out of the media while lowering your costs (or eliminating even) at
our
(collectively, the field's) expense?=20
=09
Or have I missed something? Probably I have. Please tell me what it is.
=09
=09
Thanks,
=09
Jonathan Miller=20
=09
=09
=09
=09
-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20
[ < mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu =
<mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu> >
mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of M. Claire
Stewart
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:26 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu=20
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital Streaming Companiesandlicenseoptions
=09
In addition to the great questions that you list below, I hope our=20
review committees also ask: why are we considering purchasing these=20
licenses? Is it really necessary? How are the materials being used,=20
and does fair use or TEACH apply? There are four fair use factors; I=20
think often the amount used is what makes video librarians think fair=20
use doesn't apply, but that is only one factor among four. So far,=20
our colleagues in music and visual resources have argued this more=20
successfully than we have; they've been making the whole works case=20
since CONFU and have recommended copyright policies to back it up.
=09
I realize that this comment may provoke the usual response from some=20
on this list. I strongly disagree with the perspective that=20
digitizing and streaming titles which the institution legally owns=20
without purchasing an additional "digital license" is necessarily=20
illegal.
=09
I would like to hear from others who are typically silent when these=20
debates arise on VIDEOLIB. I'm curious where the people not=20
represented on Monique's list stand. I know not everyone has the=20
technological resources to support a local streaming service; waiting=20
for the video equivalent of a Naxos/Classical Music online service=20
and paying a subscription fee makes sense in those cases (or maybe in=20
all cases: Northwestern has both a robust local music streaming=20
service and subscriptions to music streaming databases). But if it's=20
not a question of technical resources, and faculty are requesting=20
streaming, has the institution chosen not to make a legal decision,=20
leaving the question hanging? What strikes me most are the cases=20
where licenses are being purchased but no services provided. We may=20
have taken to electronic journals like ducks to water, but there were=20
significant new services being offered with ejournals: centrally=20
delivered electronic content, vastly improved access through search=20
services, etc. What exactly are we paying for now?
=09
If folks want to email me offlist please do:
claire-stewart@northwestern.edu=20
.
=09
Claire
=09
At 3:23 PM -0600 2/11/06, Bergman, Barbara J wrote:
>I'm okay with paying a reasonable higher price for digital access,
but
>cost aside, digital rights that have to be renewed create a
purchasing
>problem because I am no longer making a one-time purchase.
>
>Anything with an ongoing cost is considered a serial, with ongoing
staff
>time as well as ongoing financial commitments. It will be treated the
>same as if we were purchasing access to a journal database.
>So, in order to purchase digital rights with a time limit, I lose a
lot
>of my autonomy in making purchasing decisions. I am going to have to
go
>make my case to our Serials Review Committee - who are going to ask
all
>the same questions that we're asking (while also getting over the
>sticker shock of how much many educational videos cost in the first
>place). Other questions they will ask - Whose budget is going to pay
>for the renewal? Who will keep track of the length of the license?
Who
>will decide whether to continue access? Who is responsible for making
>sure the renewal gets paid? What if we decide that our budget can't
>absorb the renewal costs?
>
>Will I be looking at acquiring digital access? Yes.
>Are we jumping in? Not yet.
>Will perpetual access be a selling point? Definitely.
>
>
>Barb Bergman
>Media Services Librarian
>Minnesota State University-Mankato
>(507) 389-5945 =20
>
>_______________________________________________
>Videolib mailing list
>Videolib@library.berkeley.edu=20
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib=20
< http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib =
<http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib> >=20
=09
=09
--=20
____________________________________________________
M. Claire Stewart
Head, Digital Media Services, Marjorie I. Mitchell Multimedia Center
Coordinator of Digitization Projects, Northwestern University Library
(847) 467-1437
claire-stewart@northwestern.edu=20
http://www.library.northwestern.edu/cstewart/=20
http://copyrightreadings.blogspot.com =
<http://copyrightreadings.blogspot.com=A0>=20
_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu=20
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib=20
=09
_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu=20
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib=20
Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu=20
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC=20
=09
*****
=09
"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail,
all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of
spectacles."
--Guy Debord=20
_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib
=09
=09
=09

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_002_01C6323F.EB2CA551
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

Hello,
 
Gary -- I think=20 consortium digitizing of orphan works, etc. is an = excellent=20 idea.  At this time, I do not have the infrastructure to support = full-out=20 production, but I hope that will change within the next year.  I'd = be happy=20 to participate in such an outstanding endeavor.
 
Jonathan -- I think what you are suggesting is = to have VOD=20 similar to a database subscription?  FRIF will digitize its=20 catalog in-house, and we will pay the $1000 annual access = fee?  Is=20 that correct?  I have to admit, I think that's a great idea, and = not an=20 unreasonable price.
 
Best,
M
*************************
Monique Threatt =
Librarian for Media, and = Communication &=20 Culture
Herman B=20 Wells Library, W121
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN  47405
T:   (812) 855-9857 =
F:  (812) = 855-1649=20
E: =20 mthreatt@indiana.edu
 


From: = videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu=20 [mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Gary=20 Handman
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:34 PM
To: = videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Purchase = vs=20 license modeles - WAS RE: Digital Streaming=20 Companiesandlicenseoptions

Now all you have to do is digitize the stuff yourself, find = server=20 space, catalog it and develop a campus network infrastructure thru which = to=20 stream it...
How much is that gonna add to the $1000 a=20 year...?

Gary


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

Short and = sweet.

At $1000=20 per year for digital access to the complete First Run Icarus catalog? = Sign me=20 up. I don't care if it only lasts one year. This kind of pricing is a = fraction=20 of what we would normally spend annually and the enormous gain in = content=20 would justify what's lost in the buying vs. leasing tradeoff. =

Chris=20 Lewis
Media Librarian/Acting Assistant University Librarian for = Information=20 Services
American University Library
202.885.3257
3D'Inactive "Rick Provine"=20 <PROVINE@depauw.edu>

3D[]
To

<videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
3D[]=20
cc

3D[]=20
Subject

RE:=20 [Videolib] Purchase vs license modeles - WAS RE: Digital Streaming=20 Companiesandlicenseoptions

This is fun!

Maybe = the=20 in-between compromise answer here is pay per view.  I am = not
anxious=20 to get my users hooked on a bunch if titles that I may not be
able = to=20 keep.  And your catalog could change any time, changing what = my
users=20 have gotten used to. 

We spend a lot of time making sure = people=20 know what we have and
securing access (cataloging, packaging, = etc). =20 Expensive in several
ways.  Unless licensing is very broad and = stable,=20 I would be wary.

But a PPV model offers me the luxury of not = tying up a=20 lot of funds,
but still grants access to all titles in a vendor=20 catalog.  My 1000.00
will go a lot farther and be more = targeted and=20 efficient.  Then the
vendor gets paid for what I want.  = Many=20 people would pay ten dollars (a
fictional number out of the ether) = to view=20 a title that cannot affort
400.00 to purchase it.  But over = time, the=20 vendor could still amortize
the cost, and save on duping and = "publishing"=20 costs.

This presents obvious problems for the vendor.  = Expensive=20 to build a
stable and scalable PPV set up.  Maybe one of the = more=20 feature-oriented
online services could serve as a distribution = site. =20 Just brainstorming
here....

Rick



>>> = jmiller@frif.com 2/14/2006 9:32 AM >>>
For what it's = worth, I=20 agree with this.
Well put. Jonathan =



 _____ =20

From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[=20 mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of=20 Deg
Farrelly
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:15 PM
To:=20 videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: [Videolib] Purchase vs = license=20 modeles - WAS RE: = Digital
Streaming
Companiesandlicenseoptions

I=20 am coming late to this discussion, and admit that I have not=20 read
the
entire thread.

Here is an observation on the = $1000 per=20 anum model that Jonathan
mentioned
earlier, in relation to = Gary's model=20 of purchased use crumbles to
dust.

The "access to all" model = that=20 Jonathan references is similar to
electronic
journals packaging=20 models.  You pay $X, you can use all that we
publish.
(Some = of that=20 was built on pricing models that guarantee a revenue
stream = to
the=20 publisher, based on what the library was already paying. =20 "You
subscribe
to X # of journals at $X per year.  = Guarantee us=20 that $ figure and you
can
have access to all we publish.  - = This is=20 a gross * over simplification
* of
the model).

The = advantage to=20 this is that our users (and I'm speaking of journals
users)
are = able to=20 and DO access articles in journals we otherwise would=20 not
have
subscribed to.  We don't have to receive them, = check them=20 in, label
them,
re-shelve them, etc.

Win win all=20 around.

Same thing, in theory, for licensed digital media=20 content.  We get a
wider
array of content, for = significantly=20 reduced cost per use.

But in an earlier note, Jonathan = indicated their=20 (and I don't mean FRIF
in
particular, but any media distributor) = distribution rights are not in
perpetuity, but for set = periods.  What=20 happens when the rights to FRIF
or
WGBH or PBS,etc. programs = expire.=20 (Think, NOVA, Eyes on the Prize, and
countless other = programs)

In=20 the purchased copy model, we retain the copy and the right to=20 use
that
copy until it deteriorates.  Under US Copyright = (and I=20 raise this point
with
some trepidation) under certain limited = conditions=20 we are guaranteed
the
right to make a * copy * and continue to = use that=20 program.

Under the licensed access model, if FRIF/WGBH/PBS = rights go=20 away, so
does
the access.

With journals, library licenses = are now=20 demanding ongoing access.  That
is,
when the library ceases = to=20 subscribe to a title, access to what it
previously subscribed to = will be=20 maintained and guaranteed.  (Library
Y
subscribed to the = Journal of=20 Z from 1980-2004.  Subscription included
electronic access = from 1990=20 on.  In 2004 the subscription was
cancelled, but
the = publisher=20 continues to provide Library Y guaranteed access to the
electronic = files of=20 Journal of Z from 1990 to 2004).

In some cases publishers allow = the=20 subscribing library to archive
backfiles.

It's the questions = around=20 modes that continue to provide access to the
content after = distribution=20 rights have expired, or a company has gone
belly-up that interest=20 me.




 _____ 

From:=20 videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[=20 mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of=20 Jonathan
Miller
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:18 PM
To:=20 videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital = Streaming=20 Companiesandlicenseoptions

Well Yes and No:=20

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

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

Also, you aren't paying for the same = piece of=20 "property" - you are
paying
for another way to access and use = that=20 "property".

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

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

JM



 _____ 

From:=20 videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[=20 mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of=20 Gary
Handman
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:14 PM
To:=20 videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital = Streaming=20 Companiesandlicenseoptions

Hi Jon...

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

Look: in the old order, I buy a video or = DVD from=20 you once; I use it
until
it shreds, crumbles, or vanishes... = Then I get=20 a replacement copy for
a
deeply discounted price.  I show = the film=20 in classrooms and the media
center...sometimes dozens of times over = the=20 course of year...

Why in the world would I pay for the same = damn piece=20 of intellectual
property over and over again?  In the case of = tape/dvd=20 it ain't as if
you
(I'm using you generically...) are gonna get = any more=20 money out of
me...one
sale--that's it.  How is digital=20 different.

I also want to bring up an issue here that hasn't = been=20 brought up
previously
in this thread.  A number of = distributors are=20 making digital files
available
"off the shelf" in various = formats=20 (windows media, quicktime, etc.). 
There
are other access = models=20 brewing (e.g. FMG's remote access model...)
Nonetheless:  the = fact is=20 that for a large number of distributors
offering
licensing = rights now=20 and probably in the future, if we want to go
digital,
we're = gonna have=20 to do the work ourselves...we're going to have to
encode,
store, = and=20 provide public access to the content.   How does this=20 factor
into
the whole pricing structure for digital rights (or = does=20 it?).  And
what's
more, maybe those of us headed in this = direction=20 need to be talking
about
cooperative projects:  it would be = nuts if=20 ten of us got busy encoding
the
same damn piece of video,=20 no?

Gary



At 12:09 PM 2/13/2006, you = wrote:
Dear=20 Claire

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

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

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

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

Or maybe your position = is: if=20 we put them on a server then yes you
might pay
something, but if = we let=20 you put them on a server, then no you
shouldn't
have = to?

I travel=20 all over the world (someone has to) to find films to bring=20 to
this
country, many of which won't be distributed here if I = (or=20 someone
else)
doesn't do that. Who pays for that? You do: and I = think=20 you pay for it
(via
the prices you pay for our films) because = you think=20 it's worth it.

The filmmakers give us those rights to bring = their films=20 to you because
we
pay them something for that right. (and, n.b. = we NEVER=20 have gotten
those
rights "in perpetuity", there is ALWAYS a term = on=20 them).

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

It's = one=20 thing if you are talking about "orphaned" works: no one = owns
or
claims=20 them. I don't care what you do with them.

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

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

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


Thanks,

Jonathan Miller=20




-----Original Message-----
From:=20 videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[ <=20 mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu>
mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu] = On Behalf=20 Of M. Claire
Stewart
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:26 = PM
To:=20 videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Digital = Streaming=20 Companiesandlicenseoptions

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

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

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

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

Claire

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


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

_______________________________________________
Videolib = mailing=20 list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www= .lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib=20
Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt=20 Library
UC Berkeley
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC<= /A>=20

*****

"In societies where modern conditions of = production=20 prevail,
          all = of life=20 presents itself as an immense accumulation=20 = of
spectacles."
        &nb= sp;    =20 --Guy Debord =
_______________________________________________
Videolib=20 mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www= .lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib


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_002_01C6323F.EB2CA551-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6323F.EB2CA551 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="168b0ca.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <986314714@15022006-0109> Content-Description: 168b0ca.gif Content-Location: 168b0ca.gif R0lGODlhEAAQAKECAMzMzAAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAAQABAAAAIXlI+py+0PopwxUbpu ZRfKZ2zgSJbmSRYAIf4fT3B0aW1pemVkIGJ5IFVsZWFkIFNtYXJ0U2F2ZXIhAAA7 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6323F.EB2CA551 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="168b0da.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <986314714@15022006-0110> Content-Description: 168b0da.gif Content-Location: 168b0da.gif R0lGODlhEAABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAAQAAEAAAIEjI8ZBQA7 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6323F.EB2CA551--