Re: [Videolib] Would like your thoughts on this one

Jessica Rosner (jrosner@kino.com)
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:37:50 -0400

> 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_3241089471_409603209
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with on the first part. It MUST be clearly spelled out that you are
agreeing to this as a term of sale
( i.e contract ) to be enforceable but as they are the owner and presumably
sole source of the title
I think they can set whatever terms of sale they want provided they don=B9t
violate say Civil Rights law
( not selling to blacks, Jews etc)

I disagree with the policy but I know when this has come up in the past ,
the people who do this
( not merely Newsreel) defend it by saying these films have a VERY small
market and virtually none of it
retail, They can=B9t afford to make it available at retail prices but because
they feel the film is important etc
They don=B9t want to cut of individuals entirely. It is not a totally insane
argument. The alternative which
Nearly all the films would be NO individual aka home sales as they live or
die by the higher priced institutional ones

I remember a long time ago we all said the idea goal would be to have enoug=
h
of a market for these films
that they COULD be sold at a retail level. Films that now cost $250 to a
University could drop to $25 IF
for instance the majority of all public libraries maintained collection=
s
of independent Docs etc.

Most companies would I think much prefer to sell 1000 copies at $25 than 10=
0
at $250
It might be more labor intensive but people really do like their product ou=
t
there

Again I don=B9t agree with the policy and have heated discussions at my own
office and with
Colleagues about it ( but to be fair that was in what I consider the MUCH
more deceptive cases
When the titles ARE available in the home market but the distributor STILL
wants the institution to
Pay a premium) but I do understand the reasons behind it

On 9/14/06 1:49 PM, "Brock, Shawn" <Shawn.Brock@aetn.com> wrote:

> I've been watching this one with some interest as you can imagine ..... M=
y
> opinion is this:
> =20
> a) In general, this can't be considered a term of the sale if they are
> presenting this term after the sale happens.
> b) The legal exemption that allows face-to-face instructional use doesn'=
t
> allow companies to override it based on alternative pricing.
> c) They CAN simply refuse to do business with you, but anything short of=
that
> is simply their attempt to get you to voluntarily comply (especially if t=
hey
> dress up their policy with legal sounding terms and bindings) so they can
> charge you the price they feel is appropriate for their content. Note th=
at I
> say what they feel is appropriate ... they're only right if you agree to =
it as
> their customer.
> =20
> Truthfully, it's amazing to me that they are actively trying to lose you =
as a
> customer and you are fighting with them just so you can remain their cust=
omer.
> It should be the other way around! Seeing this makes me VERY glad that w=
e
> offer all of our content to the educational market at our "home video" pr=
ices
> .... (aside from the fact I couldn't morally justify this to myself!).
> =20
> =20
> Regards,
> Shawn Brock
> Manager, Education Sales
> The History Channel
> 203-353-7217
> shawn.brock@aetn.com
> =20
> . =20
> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Susan Albrecht [mailto:albrechs@wabash.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:27 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Would like your thoughts on this one
>>=20
>> Well, guys, let me just announce who it is. Not sure if they have a
>> representative here in the group, but I seem to recall they do. (Larry=
?)
>> It's California Newsreel, and I have always enjoyed doing business with
>> them, and it would be rather hard for me to NOT do business with them s=
ince
>> their films are popular with several of our profs.
>>=20
>> So... I guess not surprisingly... I'm getting mixed feedback. Some are
>> saying "This is ridiculous and we should challenge them" and others are
>> saying "Well, if it pops up & you click 'OK' then you're agreeing to th=
eir
>> terms." Sigh. =20
>>=20
>> How 'bout my pointing out that the disclaimer they issue states
>> "videocassette" and I was in fact going to purchase the DVD? I still k=
inda
>> like that one as a way around it. :))
>>=20
>> And yeah, Jessica, I've had it happen before (with a diff. company) tha=
t
>> they called me when I tried to place an order for home use video w/ my
>> college credit card and told me they could not complete the order. In =
that
>> case, I just logged back on their site, used my personal credit card, ha=
d it
>> shipped to my home addy, then got reimbursed by the college. Illegal? =
I
>> don't think so. Unethical? I don't think so. In that case there wasn=
't
>> any "contract" situation; they just didn't want to sell a video labelle=
d
>> home use to someone at an institution, and I thought that was balderdas=
h
>> since I was purchasing for library use.
>>=20
>> I'm still thinking this one over, so keep those thoughts rolling in, if=
you
>> would!
>>=20
>> Susan, who guesses if Newsreel.org has a rep here, the "videocassette"
>> language will shortly be changed to "videocassette or disc."
>>=20
>>=20
>> At 12:03 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
>> =20
>>> Seems this is a contractual (not a legal) situation: the company is
>>> putting forward conditions for sale and use and the user, in buying, a=
grees
>>> to the contact. The whole HOME VIDEO issue is just a weird smokescre=
en...
>>>=20
>>> I wouldn't do business with these guys, or if I did, I read em the rio=
t act
>>> before I did.
>>>=20
>>> Gary Handman
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> At 08:36 AM 9/14/2006, Jessica wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> Any legal tape can be used for legitimate classroom instruction ( as
>>>> opposed to an open showing on campus)
>>>> Just curious is the company in question the sole provider of said ite=
ms
>>>> Actually they must be given that they can put a disclaimer on the DVD=
so
>>>> I guess the manufactuar it themselves
>>>>=20
>>>> The only "trick" will be that I assume you will have to get someone e=
lse
>>>> to make the purchase as they would be
>>>> Likely to reject one coming from them.
>>>>=20
>>>> There is however one BIG problem if they REQUIRE you to agree in orde=
r to
>>>> purchase the title. For instance if you are ordering on line and up p=
ops
>>>> Something that says " you agree to abide by our terms and conditions"=
and
>>>> it lists the restriction it would
>>>> In fact become a contract and a contract WOULD trump copyright law
>>>>=20
>>>> Basically if the seller REQUIRES the buyer to "sign" off in some way =
they
>>>> can add these restrictions
>>>> They could also say that you couldn't show it on Sundays IF they put=
it
>>>> in the contract and you
>>>> Signed it , either on the internet or on an order form
>>>>=20
>>>> You should do whatever you can to AVOID signing something but if it i=
s
>>>> required you are kind of
>>>> screwed
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On 9/14/06 10:18 AM, "Susan Albrecht" <albrechs@wabash.edu> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Hey, everyone.
>>>> I'd love to know what you all think of this. A well-respected (by m=
e,
>>>> too!) company from whom I've purchased many times in the past has alw=
ays
>>>> had a distinction between college/corporate use and public library/hi=
gh
>>>> school use in its pricing. This I know is their perogative, because =
it's
>>>> simple price tiering with no kind of claim made about usage needs.
>>>> However. Now there is a "home video" option at, not surprisingly, a
>>>> lower price yet. Here's the warning one gets when one puts such an i=
tem
>>>> in one's cart:
>>>>=20
>>>> HOME VIDEO - program comes with a warning against classroom use
>>>> periodically during the program - more information The "more informa=
tion"
>>>> link provides this:
>>>>=20
>>>> =20
>>>> Home video purchasers may use the videos in non-institutional contex=
ts
>>>> only. At two points during home video videocassettes script will appe=
ar
>>>> over the image stating that this videocassette has been purchased for=
home
>>>> use only and may not be used in class, circulated in an institutional
>>>> library or be exhibited to the general public.
>>>>=20
>>>> Now, I just don't think this can be done. Once a "home use" option =
has
>>>> been offered up, it's fair game for libraries whose collections are u=
sed
>>>> only for 1) individual checkout or 2) classroom use. WE DON'T NEED P=
PR in
>>>> our case, because this will be used in only those two ways I've just
>>>> mentioned, and we are COVERED by the face-to-face teaching exemption.=
Or
>>>> is the insertion of this script in the video supposed to act as a
>>>> "contract" between seller & buyer?
>>>>=20
>>>> Am I wrong to feel justified in purchasing the "Home Video" option?
>>>> Susan at Wabash College
>>=20
>> =20
>> Susan Albrecht
>> =20
>> Acquisitions Coordinator
>> =20
>> Wabash College Lilly Library
>> =20
>> Crawfordsville, IN
>> =20
>> x6216
>> =20
>> albrechs@wabash.edu
>>=20
>> =20
>> ************************************************************************=
*****
>> ****
>> =20
>> "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."--Neil Pear=
t
>> =20
>> ************************************************************************=
*****
>> ****
>>=20
>=20

Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE
=20
Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
jrosner@kino.com
212-629-6880

--B_3241089471_409603209
Content-type: text/html;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Re: [Videolib] Would like your thoughts on this one I agr= ee with on the first part. It MUST be clearly spelled out that you are agree= ing to this as a term of sale
( i.e contract ) to be enforceable but as they are the owner and presumably= sole source of the title
I think they can set whatever terms of sale they want provided they donR= 17;t violate say Civil Rights law
( not selling to blacks, Jews etc)

I disagree with the policy but I know when this has come up in the past , t= he people who do this
( not merely Newsreel) defend it by saying these films have a VERY small &n= bsp;market and virtually none of it
retail, They can’t afford to make it available at retail prices but b= ecause they feel the film is important etc
They don’t want to cut of individuals entirely. It is not a totally i= nsane argument. The alternative which
Nearly all the films would be NO individual aka home sales as they live or = die by the higher priced institutional ones

I remember a long time ago we all said the idea goal would be to have enoug= h of a market for these films
that they COULD be sold at  a retail level. Films that now cost $250 t= o a University could drop to $25 IF
for instance the majority of all public libraries     m= aintained collections of independent Docs etc.

Most companies would I think much prefer to sell 1000 copies at $25 than 10= 0 at $250
It might be more labor intensive but people really do like their product ou= t there

Again I don’t agree with the policy and have heated discussions at my= own office and with
Colleagues about it ( but to be fair that was in what I consider the MUCH m= ore deceptive cases
When the titles ARE available in the  home market but the distributor = STILL wants the institution  to
Pay  a premium) but I do understand the reasons behind it


On 9/14/06 1:49 PM, "Brock, Shawn" <Shawn.Brock@aetn.com> w= rote:

I've been watching this one with some interest as you= can imagine ..... My opinion is this:

a)  In general, this c= an't be considered a term of the sale if they are presenting this term after= the sale happens.
b)  The legal exemption that allows face-to-face instructional use doe= sn't allow companies to override it based on alternative pricing.  
c)  They CAN simply refuse to do business with you, but anything short= of that is simply their attempt to get you to voluntarily comply (especiall= y if they dress up their policy with legal sounding terms and bindings) so t= hey can charge you the price they feel is appropriate for their content. &nb= sp;Note that I say what they feel is appropriate ... they're only right if y= ou agree to it as their customer.

Truthfully, it's amazing to= me that they are actively trying to lose you as a customer and you are figh= ting with them just so you can remain their customer.  It should be the= other way around!  Seeing this makes me VERY glad that we offer all of= our content to the educational market at our "home video" prices = .... (aside from the fact I couldn't morally justify this to myself!).

 
Regards,
Shawn Brock
Manager, Education Sales
The History Channel
203-353-7217
shawn.brock@aetn.com

.  


 
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Albrecht  [ma= ilto:albrechs@wabash.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006  1:27 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re:  [Videolib] Would like your thoughts on this one
Well,  guys, let me just= announce who it is.  Not sure if they have a  representative here= in the group, but I seem to recall they do.   (Larry?)  It's= California Newsreel, and I have always enjoyed doing  business with th= em, and it would be rather hard for me to NOT do business with  them si= nce their films are popular with several of our profs.   

So... I guess not surprisingly... I'm getting mixed feedback.   S= ome are saying "This is ridiculous and we should challenge them" a= nd others  are saying "Well, if it pops up & you click 'OK' th= en you're agreeing to  their terms."  Sigh.  

How 'bout my pointing out that the  disclaimer they issue states "= ;videocassette" and I was in fact going to  purchase the DVD? &nbs= p;I still kinda like that one as a way around it.  :))

And yeah, Jessica, I've had it happen before (with a diff. company)  t= hat they called me when I tried to place an order for home use video w/ my &= nbsp;college credit card and told me they could not complete the order. &nbs= p;In  that case, I just logged back on their site, used my personal cre= dit card, had  it shipped to my home addy, then got reimbursed by the c= ollege.   Illegal?  I don't think so.  Unethical?  = I don't think  so.  In that case there wasn't any "contract&q= uot; situation; they just didn't  want to sell a video labelled home us= e to someone at an institution, and I  thought that was balderdash sinc= e I was purchasing for library use.

I'm  still thinking this one over, so keep those thoughts rolling in, = if you  would!

Susan, who guesses if Newsreel.org has a rep here, the  "videocas= sette" language will shortly be changed to "videocassette or  = ;disc."


At 12:03 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
 
Seems this is a contractual (not  a legal) situati= on:  the company is putting forward conditions for sale  and use a= nd the user, in buying, agrees to the contact.   The  whole H= OME VIDEO issue is just a weird smokescreen...

I wouldn't do  business with these guys, or if I did, I read em the ri= ot act before I  did.

Gary Handman


At 08:36 AM 9/14/2006, Jessica wrote:
 
Any legal  tape can be used  for legitimate c= lassroom instruction ( as opposed  to an open showing on campus)
Just curious is the company in question  the sole provider of said ite= ms
Actually they must be given that they  can put a disclaimer on the DVD= so  I guess the manufactuar it  themselves

The only "trick" will be that I assume you will have to  get= someone else to make the purchase as they would be
Likely to  reject one coming from them.

There is however one BIG problem if  they REQUIRE you to agree in orde= r to purchase the title. For instance if  you are ordering on line and = up pops
Something that says " you agree to  abide by our terms and condit= ions" and it lists the restriction it  would
In fact become a contract and a contract WOULD trump copyright  law
Basically if the seller REQUIRES the buyer to "sign" off in  = ;some way they can add these restrictions
They could also say that you  couldn't show  it on Sundays IF the= y put it in the contract and  you
Signed it , either on the internet or on an order form

You  should do whatever you can to AVOID signing something but if it i= s  required you are kind of
screwed




On 9/14/06 10:18  AM, "Susan Albrecht" <albrechs@wabash.e= du> wrote:

   Hey, everyone.
 I'd love to know what you all think of this.  A  well-respe= cted (by me, too!) company from whom I've purchased many  times in the = past has always had a distinction between  college/corporate use and pu= blic library/high school use in its  pricing.  This I know is thei= r perogative, because it's simple  price tiering with no kind of claim = made about usage needs.
 However.  Now there is a "home video" option at, not &= nbsp;surprisingly, a lower price yet.  Here's the warning one gets &nbs= p;when one puts such an item in one's cart:

 HOME VIDEO - program comes with a  warning= against classroom use periodically during the program - more  informat= ion The "more information" link provides this:

 
 Home video purchasers may use the  videos = in non-institutional contexts only. At two points during home  video vi= deocassettes script will appear over the image stating that  this video= cassette has been purchased for home use only and may not be  used in c= lass, circulated in an institutional library or be exhibited  to the ge= neral public.

Now, I just don't think this can be done.  Once a "home u= se"  option has been offered up, it's fair game for libraries whos= e  collections are used only for 1) individual checkout or 2) classroom=  use.  WE DON'T NEED PPR in our case, because this will be used i= n  only those two ways I've just mentioned, and we are COVERED by the &= nbsp;face-to-face teaching exemption.  Or is the insertion of this &nbs= p;script in the video supposed to act as a "contract" between sell= er  & buyer?

 Am I wrong to feel justified in purchasing the "Home Video"=  option?
 Susan at Wabash College  

 
Susan Albrecht
 
Acquisitions Coordinator
 
Wabash College Lilly Library
 
Crawfordsville, IN
 
x6216
 
albrechs@wabash.edu

 
***************************************************************************= ******
 
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."--Nei= l  Peart
 
***************************************************************************= ******






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_3241089471_409603209--

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.