Re: [Videolib] Digital Video Licensing

Jessica Rosner (jrosner@kino.com)
Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:47:30 -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_3256206451_125171175
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1254"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Gary
This is hard for me to sort through. Bottom line do you really see this as
viable for most feature films ?
Studio=92s seem pretty paranoid. I think they might eventually do something
like they do now with licensing being year to year.
Speaking for those of us dealing with foreign and independent films it migh=
t
theoretically be impossible. Our contracts are generally limited
To 7-10 years so even if we had the technology or whatever we can only allo=
w
use for set periods of time

As usual this is all Greek to me

On 3/8/07 1:08 PM, "Gary Handman" <ghandman@library.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Some Thoughts on Digital Licensing for Video
> =20
> Because Berkeley is on the cusp of trying out on-demand delivery of porti=
ons
> of its video collection, I=92ve been doing a lot of talking and thinking ab=
out
> the issue of digital licensing of video content. It is apparent that the
> non-theatrical VOD marketplace is, at very best, immature and confused (a=
nd
> confusing) regarding economic models for VOD delivery. A number of model=
s
> seem to be shaking out:
> =20
> A. Content maintained on vendor=92s remote server and licensed annually or
> semi-annually based on number of titles selected, institutional head-coun=
t, or
> number of synchronous users. I=92m not aware of any vendors offering flat
> annual licenses for unlimited institutional access to vendor-maintained V=
OD
> servers.
> =20
> B. Content encoded by vendor in one or more of several formats (Windows
> Media, QuickTime, mpeg4, etc.), and licensed for in-perpetuity use for a =
flat
> fee (e.g. Films Media Group). Variable licensing fees based on whether o=
r not
> the institution has bought the licensed title in previous formats (tape o=
r
> DVD). In some instances, fees may be based on number of titles licensed.=
In
> this model, client is responsible for uploading and maintaining these fil=
es on
> local server. (Client may also be required to transcode files=ADe.g. from =
mpeg4
> to a streamable format).
> =20
> C. Above model but with term licensing: licensing for a set period of ti=
me,
> usually one to five years. At the end of the term, licenses must be
> renegotiated.
> =20
> D. Distributor offers digital licensing rights alone=ADi.e. without supply=
ing
> the source files. Institution is responsible for encoding off of DVD or =
tape
> and uploading to local server. Either in-perpetuity or term licensing.
> =20
> E. Jon Miller of First Run/Icarus has suggested a model in which an enti=
re
> catalog of a distributor (including new additions) is licensed annually f=
or a
> flat fee. Not aware that one is actually putting this model into play
> =20
> F. Content encoded and delivered to client by an outside vendor which do=
es
> not have control or rights over the content. Annual or per-title service
> costs. Examples of this type of service is CDigix ( http://www.cdigix.com=
/).
> <http://www.cdigix.com/).%A0> These types of firms seem to be geared lar=
gely
> toward the delivery of content (including feature films) for higher ed
> teaching and learning (course reserve viewing, learning management system=
s,
> etc.). Many of these firms claim such use constitutes fair use or throw =
the
> issue of rights clearance on the shoulders of the client.
> =20
> Since I think that, at least in the short run, the models C or D above ar=
e
> likely to be the most common, I=92d like to offer a few opinions about it. =
In
> my book, the requirement for periodic licensing of video content (as oppo=
sed
> to in-perpetuity licensing) is both impractical and unwarranted in terms =
of
> fair market practices. I=92ve occasionally heard vendors compare term lice=
nsing
> of VOD content to licensing of journal databases and other online text
> resources. There really is no direct comparison. Journal databases, whi=
ch
> offer indexing and full-text journals, are maintained remotely by a vendo=
r and
> offer a content base which is continually growing. In some instances, on=
line
> access to specific ejournals or aggregates of ejournals is provided at no=
cost
> if an institution subscribes to the print version of the publication(s). =
The
> licensing model for ejournals varies widely, from being on institutional
> head-count to flat fee annual licensing.
> =20
> VOD licensing is a considerably different matter. Once purchased by an
> institution, a physical tape or DVD, may be circulated or shown ad infini=
tum
> (or until the physical piece disintegrates) to individual viewers and
> classroom groups. If I need to show this to groups outside of the classro=
om, I
> can purchase PPR=ADa one shot cost. In most cases, once a distributor sel=
ls a
> title (or a few copies of it) to an institution, that=92s pretty much the e=
nd of
> that sale (except for replacements, and these are usually discounted). =
It
> is, consequently, unclear to me why I would be expected to =93re-buy=94 the s=
ame
> title every year or two or three in digital form, particularly if I alrea=
dy
> own a tape or DVD of the titles in question. It=92s not as if digital
> distribution is cutting into potential future sales of that title to my
> institution. There is no continuing maintenance or labor cost to the
> distributor for titles licensed for VOD. (There ARE, however, substantia=
l
> costs to the client in model D above: the institution must invest in
> technology and staff to locally-encode and serve the material). In fact,=
the
> cost to distributors of tracking and administering term licenses would se=
em to
> be substantially higher than the one-time gambit of in-perpetuity licensi=
ng.
> =20
> Unlike ejournal databases, the only added value to the digital product fr=
om
> year to year is the convenience of 24/7 access. (I could go into a long =
and
> tedious screed here about the current inferiority of digitally-delivered
> images compared to DVD or even tape, but I=92ll refrain). I have a feelin=
g
> that in many cases the model of term VOD licensing has been put into play
> simply because digital sounds new and sexy and that period licenses sound
> economically safer than licensing the files =93forever=94. I also think that
> there is yawning gap between the needs and outlook of video librarians ve=
sted
> with selecting, maintaining, and delivering standing collections and the =
needs
> of instructional tech players on campuses vested with =93point-of-need=94 del=
ivery
> of classroom content. (The latter probably wouldn=92t blink at the concept=
of
> term licensing).
> =20
> In any case, your thoughts and comments would be interesting and apprecia=
ted!
> =20
> Gary Handman
> =20
>=20
>=20
> Gary Handman
> Director
> Media Resources Center
> Moffitt Library
> UC Berkeley
> ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC
>=20
> <http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC> "In societies where modern conditions =
of
> production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulatio=
n of
> spectacles."
>=20
> --Guy Debord
>=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_3256206451_125171175
Content-type: text/html;
charset="windows-1254"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Re: [Videolib] Digital Video Licensing Gary<= BR> This is hard for me to sort through. Bottom line do you really see this as = viable for most feature films ?
Studio’s seem pretty paranoid. I think they might eventually do somet= hing like they do now with licensing being year to year.
Speaking for those of us dealing with foreign and independent films it migh= t theoretically be impossible. Our contracts are generally limited
To 7-10 years so even if we had the technology or whatever we can only allo= w use for set periods of time

As usual this is all Greek to  me


On 3/8/07 1:08 PM, "Gary Handman" <ghandman@library.berkeley.e= du> wrote:

Some Thoughts on Digital Licensing for Video
 
Because Berkeley is on the cusp of trying out on-demand delivery of portion= s of its video collection, I’ve been doing a lot of talking and thinki= ng about the issue of digital licensing of video content.  It is appare= nt that the non-theatrical VOD marketplace is, at very best, immature and co= nfused (and confusing) regarding economic models for VOD delivery.  A n= umber of models seem to be shaking out:
 
A.  Content maintained on vendor’s remote server and licensed an= nually or semi-annually based on number of titles selected, institutional he= ad-count, or number of synchronous users.  I’m not aware of any v= endors offering flat annual licenses for unlimited institutional access to v= endor-maintained VOD servers.
 
B.  Content encoded by vendor in one or more of several formats (Windo= ws Media, QuickTime, mpeg4, etc.), and licensed for in-perpetuity use for a = flat fee (e.g. Films Media Group).  Variable licensing fees based on wh= ether or not the institution has bought the licensed title in previous forma= ts (tape or DVD).  In some instances, fees may be based on number of ti= tles licensed.  In this model, client is responsible for uploading and = maintaining these files on local server.  (Client may also be required = to transcode files­e.g. from mpeg4 to a streamable format).  
 
C.  Above model but with term licensing: licensing for a set period of= time, usually one to five years.  At the end of the term, licenses mus= t be renegotiated.
 
D.  Distributor offers digital licensing rights alone­i.e. without= supplying the source files.  Institution is responsible for encoding o= ff of DVD or tape and uploading to local server.  Either in-perpetuity = or term licensing.
 
E.  Jon Miller of First Run/Icarus has suggested a model in which an e= ntire catalog of a distributor (including new additions) is licensed annuall= y for a flat fee.  Not aware that one is actually putting this model in= to play
 
F.  Content encoded and delivered to client by an outside vendor which= does not have control or rights over the content.  Annual or per-title= service costs. Examples of this type of service is CDigix ( http://www.cdigix.com/).  <http://www.cdigix.com/).%A0>  These types o= f firms seem to be geared largely toward the delivery of content (including = feature films) for higher ed teaching and learning (course reserve viewing, = learning management systems, etc.).  Many of these firms claim such use= constitutes fair use or throw the issue of rights clearance on the shoulder= s of the client.
 
Since I think that, at least in the short run, the models C or D above are = likely to be the most common, I’d like to offer a few opinions about i= t.  In my book, the requirement for periodic licensing of video content= (as opposed to in-perpetuity licensing) is both impractical and unwarranted= in terms of fair market practices.  I’ve occasionally heard vend= ors compare term licensing of VOD content to licensing of journal databases = and other online text resources.  There really is no direct comparison.=  Journal databases, which offer indexing and full-text journals, are m= aintained remotely by a vendor and offer a content base which is continually= growing.  In some instances, online access to specific ejournals or ag= gregates of ejournals is provided at no cost if an institution subscribes to= the print version of the publication(s).   The licensing model fo= r ejournals varies widely, from being on institutional head-count to flat fe= e annual licensing.
 
VOD licensing is a considerably different matter.  Once purchased by a= n institution, a physical tape or DVD, may be circulated or shown ad infi= nitum (or until the physical piece disintegrates) to individual viewers = and classroom groups. If I need to show this to groups outside of the classr= oom, I can purchase PPR­a one shot cost.   In most cases, once= a distributor sells a title (or a few copies of it) to an institution, that= ’s pretty much the end of that sale (except for replacements, and thes= e are usually discounted).   It is, consequently, unclear to me wh= y I would be expected to “re-buy” the same title every year or t= wo or three in digital form, particularly if I already own a tape or DVD of = the titles in question.   It’s not as if digital distributio= n is cutting into potential future sales of that title to my institution. &n= bsp;There is no continuing maintenance or labor cost to the distributor for = titles licensed for VOD.  (There ARE, however, substantial costs to the= client in model D above:  the institution must invest in technology an= d staff to locally-encode and serve the material).  In fact, the cost t= o distributors of tracking and administering term licenses would seem to be = substantially higher than the one-time gambit of in-perpetuity licensing.  
Unlike ejournal databases, the only added value to the digital product from= year to year is the convenience of 24/7 access.  (I could go into a lo= ng and tedious screed here about the current inferiority of digitally-delive= red images compared to DVD or even tape, but I’ll refrain).  &nbs= p;I have a feeling that in many cases the model of term VOD licensing has be= en put into play simply because digital sounds new and sexy and that period = licenses sound economically safer than licensing the files “forever= 221;.  I also think that there is yawning gap between the needs and out= look of video librarians vested with selecting, maintaining, and delivering = standing collections and the needs of instructional tech players on campuses= vested with “point-of-need” delivery of classroom content. &nbs= p;(The latter probably wouldn’t blink at the concept of term licensing= ).
 
In any case, your thoughts and comments would be interesting and appreciate= d!
 
Gary Handman
 


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 pr= evail, 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_3256206451_125171175--

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.