Re: [Videolib] Streaming Videos from the Collection

Gary Handman (ghandman@library.berkeley.edu)
Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:02:31 -0700

My hero!!!

Gary

Mark: what do you think of MPEG-4 (or MPEG-2) as a preservation (as
opposed to a delivery) standard. I'm currently trying to get my head
around what to use as a
"file format of record". We'll probably be streaming out as Windows Media
(don't get me started...our systems guys are rabidly anti-Mac and Real
sucks big time; Flash and Java-based encoders/players have significant
limits...so what can I do? ). I guess we can burn a DVD and use that, but
that makes me nervous.

Ideas or thoughts?

Gary

At 07:56 PM 6/19/2007, you wrote:
>Two observations: The notion that a DVD (MPEG-4) file would be used as
>the basis of a
>streaming system has been thrown about in this thread several times, to whit:
>
> " . . . About that single DVD copy that's being
> used to make the file for
> streaming ... "
>
>and
> " . . . . . strip a DVD, dump it on a server and stream for
> everyone . . . ."
>
>
>Given the incredible compression ratio of MPEG-4 and the bandwidth
>required to move an MPEG-4 file
>why would MPEG-4 be the file format of choice for a streaming system?
>Certainly not for the clarity.
>Moving and MPEG-4 means streaming a lot of resolution quality that can't
>be resolved at the
>user desktop. It will be seen on a computer screen, not an HDTV.
>
>Second:
>
>This gem has surfaced again, as it has in other threads about streaming
>and/or digital rights -----
>
>
> " Gary, I have been told by many librarians at the
> diverse ALAs I went to
> that they consider that the public performance price is
> plenty and covers all
> their streaming rights. If I was a librarian I would
> certainly want to
> believe that too. But I'm on the other side of the fence
> here and my
> opinion is that a $200 copy does not cover a campus of
> 10,000 students. . . ."
>
>I've been working with digital rights issues since 1999 and I have never
>heard a reasonable video librarian
>expect to pay the same for digital rights as a single copy PPR video.
>On the other hand it is a specious argument to
>flash the "10,000 student" argument as justification for a per pupil
>charge or some other exorbitant pricing scheme.
>
>First, why can't $200 cover a campus of 10,000 students? Are all 10,000
>students going to use the video?
>Second, this market place has a history of multi-copy discounting and hard
>copy duplication rights contracts.
>In a regional media center the purchase of multiple copies or dupe rights
>of high demand titles drove the
>"unit" price down, not up.
>
>In a university environment one copy may suffice to cover three sections
>of a specific course offered each semester. Total viewings?
>What, 35-40 students per section? Perhaps 240 to 300 viewers in six class
>showings?
>Now, enter streaming technology. Professor assigns the title to watch as
>homework. Students stream the title at will (time shift viewing)
>and watch it at home or in the dorm, or on their iPod, or vPhone et
>al. Total number of viewers? About 240 to 300.
>Hmmmmmmmm and for this some distributors suddenly want $2,000 up front for
>a five year license? And another $2,000 or $3,000
>to renew? So let's get a grip on reality here. It cost the same per
>running finished minute to produce a video for release in hard copy
>as it does for release with streaming rights. The fact that it is
>available on a university digital server does not mean that suddenly 6,000
>people are going to want to download the title and keep it for posterity.
>
>Educational digital servers are generally password protected and users
>have to register to gain access to search the catalog of titles.
>For the convenience of making content available to students and staff 24/7
>and for not having to stock two or three hard
>copies that are subject to damage and loss, yea - that's worth a premium
>over the cost of two or three hard copies with PPR.
>
>But the notion that digital media is so special that we should agree to
>pay six times the hard copy list price and be expected to pay it
>again five years later is a disservice to the customer / distributor
>relationship. It is false economics and false pricing. The value added
>simply isn't there.
>
>Oh, yea - the first counter argument to this is "but our contracts with
>the producers demand these prices . ." So what. Rewrite the contracts!
>What? Did you loose a bet and you HAD to accept the contract from the
>producer with a digital pricing rider that looks
>like extortion? Ultimately the market place decides what is a fair price.
>But the buyer side has to get wise to the thinking
>behind the rates set for digital rights and see them for what they are.
>
>Mark Richie
>EFLA,AFVA,NARMC,NFM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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.

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 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.