Re: [Videolib] Sarah's post on digital streaming

Tom.Ipri@unlv.edu
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:17:54 -0700

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--===============0330116061296611003==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_alternative 006A0299882574F2_="

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 006A0299882574F2_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

But it is legal to have something physically on reserve for students to
watch at their convenience. So, ostensibly and theoretically, what harm
(market-wise) is there if 30 students in a physical class watch a movie in
the library "at their convenience" or if 30 students in a distance
learning course watch it online "at their convenience." I'm not talking
about what is or isn't currently legal, but the theoretical impact such
viewing would have on the market value of a film. In either situation,
we're talking about 30 pairs of eyes watching a film.

Your average 19 year old isn't checking Battleship Potemkin out of the
library, digitizing it, and passing it around to all their friends, so I'm
not sure how having access through an online course would make it any more
likely that this would happen. In fact, it would probably make it LESS
likely to happen because all the students can watch the film online "at
their convenience." Having 30 students fighting over 1 dvd on physical
reserve, I would guess, would make it MORE likely for a computer savvy
student to say "F this, I'm just going to burn it and watch it in my dorm
and make a copy for my friend in the class."

Yes, I am all for upholding the law as it currently stands and have argued
with faculty who have different ideas. But I think we need to question
the law as technology changes. I think one of the things that disturbs
librarians is that so much of copyright law is influenced, if not driven,
by the Big Dogs whose guiding principle is to restrict access unless they
can squeeze every last cent out of consumers. Copyright is about
ENCOURAGING creativity, and I think, in some respects, that the law is
losing sight of this. Given that the Dinseys of the world don't have the
best interest of the Kinos of the world on their radar, I think it's a
disservice to the small vendors to NOT be questioning the laws as they
stand. Libraries are in an excellent position to get these non-mainstream
films in front of a lot of eyeballs. Applying Disney-esque restrictive
laws mean less people are going to see and be inspired by these films.

We still have a lot of work to do to figure out what a viable model is for
the future, but I think we have a lot to learn by seeing how people are
trying to use video materials. Yes, they are doing stupid and illegal
things but that's telling us that the laws as they exist are not meeting
their needs. We can entrench ourselves against them and tell them "no,
no, no" or we can start working for some positive change. Expecting
faculty to make time only in a face-to-face class to watch films is
unrealistic. The more we try to force them into a model that doesn't work
for them, the more likely it is they will circumvent the library and then
we'll have lost all opportunity to find a reasonable, legal way for them
to gain access.

_____________________________
Tom Ipri, MS
Head, Media and Computer Services
Lied Library
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 S. Maryland Pkwy
Box 457035
Las Vegas, NV 89154-7035
702-895-2183
tom.ipri@unlv.edu

Jessica Rosner <jrosner@kino.com>
Sent by: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu
10/30/2008 10:57 AM
Please respond to
videolib@lists.berkeley.edu

To
<videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
cc

Subject
Re: [Videolib] Sarah's post on digital streaming

As you might imagine I don't agree with all of this.
Now I am sympathetic to what I see as "real" Distance Education where
students are literally NOT on campus and have no physical class in which
to
see a film, on the other hand to make it merely "convenient" for a student
to watch a film an ADDITIONAL time or because a Prof did NOT want to
bother
using class time is a horse of a different color and why I think the
distinction is made. "Face to Face" was intended to allow academics to
legally use a "home use" only film in their actual class but what is now
happening is that those professors instead of either A. putting a film on
reserve or B Scheduling an actual viewing session want to just make it
available to see anytime any place. Ok it password protected and only for
the students who are supposed to see it but they HAVE the opportunity to
see
it in class as they always did, if you want them to see it at a different
time or place that is not "face to face". It is legal for people to watch
films in their homes but IF they want a film delivered to them by some on
demand or download service they have to pay a fee for that. Now supposes I
bought a DVD of film X and I am a computer genius who can download and
digitize the thing and sent straight to my friends who have to log in.
They
are only watching it themselves, I did not post it on the internet so what
if I send it to 200 of them who can now watch it at home, I made it from a
legal copy and they are watching it for personal use ? If the MPAA finds
out
do you think that gets me off the hook because it is the exact analogy you
have to extending " face to face" to "on demand"

On 10/30/08 1:34 PM, "Carrie Russell" <crussell@alawash.org> wrote:

> Just a few comments on Sarah's recent post. See below....
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:36:18 -0400
> From: "Sarah McCleskey" <Sarah.E.McCleskey@hofstra.edu>
>
>
> I really don't understand Farhad's comment "What I'm not convinced yet
> is the difference between "face-to-face" traditional classrooms with the
> instructor present vs. a log-in protected online classroom (access by
> students registered for that class only)"
>
> I think there is a huge difference, namely that face-to-face in a
> traditional classroom is 100% legal and restricted access streaming an
> entire audiovisual work to students in an online classroom is not 100%
> legal. It's just not. It's not fair use, it's not face to face, it's
> not covered by TEACH, so what makes you think it's okay?
>
> ******I can perfectly understand Farhad's comment that he sees no
> difference between F2F and protected streaming because I believe that
> user's rights to information and the use of protected works should not
> be different in digital world than they are in an analog environment.
> Why should they be different?
>
> Congress made a decision to make them different (in the law) but they
> did not have to. In fact, there is no public policy justification for
> creating a difference. Both screenings are secure. Films were lawfully
> acquired.
> Sometimes Congress passes laws that are stupid. *******
>
> I recently read something from a librarian at an academic institution
> (not mine) that has the capability to stream an (entire) video to one
> student at a time. She contended that because they were streaming to
> one user at a time, it was no different from having a video in the
> library that one student could look at. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT????? Does
> anyone on this list BELIEVE THAT?
>
> **** Sounds like a pretty good argument to me. There is no public
> performance. Rights holders have exclusive rights to public
> performances not private performances. Do you believe that an additional
> fee should be paid when you watch DVDs at home? One could argue that
> educational individual performances "grow" to be public performances
> because eventually everyone in the class sees the film. But we have
> never said that private performances of videos checked out of the
> library add up to a public performance. ****
>
>
> Here's another story I have to add. Our School of Ed. conducts seminars
> that all students have to take to receive their teacher certification,
> such as fire safety and school violence. They are converting these
> seminars to the Blackboard environment, and wanted to use an entire (17
> minute) video on school violence. Of course they tried to tell me they
> could do it without getting rights, and I said no, you can't, let me see
> about getting those rights for you. So I called up the company, who
> said this was their first such request but they were delighted to give
> me a quote. They wanted $1500/year or $5000 perpetual to stream this
> video. The School of Ed. has decided to make their own videos instead,
> because of this price for the streaming rights. I thought this cost was
> WAY out of line, but as I said, this was the first request the company
> had for something like that, and so I can't really blame them for just
> pulling a number out of ... well, you know.
>
> ***this extreme quote is a good example of copyright misuse. Such an
> unreasonable fee goes well beyond the statutory monopoly that rights
> holders enjoy.****
>
> My two cents
> Carrie Russell, Copyright Specialist and
> Director, Program on Public Access to Information
> ALA Washington Office
> Office for Information Technology Policy
> 1615 New Hampshire Avenue NW First Floor
> Washington, DC 20009
> crussell@alawash.org
> 800.941-8478
> 202.628.8410
>
> 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.
>
>

Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE

Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
jrosner@kino.com
212-629-6880

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.

--=_alternative 006A0299882574F2_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">But it is legal to have something physically
on reserve for students to watch at their convenience. &nbsp;So, ostensibly
and theoretically, what harm (market-wise) is there if 30 students in a
physical class watch a movie in the library &quot;at their convenience&quot;
or if 30 students in a distance learning course watch it online &quot;at
their convenience.&quot; &nbsp;I'm not talking about what is or isn't currently
legal, but the theoretical impact such viewing would have on the market
value of a film. &nbsp;In either situation, we're talking about 30 pairs
of eyes watching a film.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Your average 19 year old isn't checking
Battleship Potemkin out of the library, digitizing it, and passing it around
to all their friends, so I'm not sure how having access through an online
course would make it any more likely that this would happen. &nbsp;In fact,
it would probably make it LESS likely to happen because all the students
can watch the film online &quot;at their convenience.&quot; &nbsp;Having
30 students fighting over 1 dvd on physical reserve, I would guess, would
make it MORE likely for a computer savvy student to say &quot;F this, I'm
just going to burn it and watch it in my dorm and make a copy for my friend
in the class.&quot;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yes, I am all for upholding the law
as it currently stands and have argued with faculty who have different
ideas. &nbsp;But I think we need to question the law as technology changes.
&nbsp;I think one of the things that disturbs librarians is that so much
of copyright law is influenced, if not driven, by the Big Dogs whose guiding
principle is to restrict access unless they can squeeze every last cent
out of consumers. &nbsp;Copyright is about ENCOURAGING creativity, and
I think, in some respects, that the law is losing sight of this. &nbsp;Given
that the Dinseys of the world don't have the best interest of the Kinos
of the world on their radar, I think it's a disservice to the small vendors
to NOT be questioning the laws as they stand. &nbsp;Libraries are in an
excellent position to get these non-mainstream films in front of a lot
of eyeballs. &nbsp;Applying Disney-esque restrictive laws mean less people
are going to see and be inspired by these films.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">We still have a lot of work to do to
figure out what a viable model is for the future, but I think we have a
lot to learn by seeing how people are trying to use video materials. &nbsp;Yes,
they are doing stupid and illegal things but that's telling us that the
laws as they exist are not meeting their needs. &nbsp;We can entrench ourselves
against them and tell them &quot;no, no, no&quot; or we can start working
for some positive change. &nbsp;Expecting faculty to make time only in
a face-to-face class to watch films is unrealistic. &nbsp;The more we try
to force them into a model that doesn't work for them, the more likely
it is they will circumvent the library and then we'll have lost all opportunity
to find a reasonable, legal way for them to gain access.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">_____________________________<br>
Tom Ipri, MS<br>
Head, Media and Computer Services<br>
Lied Library<br>
University of Nevada, Las Vegas<br>
4505 S. Maryland Pkwy <br>
Box 457035<br>
Las Vegas, NV 89154-7035<br>
702-895-2183<br>
tom.ipri@unlv.edu</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Jessica Rosner &lt;jrosner@kino.com&gt;</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">10/30/2008 10:57 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
videolib@lists.berkeley.edu</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&lt;videolib@lists.berkeley.edu&gt;</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Videolib] Sarah's post on digital
streaming</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>As you might imagine I don't agree with all of this.<br>
Now I am sympathetic to what I see as &quot;real&quot; Distance Education
where<br>
students are literally NOT on campus and have no physical class in which
to<br>
see a film, on the other hand to make it merely &quot;convenient&quot;
for a student<br>
to watch a film an ADDITIONAL time or because a &nbsp;Prof did NOT want
to bother<br>
using class time is a horse of a different color and why I think the<br>
distinction is &nbsp;made. &nbsp;&quot;Face to Face&quot; &nbsp;was intended
to allow academics to<br>
legally use a &quot;home use&quot; only film in their actual class but
what is now<br>
happening is that those professors instead of either A. putting a film
on<br>
reserve or B Scheduling an actual viewing session &nbsp;want to just make
it<br>
available to see anytime any place. Ok it password protected and only for<br>
the students who are supposed to see it but they HAVE the opportunity to
see<br>
it in class as they always did, if you want them to see it at a different<br>
time or place that is not &quot;face to face&quot;. It is &nbsp;legal for
people to watch<br>
films in their homes but IF they want a film delivered to them by some
on<br>
demand or download service they have to pay a fee for that. Now supposes
I<br>
bought a DVD of film X and I am a computer genius who can download and<br>
digitize the thing and sent straight to my friends who have to log in.
They<br>
are only watching it themselves, I did not post it on the internet so what<br>
if I send it to 200 of them who can now watch it at home, I made it from
a<br>
legal copy and they are watching it for personal use ? If the MPAA finds
out<br>
do you think that gets me off the hook because it is the exact analogy
you<br>
have to extending &quot; face to face&quot; to &quot;on demand&quot;<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/30/08 1:34 PM, &quot;Carrie Russell&quot; &lt;crussell@alawash.org&gt;
wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Just a few comments on Sarah's recent post. &nbsp;See below....<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Message: 3<br>
&gt; Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:36:18 -0400<br>
&gt; From: &quot;Sarah McCleskey&quot; &lt;Sarah.E.McCleskey@hofstra.edu&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I really don't understand Farhad's comment &quot;What I'm not convinced
yet<br>
&gt; is the difference between &quot;face-to-face&quot; traditional classrooms
with the<br>
&gt; instructor present vs. a log-in protected online classroom (access
by<br>
&gt; students registered for that class only)&quot;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I think there is a huge difference, namely that face-to-face in a<br>
&gt; traditional classroom is 100% legal and restricted access streaming
an<br>
&gt; entire audiovisual work to students in an online classroom is not
100%<br>
&gt; legal. &nbsp;It's just not. &nbsp;It's not fair use, it's not face
to face, it's<br>
&gt; not covered by TEACH, so what makes you think it's okay?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; ******I can perfectly understand Farhad's comment that he sees no<br>
&gt; difference between F2F and protected streaming because I believe that<br>
&gt; user's rights to information and the use of protected works should
not<br>
&gt; be different in digital world than they are in an analog environment.<br>
&gt; Why should they be different?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Congress made a decision to make them different (in the law) but they<br>
&gt; did not have to. &nbsp;In fact, there is no public policy justification
for<br>
&gt; creating a difference. &nbsp;Both screenings are secure. &nbsp;Films
were lawfully<br>
&gt; acquired. &nbsp; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; Sometimes Congress passes laws that are stupid. &nbsp;*******<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I recently read something from a librarian at an academic institution<br>
&gt; (not mine) that has the capability to stream an (entire) video to
one<br>
&gt; student at a time. &nbsp;She contended that because they were streaming
to<br>
&gt; one user at a time, it was no different from having a video in the<br>
&gt; library that one student could look at. &nbsp;WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?????
&nbsp;Does<br>
&gt; anyone on this list BELIEVE THAT?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; **** Sounds like a pretty good argument to me. &nbsp;There is no public<br>
&gt; performance. &nbsp;Rights holders have exclusive rights to public<br>
&gt; performances not private performances. Do you believe that an additional<br>
&gt; fee should be paid when you watch DVDs at home? One could argue that<br>
&gt; educational individual performances &quot;grow&quot; to be public
performances<br>
&gt; because eventually everyone in the class sees the film. &nbsp;But
we have<br>
&gt; never said that private performances of videos checked out of the<br>
&gt; library add up to a public performance. ****<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Here's another story I have to add. &nbsp;Our School of Ed. conducts
seminars<br>
&gt; that all students have to take to receive their teacher certification,<br>
&gt; such as fire safety and school violence. &nbsp;They are converting
these<br>
&gt; seminars to the Blackboard environment, and wanted to use an entire
(17<br>
&gt; minute) video on school violence. &nbsp;Of course they tried to tell
me they<br>
&gt; could do it without getting rights, and I said no, you can't, let
me see<br>
&gt; about getting those rights for you. &nbsp;So I called up the company,
who<br>
&gt; said this was their first such request but they were delighted to
give<br>
&gt; me a quote. &nbsp;They wanted $1500/year or $5000 perpetual to stream
this<br>
&gt; video. &nbsp;The School of Ed. has decided to make their own videos
instead,<br>
&gt; because of this price for the streaming rights. &nbsp;I thought this
cost was<br>
&gt; WAY out of line, but as I said, this was the first request the company<br>
&gt; had for something like that, and so I can't really blame them for
just<br>
&gt; pulling a number out of ... well, you know.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; ***this extreme quote is a good example of copyright misuse. &nbsp;Such
an<br>
&gt; unreasonable fee goes well beyond the statutory monopoly that rights<br>
&gt; holders enjoy.****<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; My two cents<br>
&gt; Carrie Russell, &nbsp;Copyright Specialist and<br>
&gt; &nbsp; Director, Program on Public Access to Information<br>
&gt; ALA Washington Office<br>
&gt; Office for Information Technology Policy<br>
&gt; 1615 New Hampshire Avenue NW First Floor<br>
&gt; Washington, DC 20009<br>
&gt; crussell@alawash.org<br>
&gt; 800.941-8478<br>
&gt; 202.628.8410<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion
of issues<br>
&gt; relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control,<br>
&gt; preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries
and<br>
&gt; related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective<br>
&gt; working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication<br>
&gt; between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and<br>
&gt; distributors.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE<br>
<br>
Jessica Rosner<br>
Kino International<br>
333 W 39th St. 503<br>
NY NY 10018<br>
jrosner@kino.com<br>
212-629-6880<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
--=_alternative 006A0299882574F2_=--

--===============0330116061296611003==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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.

--===============0330116061296611003==--