Re: [Videolib] whoa! what a flurry of emails on film clips

Brock, Shawn (Shawn.Brock@aetn.com)
Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:23:21 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--===============6474116999508801466==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACA5.3AC686E9"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACA5.3AC686E9
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't often post comments as I much prefer to listen and learn from
the debate, but as a content creator I would like to add to this
discussion that although 24/7 streaming access of full-length content
available to students would undoubtedly enhance the teaching experience
it would also greatly hinder and possibly eliminate the ability of many
copyright holders to recoup their costs through other sales. Having
hundreds of thousands of students accessing a large library of
commercial-free, full-length programming simply because it relates to
what they are learning in class would lead them to likely share it with
hundreds of thousands of other non-students (as this part of the
population proves time and again they are more than willing to do via
the internet), which translates to severely cannibalized DVD and DTO
sales. This in turn would then impact both production value and subject
matter as limited opportunity always breeds. =20
=20
While those of us with television broadcast capabilities would be less
affected (though we would still feel the pinch to be sure), I could see
this kind of free-for-all access effectively ending many small
production houses that educators rely on today for content. So the net
effect would be a long-term loss of content quality, breadth, and depth.
It would also encourage "edutainment" as that is what sells best to the
mass market through television viewing and movie-going. Which over
time would lead to video becoming less important/less used in teaching
(since it has never been an absolutely necessary component to begin
with), which in turn would lead to even less content being produced. =20
=20
If you think about this, you may find that a middle ground isn't so bad
to ensure copyright holders are fairly compensated and continue to have
the ability to recoup costs in other markets while educators have some
kind of meaningful access to material for teaching purposes and also
have a broad, high-quality, spectrum of programming to choose from.
Isn't that really the spirit of our copyright laws anyway? =20
=20
=20

Regards,
=20
Shawn Brock
Director, Fulfillment Logistics and Education Sales
A&E Television Networks

________________________________

From: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:41 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] whoa! what a flurry of emails on film clips

I realize conveniences sound condescending at it may not be the right
word but I am just trying to emphasize that=20
in fact American copyright is far more generous than anywhere else in
the world in terms of using films in classes and that when you try to
really push the envelope and say you can stream a whole film then you
ARE going to have to license this right from people who own it who are
often artists and their representatives not Hollywood fat cats.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM, <ghandman@library.berkeley.edu> wrote:

Jessica...you're lamentably out of touch with current realities
as far as
teaching and learning and educational institutions goes.
=09
You seem to be fixated on the notion of "convenience"... The
reasons why
most instructors wish to put videos online gnerally has less to
do with
"convenience" than with 1) the expediencies and frustrations of
teaching
in a 60-90 minute classroom 2) the changing demographics of
college and
university campuses 3) the fact that close viewing and/or
subsequent
viewing has become an important part of pedagogy and the
learning process
4) the fact that not every university or college has a media
center or a
library media collection.
=09
I'm still not saying that whole works can be justifiably
streamed without
license or permission. I am saying that there are many reasons
other than
"convenience" that those of use in academic institutions are
pushing hard
for the ability to serve up video content 24/7.
=09
gary
=09
=09
=09
> CarrieOne quick response. Streaming is NOT the same as face to
face and it
=09
> is not just greedy studio people who would like to be paid for
this use.
> If
> you were talking about streaming TO a classroom that would be
one thing
> but
> this is done so students can see films in essence at their
convenience.
> While this might make things nice and easy it is not really
their "right"
> to
> watch the film anytime , anywhere so long as it is part of
course. Regular
> bricks and mortar classes have plenty of opportunity to see a
work either
> in
> class or at the library.It is fact the smaller companies that
are hit
> hardest when the concept of streaming a whole work without
paying any fee
> is
> proposed. I grant you that some of the current "models" are
out of whack
> price wise but hopefully that can work out. I am curious is it
your belief
> that
> an entire book can be scanned and posted on line for a class
provided it
> is
> "password protected" ?
>
> I am alsol curious about an example of an entire film being
considered
> "Fair
> Use" . The only example I recall involved what would be called
exigent
> circumstances but at most meant that the institution would
have to pay for
> it after the fact not that it was actually covered so if you
have an
> example
> I would love to hear it.
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Carrie Russell
> <crussell@alawash.org>wrote:
>
>> I am writing again to try and clarify what I said and have
said in the
>> past about the TEACH Act, about fair use and about
anti-circumvention.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. TEACH Act applies to both synchronous and asynchronous
teaching.
=09
>> It
>> also applies to the blended classroom - meaning you might
be taking a
>> regular face-to-face class but the teacher may use digital
>> technologies to
>> deliver content to the classroom and to secure, networks
for enrolled
>> students only (like Blackboard). I quoted from the
legislative
>> history to
>> explain this in an earlier post.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. TEACH limits the public performance of audiovisual
works
=09
>> (including
>> DVDs) to portions necessary to meet the teaching goal.
Throughout
>> Section
>> 110(2), we are reminded that one can use the portions that
they would
>> typically use in the analog/video/16mm classroom, but for
audio
>> visual works
>> the law is saying even though you would ordinarily screen
an entire
>> film in
>> the face-to-face classroom, you cannot do that under
TEACH.
>> Audiovisual
>> works are treated differently than most other works in
TEACH.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. Switching over to fair use (Section 107) -- The third
factor of
=09
>> fair
>> use asks that we consider the amount of work we want to
use. If one
>> can
>> generalize, the less you use, the more likely your use is
fair.
>> HOWEVER,
>> the third factor is only one factor that we are asked to
consider in
>> making
>> a fair use assessment. So, it is POSSIBLE that screening
an entire
>> film via
>> a digital network might be fair given the specific facts
of the
>> situation at
>> hand.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Editorial comment: I have been asked before to give an
example of when
>> it
>> might be fair to show an entire film via a digital network.
Some people
>> on
>> the list cannot imagine a situation when it would ever be
fair to show
>> an
>> entire film. Other people think it could be possible and
they may even
>> be
>> doing it. Other people think this part of TEACH is absurd
since the
>> same
>> use is occurring for teaching purposes whether on Blackboard
or in the
>> classroom so what is the difference. The difference is that
lobbyists
>> for
>> the motion picture industry fought hard to get this special
treatment in
>> order to establish a new revenue stream for licensing films
for
>> streaming.
>> Even though you bought a DVD for teaching purposes, some
vendors would
>> like
>> you to pay again in order to stream it).
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Fair use guidelines (10% of this, 10 lines of that etc)
are MADE
>> UP
>> rules. They are not in the law ANYWHERE. You may choose
to use
>> guidelines
>> as your local policy but they do not have the force and
effect of
>> law.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. On to anti-circumvention -- The DMCA put in effect a
new legal way
=09
>> for rights holders to protect the use of their works
primarily to
>> control
>> the unauthorized use of digital content that had not been
lawfully
>> acquired
>> (paid for). It is a deviation from the rest of the
copyright law in
>> that it
>> controls ACCESS. Under the copyright law's exclusive
rights, there
>> is no
>> right of access - for example, you can go to the
bookstore, and look
>> at
>> books and magazines, even read an article or two, without
permission
>> from
>> the rights holder -- but the DMCA adds this right of
access for
>> digital
>> works. This makes sense to an extent because one should
pay to have
>> digital
>> access (like with your cable bill). It would be wrong to
snag a
>> cable box
>> and get free cable. The thought was that rights holders
need to make
>> money
>> on digital works which are obviously more vulnerable to
easy copying
>> and
>> distribution so this provision is necessary.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. The problem with digital locks comes into play when one
wants to
=09
>> use
>> a work in a lawful way but the technology prevents them
from doing
>> so. For
>> example, the library buys lots of DVDs. Many are
encrypted with
>> content
>> scrambling to prevent copying. But some copying is fair,
such as
>> showing
>> clips of DVDs in the classroom. If you circumvent the
technology in
>> order
>> to make the lawful clip, you are in violation of the DMCA
>> anti-circumvention
>> provision (described above). You may be exercising fair
use, but you
>> broke
>> a code to do it and breaking the code is against the
>> anti-circumvention
>> provision.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. Congress thought this might be a problem, so they added
rulemaking
=09
>> proceedings to occur every three years to find out if the
>> anti-circumvention
>> provision was preventing the public from exercising fair
use. One
>> exemption
>> to the anti-circumvention provision that has been approved
for
>> several years
>> is that one can circumvent an e-book to enable the read
aloud
>> function so
>> the reading impaired can listen to an e-book they have
lawfully
>> acquired.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. Currently under consideration is whether faculty can
circumvent
=09
>> CSS
>> technology on DVDs that they have purchased, in order to
copy a clip
>> for use
>> in the face-to-face classroom.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. Finally to complicate matters - back to TEACH (which
was passed
=09
>> after the DMCA). If you wanted to use a clip from a DVD
but could
>> not do so
>> because of anti-circumvention, TEACH says you can go ahead
and
>> digitize an
>> analog version of the title in order to create the digital
clip to
>> use for
>> teaching. TEACH spells this out specifically because
Congress does
>> not want
>> you to violate the DMCA in order to exercise a right they
give you in
>> TEACH. If you can only find your title in a format that
is encrypted
>> (there
>> are no unencrypted version like a videotape), you are out
of luck.
>> You
>> cannot break the code on the encrypted DVD UNLESS it is
decided that
>> these
>> works are exempt in the DMCA rulemaking. At this time,
they are
>> exempt for
>> faculty who teach film or media studies, not for any other
faculty
>> unless
>> there is a change made at the rulemaking to expand the
provision.
>>
>>
>>
=09
>> 1. As my cataloging professor use to say, "Clear as mud?"
=09
>>
>>
>>
>> Carrie Russell, Director
>>
>> Program on Public Access to Information
>>
>> American Library Association
>>
>> Office for Information Technology Policy
>>
>> 1615 New Hampshire Avenue NW, First Floor
>>
>> Washington, DC 20009
>>
>> 202.628.8410/800.941.8478
>>
>> 202.628.8419 (fax)
>>
>> crussell@alawash.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 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.
>
=09
=09
=09
Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley
=09
510-643-8566
ghandman@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC
=09
"I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
--Francois Truffaut
=09

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.
=09

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACA5.3AC686E9
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

I don't often post comments as I much = prefer to listen=20 and learn from the debate, but as a content creator I would like to add = to this=20 discussion that although 24/7 streaming access of full-length content = available=20 to students would undoubtedly enhance the teaching experience it would = also=20 greatly hinder and possibly eliminate the ability of many copyright = holders=20 to recoup their costs through other sales.  Having hundreds of = thousands of students accessing a large library of =  commercial-free,=20 full-length programming simply because it relates to what they are = learning in=20 class would lead them to  likely share it with hundreds of = thousands=20 of other non-students (as this part of the population proves time and = again they=20 are more than willing to do via the internet), which translates to = severely=20 cannibalized DVD and DTO sales.  This in turn would = then impact=20 both production value and subject matter as limited opportunity always=20 breeds. 
 
While those of us with television broadcast = capabilities=20 would be less affected (though we would still feel the pinch to be = sure), I=20 could see this kind of free-for-all access effectively ending many small = production houses that educators rely on today for content.  So the = net=20 effect would be a long-term loss of content quality, breadth, and = depth. =20 It would also encourage "edutainment" as that is what sells best to = the=20 mass market through television viewing and movie-going.  =  Which=20 over time would lead to video becoming less important/less used in = teaching=20 (since it has never been an absolutely necessary component to begin = with), which=20 in turn would lead to even less content being produced.  =20
 
If you think about this, you may find that a = middle ground=20 isn't so bad to ensure copyright holders are fairly compensated and = continue to=20 have the ability to recoup costs in other markets while educators have = some kind=20 of meaningful access to material for teaching purposes and also have a = broad,=20 high-quality, spectrum of programming to choose from.   Isn't = that=20 really the spirit of our copyright laws anyway? =20  
 
 

Regards,
 
Shawn Brock
Director, Fulfillment = Logistics and=20 Education Sales
A&E Television=20 Networks


From: = videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu=20 [mailto:videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica = Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:41 PM
To:=20 videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] whoa! what = a=20 flurry of emails on film clips

I realize conveniences sound condescending at it may not be = the right=20 word but I am just trying to emphasize that
in fact American copyright is far more generous than anywhere else = in the=20 world in terms of using films in classes and that when you try to really = push=20 the envelope and say you can stream a whole film  then you ARE = going to=20 have to license this right from people who own it who are often artists = and=20 their representatives not Hollywood fat cats.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM, <ghandman@library.berkeley.e= du>=20 wrote:
Jessica...you're=20 lamentably out of touch with current realities as far as
teaching = and=20 learning and educational institutions goes.

You seem to be = fixated on=20 the notion of "convenience"... The reasons why
most instructors = wish to put=20 videos online gnerally has less to do with
"convenience" than with = 1) the=20 expediencies and frustrations of teaching
in a 60-90 minute = classroom 2)=20 the changing demographics of college and
university campuses 3) the = fact=20 that close viewing and/or subsequent
viewing has become an = important part=20 of pedagogy and the learning process
4) the fact that not every = university=20 or college has a media center or a
library media = collection.

I'm=20 still not saying that whole works can be justifiably streamed=20 without
license or permission.  I am saying that there are = many=20 reasons other than
"convenience" that those of use in academic = institutions=20 are pushing hard
for the ability to serve up video content=20 24/7.

gary



> CarrieOne quick response. = Streaming is=20 NOT the same as face to face and it
> is not just greedy studio people who would like = to be paid=20 for this use.
> If
> you were talking about streaming TO a = classroom that would be one thing
> but
> this is done so = students=20 can see  films in essence at their convenience.
> While = this might=20 make things nice and easy it is not really their "right"
> = to
>=20 watch the film anytime , anywhere so long as it is part of course.=20 Regular
> bricks and mortar classes have plenty of opportunity = to see a=20 work either
> in
> class or at the library.It is fact the = smaller=20 companies that are hit
> hardest when the concept of streaming a = whole=20 work without paying any fee
> is
> proposed. I grant you = that some=20 of the current "models" are out of whack
> price wise but = hopefully that=20 can work out. I am curious is it your belief
> that
> an = entire=20 book can be scanned and posted on  line for a class provided = it
>=20 is
> "password protected" ?
>
> I am alsol curious = about an=20 example of an entire film being considered
> "Fair
> Use" = . The=20 only example I recall involved what would be called exigent
>=20 circumstances but at most meant that the institution would have to pay = for
> it after the fact not that it was actually covered so if = you have=20 an
> example
> I would love to hear it.
>
> On = Tue,=20 Mar 24, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Carrie Russell
> <crussell@alawash.org>wrote:>
>>=20  I am writing again to try and clarify what I said and have said = in=20 the
>> past about the TEACH Act, about fair use and about=20 = anti-circumvention.
>>
>>
>>
&g= t;>=20    1. TEACH Act applies to both synchronous and asynchronous = teaching.
>> It
>>    also applies to = the blended=20 classroom – meaning you might be taking a
>>   =  regular=20 face-to-face class but the teacher may use digital
>> = technologies=20 to
>>    deliver content to the classroom and to = secure,=20 networks for enrolled
>>    students only (like=20 Blackboard).  I quoted from the legislative
>> history=20 to
>>    explain this in an earlier=20 post.
>>
>>
>>
>>   =  1.=20 TEACH limits the public performance of audiovisual works
>> (including
>>    DVDs) to = portions=20 necessary to meet the teaching goal.  Throughout
>>=20 Section
>>    110(2), we are reminded that one can = use the=20 portions that they would
>>    typically use in the = analog/video/16mm classroom, but for audio
>> visual=20 works
>>    the law is saying even though you would = ordinarily screen an entire
>> film in
>>   =  the=20 face-to-face classroom, you cannot do that under TEACH.
>>=20 Audiovisual
>>    works are treated differently = than most=20 other works in = TEACH.
>>
>>
>>
>>=20    1. Switching over to fair use (Section 107) -- The third = factor=20 of
>> fair
>>    use asks that = we consider=20 the amount of work we want to use.  If one
>> = can
>>=20    generalize, the less you use, the more likely your use is = fair.
>> HOWEVER,
>>    the third factor = is only=20 one factor that we are asked to consider in
>> = making
>>=20    a fair use assessment. So, it is POSSIBLE that screening = an=20 entire
>> film via
>>    a digital network = might=20 be fair given the specific facts of the
>> situation = at
>>=20    hand.
>>
>>
>>
>> = (Editorial=20 comment: I have been asked before to give an example of = when
>>=20 it
>> might be fair to show an entire film via a digital = network.=20  Some people
>> on
>> the list cannot imagine a = situation when it would ever be fair to show
>> = an
>> entire=20 film.  Other people think it could be possible and they may=20 even
>> be
>> doing it.  Other people think = this part=20 of TEACH is absurd since the
>> same
>> use is = occurring for=20 teaching purposes whether on Blackboard or in the
>> = classroom so=20 what is the difference.  The difference is that = lobbyists
>>=20 for
>> the motion picture industry fought hard to get this = special=20 treatment in
>> order to establish a new revenue stream for = licensing=20 films for
>> streaming.
>> Even though you bought a = DVD for=20 teaching purposes, some vendors would
>> like
>> you = to pay=20 again in order to stream = it).
>>
>>
>>
>>=20    1. Fair use guidelines (10% of this, 10 lines of that = etc) are=20 MADE
>> UP
>>    rules.  They are not = in the=20 law ANYWHERE.  You may choose to use
>> = guidelines
>>=20    as your local policy but they do not have the force and = effect=20 of
>>=20 law.
>>
>>
>>
>> =  =20  1. On to anti-circumvention -- The DMCA put in effect a new = legal=20 way
>>    for rights holders to protect = the use of=20 their works primarily to
>> control
>>   =  the=20 unauthorized use of digital content that had not been = lawfully
>>=20 acquired
>>    (paid for).  It is a deviation = from the=20 rest of the copyright law in
>> that it
>>  =20  controls ACCESS.  Under the copyright law’s exclusive = rights,=20 there
>> is no
>>    right of access = – for=20 example, you can go to the bookstore, and look
>> = at
>>=20    books and magazines, even read an article or two, without = permission
>> from
>>    the rights holder = --=20  but the DMCA adds this right of access for
>>=20 digital
>>    works.  This makes sense to an = extent=20 because one should pay to have
>> digital
>>  =20  access (like with your cable bill).  It would be wrong to = snag=20 a
>> cable box
>>    and get free cable. = The=20 thought was that rights holders need to make
>> = money
>>=20    on digital works which are obviously more vulnerable to = easy=20 copying
>> and
>>    distribution so this=20 provision is = necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>>=20    1. The problem with digital locks comes into play when = one wants=20 to
>> use
>>    a work in a = lawful way but=20 the technology prevents them from doing
>> so. =  For
>>=20    example, the library buys lots of DVDs.  Many are = encrypted=20 with
>> content
>>    scrambling to = prevent=20 copying.  But some copying is fair, such as
>>=20 showing
>>    clips of DVDs in the classroom. =  If you=20 circumvent the technology in
>> order
>>   =  to=20 make the lawful clip, you are in violation of the DMCA
>>=20 anti-circumvention
>>    provision (described = above).=20  You may be exercising fair use, but you
>> = broke
>>=20    a code to do it and breaking the code is against = the
>>=20 anti-circumvention
>>  =20  provision.
>>
>>
>>
>> =  =20  1. Congress thought this might be a problem, so they added=20 rulemaking
>>    proceedings to occur every three = years to=20 find out if the
>> anti-circumvention
>>  =20  provision was preventing the public from exercising fair use.=20  One
>> exemption
>>    to the=20 anti-circumvention provision that has been approved for
>> = several=20 years
>>    is that one can circumvent an e-book to = enable=20 the read aloud
>> function so
>>    the = reading=20 impaired can listen to an e-book they have lawfully
>>=20 acquired.
>>
>>
>>
>>   =  1. Currently under consideration is whether faculty can = circumvent
>> CSS
>>    technology on = DVDs that=20 they have purchased, in order to copy a clip
>> for = use
>>=20    in the face-to-face=20 classroom.
>>
>>
>>
>> =  =20  1. Finally to complicate matters – back to TEACH (which = was passed
>>    after the DMCA).  If you = wanted to=20 use a clip from a DVD but could
>> not do so
>> =  =20  because of anti-circumvention, TEACH says you can go ahead=20 and
>> digitize an
>>    analog version of = the=20 title in order to create the digital clip to
>> use = for
>>=20    teaching.  TEACH spells this out specifically = because=20 Congress does
>> not want
>>    you to = violate the=20 DMCA in order to exercise a right they give you in
>>  =20  TEACH.  If you can only find your title in a format that is = encrypted
>> (there
>>    are no = unencrypted=20 version like a videotape), you are out of luck.
>> = You
>>=20    cannot break the code on the encrypted DVD UNLESS it is = decided=20 that
>> these
>>    works are exempt in = the DMCA=20 rulemaking.  At this time, they are
>> exempt = for
>>=20    faculty who teach film or media studies, not for any = other=20 faculty
>> unless
>>    there is a change = made at=20 the rulemaking to expand the=20 provision.
>>
>>
>>
>> =  =20  1. As my cataloging professor use to say, “Clear as = mud?”
>>
>>
>>
>> Carrie = Russell,=20 Director
>>
>> Program on Public Access to=20 Information
>>
>> American Library=20 Association
>>
>> Office for Information Technology=20 Policy
>>
>> 1615 New Hampshire  Avenue NW, = First=20 Floor
>>
>> Washington, DC = 20009
>>
>>=20 202.628.8410/800.941.8478
>>
>> 202.628.8419=20 (fax)
>>
>> crussell@alawash.org
>>=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>=20 VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion=20 of
>> issues
>> relating to the selection, = evaluation,=20 acquisition,bibliographic
>> control,
>> = preservation, and=20 use of current and evolving video formats in libraries
>>=20 and
>> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will = serve as=20 an
>> effective
>> working tool for video = librarians, as=20 well as a channel of communication
>> between = libraries,educational=20 institutions, and video producers and
>>=20 distributors.
>>
>>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to=20 encourage the broad and lively discussion of
> issues relating = to the=20 selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic
> control,=20 preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in
> = libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will=20 serve
> as an effective working tool for video librarians, as = well as a=20 channel of
> communication between libraries,educational = institutions,=20 and video
> producers and=20 distributors.
>


Gary = Handman
Director
Media=20 Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC = Berkeley

510-643-8566
ghandman@library.berkeley.e= du
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

"I have = always=20 preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
--Francois = Truffaut


VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad = and lively=20 discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation,=20 acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current = and=20 evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is = hoped that=20 the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, = as well=20 as a channel of communication between libraries,educational = institutions, and=20 video producers and=20 distributors.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACA5.3AC686E9-- --===============6474116999508801466== 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. --===============6474116999508801466==--