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

Tom.Ipri@unlv.edu
Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:03:29 -0700

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--===============5420571877903034418==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_alternative 0063324F88257583_="

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0063324F88257583_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Not to get off on a tanget, but I've often wondered why faculty don't
require students to buy movies more often or maybe that's just been in my
experience.

In my last position, our School of Nursing wanted the library to buy a
large number of copies of a particular title because every incoming
nursing student had to watch it. They wanted us to put all the copies on
reserve. I was concerned about the demand on my dept. The dvd cost under
$15 so I suggested that they just require all the students to buy the dvd.
At first, I got looked at like I was crazy but that's what they eventually
did. Don't know why they wouldn't think twice about making students buy
$150 textbooks but they hesitated to make them buy a $15 dvd.

Not sure what it is about video that makes faculty hesitate about
requiring students to put out the money.

Tom

_____________________________
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 <maddux2014@gmail.com>
Sent by: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu
03/24/2009 10:34 AM
Please respond to
videolib@lists.berkeley.edu

To
videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
cc

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

I don't want to flame anything ( and besides I really need to get to the
post office). I don't have a problem with
TEACH for Distance Education but when applied to "regular" classes and
those bricks and mortar schools I do.

It may seem cruel to keep saying "convenience " but it is. Students CAN
watch the film in class, they can watch the film in the library and I
assume depending on the set up they can take a copy out but being able to
watch a film anytime anywhere is not the same. Everyone goes nuts at the
thought that students would have to buy a copy of every film used in a
class and I don't blame them but they DO buy copies of books used in
classes so IF you want
to be able to see a film OUTSIDE of a class and OUTSIDE of a library there
should be a fee.

I still find it inordinately frustrating that no person or institution
which believes that they can ( and do) stream whole films is willing to
say so publicly. If it is your belief that it is legal then let's get a
ruling on it.

Now to the post office

PS I will going to Cubs Spring Training tomorrow with limited internet
access so have a fun week without me.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Carrie Russell <crussell@alawash.org>
wrote:

In response to Jessica's questions:

I have no knowledge of people streaming titles for the convenience of
students. This may occur but it is not the topic of TEACH. TEACH is
about performing and displaying protected works for non-profit
educational purposes. TEACH is about teaching - it says that protected
works should only be available to students for the class session.

The legislative history makes clear that TEACH does not apply to class
reserves, and perhaps this is where some institutions are posting films
- in e-reserves or on faculty web sites- for students to access
throughout the semester. If this does occur, the institution believes
that it is a fair use to do this. They are not relying on the TEACH
exception.

Regarding the scanning of an entire book for online use -- TEACH is an
exception for public performance and display. Congress was not thinking
of books being a displayed or performed because this is not how books
are used in the classroom. They tried to make parallels to the
face-to-face classroom. So with the book example, it would be weird for
a book to be displayed on a big screen in class and have the students
read the book in this way during the class session. The rights of
public performance and display were added to the copyright law
specifically for works that are commercially exploited by viewing or
seeing. It was a show ticket type of economy. Producers were not
selling copies of 35mm film prints to the public. That would not be
commercially viable, so they showed films in theatres where you buy a
ticket to view an event. (Of course, this has changed a great deal now
that the public regularly buys DVDs etc. But the value remains in the
performance, not in just having copies that cannot be viewed).

I understand that the streaming market is important to vendors other
than big Hollywood studios. The Hollywood people did have lobbyists who
helped craft the TEACH Act to benefit the motion picture industry and
this is their job and they are very effective. I don't know if they were
thinking about independent video types but they did not represent them
in the negotiations.

I think one might argue that screening entire films via digital networks
should be lawful because it is lawful to show the title in the face to
face classroom. What is different, of course, is the delivery method.
It is a performance either way. But Congress said no, you cannot use
the TEACH Act to do this.

Meanwhile another exception is the law --fair use -- is technologically
neutral - so fair use applies to whether you are making either a digital
or analog use. If TEACH did not exist, educators would only have fair
use to determine if a use was fair. Before 2002, TEACH did not exist
and educators were using fair use to show digital works via digital
networks. No one was sued so it seemed an indication that even rights
holders thought that this was a fair use since they did not object. Now
that TEACH does exist, there is constraint on using films in their
entirety, but only in the TEACH context - TEACH did not change fair use.
So you can see for people that it is nonsensical to say that streaming
is different than face-to-face because it wasn't before 2002, and it
continues to not be true now if one relies on fair use rather than or in
addition to TEACH.

In this context, I can see full length screening of motion pictures in a
secure, non-profit, teaching environment as fair given the title is
lawfully acquired. I work with attorneys every day. When told that
educational institutions are purchasing additional licenses to stream
titles for non-profit, teaching purposes, they could not believe it.
Why would we do that? When told that a new market has developed to sell
streaming rights, they still felt that the use was fair. They thought
that libraries, not knowing any better, "fell for an argument" that they
had to pay. University counsel was no help because they said "gee, you
better pay that additional fee because we don't want to be sued." Now
many are buying these licenses, conditioning people to believe that the
use is no longer a fair use because you can pay for the use or because
you face the risk of being sued.

I recognize that this is an economic concern for the smaller players in
the motion picture industry, and I am sorry that this is so. Just as
the copyright law does not provide an excuse for schools that are very
poor to buy one copy of a textbook and use that one copy to make copies
for every student in the school, the law does not increase the rights of
copyright for smaller companies that are struggling financially.

I expect much flaming now.
-Carrie
-----------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:17:07 -0400
From: Jessica Rosner <maddux2014@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] whoa! what a flurry of emails on film clips
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Message-ID:
<55e0d0090903240917q33181c8exbba82b6473f49287@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

CarrieOne quick response. Streaming is NOT the same as face to face and
it
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.
>
>
>
> 1. TEACH Act applies to both synchronous and asynchronous teaching.
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.
>
>
>
> 1. TEACH limits the public performance of audiovisual works
(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.
>
>
>
> 1. Switching over to fair use (Section 107) -- The third factor of
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.
>
>
>
> 1. On to anti-circumvention -- The DMCA put in effect a new legal
way
> 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.
>
>
>
> 1. The problem with digital locks comes into play when one wants to
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.
>
>
>
> 1. Congress thought this might be a problem, so they added
rulemaking
> 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.
>
>
>
> 1. Currently under consideration is whether faculty can circumvent
CSS
> technology on DVDs that they have purchased, in order to copy a
clip for use
> in the face-to-face classroom.
>
>
>
> 1. Finally to complicate matters ? back to TEACH (which was passed
> 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.
>
>
>
> 1. As my cataloging professor use to say, ?Clear as mud??
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment scrubbed and removed.
HTML attachments are only available in MIME digests.

End of videolib Digest, Vol 16, Issue 52
****************************************

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.

--=_alternative 0063324F88257583_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Not to get off on a tanget, but I've
often wondered why faculty don't require students to buy movies more often
or maybe that's just been in my experience.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In my last position, our School of Nursing
wanted the library to buy a large number of copies of a particular title
because every incoming nursing student had to watch it. They wanted us
to put all the copies on reserve. I was concerned about the demand on my
dept. The dvd cost under $15 so I suggested that they just require all
the students to buy the dvd. At first, I got looked at like I was crazy
but that's what they eventually did. Don't know why they wouldn't think
twice about making students buy $150 textbooks but they hesitated to make
them buy a $15 dvd.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Not sure what it is about video that
makes faculty hesitate about requiring students to put out the money.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Tom</font>
<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;maddux2014@gmail.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">03/24/2009 10:34 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">videolib@lists.berkeley.edu</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] whoa! what a flurry of
emails on film clips</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3>I don't want to flame anything ( and besides I really
need to get to the post office). I don't have a problem with</font>
<br><font size=3>TEACH for Distance Education but when applied to &quot;regular&quot;
classes and those bricks and mortar schools I do.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>It may seem cruel to keep saying &quot;convenience &quot;
but it is. Students CAN watch the film in class, they can watch the film
in the library and I assume depending on the set up they can take a copy
&nbsp;out but being able to watch a film anytime anywhere is &nbsp;not
the same. Everyone goes nuts at the thought that students would have to
buy a copy of every film used in a class and I don't blame them but they
DO buy copies of books used in classes so IF you want</font>
<br><font size=3>to be able to see a film OUTSIDE of a class and OUTSIDE
of a library there should be a fee.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>I still find it inordinately frustrating that no person
or institution which believes that they can ( and do) stream whole films
is willing to say so publicly. If it is your belief that it is legal then
let's get a ruling on it.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Now to the post office</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>PS I will going to Cubs Spring Training tomorrow with
limited internet access so have a fun week &nbsp;without me.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3>On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Carrie Russell &lt;</font><a href=mailto:crussell@alawash.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>crussell@alawash.org</u></font></a><font size=3>&gt;
wrote:</font>
<br><font size=3><br>
In response to Jessica's questions:<br>
<br>
I have no knowledge of people streaming titles for the convenience of<br>
students. &nbsp;This may occur but it is not the topic of TEACH. &nbsp;TEACH
is<br>
about performing and displaying protected works for non-profit<br>
educational purposes. &nbsp;TEACH is about teaching - it says that protected<br>
works should only be available to students for the class session.<br>
<br>
The legislative history makes clear that TEACH does not apply to class<br>
reserves, and perhaps this is where some institutions are posting films<br>
- in e-reserves or on faculty web sites- for students to access<br>
throughout the semester. &nbsp;If this does occur, the institution believes<br>
that it is a fair use to do this. They are not relying on the TEACH<br>
exception.<br>
<br>
Regarding the scanning of an entire book for online use -- TEACH is an<br>
exception for public performance and display. &nbsp;Congress was not thinking<br>
of books being a displayed or performed because this is not how books<br>
are used in the classroom. &nbsp;They tried to make parallels to the<br>
face-to-face classroom. &nbsp;So with the book example, it would be weird
for<br>
a book to be displayed on a big screen in class and have the students<br>
read the book in this way during the class session. &nbsp;The rights of<br>
public performance and display were added to the copyright law<br>
specifically for works that are commercially exploited by viewing or<br>
seeing. It was a show ticket type of economy. &nbsp;Producers were not<br>
selling copies of 35mm film prints to the public. &nbsp;That would not
be<br>
commercially viable, so they showed films in theatres where you buy a<br>
ticket to view an event. (Of course, this has changed a great deal now<br>
that the public regularly buys DVDs etc. &nbsp;But the value remains in
the<br>
performance, not in just having copies that cannot be viewed).<br>
<br>
I understand that the streaming market is important to vendors other<br>
than big Hollywood studios. &nbsp;The Hollywood people did have lobbyists
who<br>
helped craft the TEACH Act to benefit the motion picture industry and<br>
this is their job and they are very effective. I don't know if they were<br>
thinking about independent video types but &nbsp;they did not represent
them<br>
in the negotiations.<br>
<br>
I think one might argue that screening entire films via digital networks<br>
should be lawful because it is lawful to show the title in the face to<br>
face classroom. &nbsp;What is different, of course, is the delivery method.<br>
It is a performance either way. &nbsp;But Congress said no, you cannot
use<br>
the TEACH Act to do this.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile another exception is the law --fair use -- is technologically<br>
neutral - so fair use applies to whether you are making either a digital<br>
or analog use. &nbsp;If TEACH did not exist, educators would only have
fair<br>
use to determine if a use was fair. &nbsp;Before 2002, TEACH did not exist<br>
and educators were using fair use to show digital works via digital<br>
networks. No one was sued so it seemed an indication that even rights<br>
holders thought that this was a fair use since they did not object. &nbsp;Now<br>
that TEACH does exist, there is constraint on using films in their<br>
entirety, but only in the TEACH context - TEACH did not change fair use.<br>
So you can see for people that it is nonsensical to say that streaming<br>
is different than face-to-face because it wasn't before 2002, and it<br>
continues to not be true now if one relies on fair use rather than or in<br>
addition to TEACH.<br>
<br>
In this context, I can see full length screening of motion pictures in
a<br>
secure, non-profit, teaching environment as fair given the title is<br>
lawfully acquired. &nbsp;I work with attorneys every day. &nbsp;When told
that<br>
educational institutions are purchasing additional licenses to stream<br>
titles for non-profit, teaching purposes, they could not believe it.<br>
Why would we do that? When told that a new market has developed to sell<br>
streaming rights, they still felt that the use was fair. &nbsp; &nbsp;They
thought<br>
that libraries, not knowing any better, &quot;fell for an argument&quot;
that they<br>
had to pay. &nbsp;University counsel was no help because they said &quot;gee,
you<br>
better pay that additional fee because we don't want to be sued.&quot;
Now<br>
many are buying these licenses, conditioning people to believe that the<br>
use is no longer a fair use because you can pay for the use or because<br>
you face the risk of being sued.<br>
<br>
I recognize that this is an economic concern for the smaller players in<br>
the motion picture industry, and I am sorry that this is so. &nbsp;Just
as<br>
the copyright law does not provide an excuse for schools that are very<br>
poor to buy one copy of a textbook and use that one copy to make copies<br>
for every student in the school, the law does not increase the rights of<br>
copyright for smaller companies that are struggling financially.<br>
<br>
I expect much flaming now.<br>
-Carrie<br>
-----------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:17:07 -0400<br>
From: Jessica Rosner &lt;</font><a href=mailto:maddux2014@gmail.com><font size=3 color=blue><u>maddux2014@gmail.com</u></font></a><font size=3>&gt;<br>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] whoa! what a flurry of emails on film clips</font>
<br><font size=3>To: </font><a href=mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu><font size=3 color=blue><u>videolib@lists.berkeley.edu</u></font></a>
<br><font size=3>Message-ID:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&lt;</font><a href=mailto:55e0d0090903240917q33181c8exbba82b6473f49287@mail.gmail.com><font size=3 color=blue><u>55e0d0090903240917q33181c8exbba82b6473f49287@mail.gmail.com</u></font></a><font size=3>&gt;<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=&quot;windows-1252&quot;</font>
<br><font size=3><br>
CarrieOne quick response. Streaming is NOT the same as face to face and<br>
it<br>
is not just greedy studio people who would like to be paid for this use.<br>
If<br>
you were talking about streaming TO a classroom that would be one thing<br>
but<br>
this is done so students can see &nbsp;films in essence at their convenience.<br>
While this might make things nice and easy it is not really their<br>
&quot;right&quot; to<br>
watch the film anytime , anywhere so long as it is part of course.<br>
Regular<br>
bricks and mortar classes have plenty of opportunity to see a work<br>
either in<br>
class or at the library.It is fact the smaller companies that are hit<br>
hardest when the concept of streaming a whole work without paying any<br>
fee is<br>
proposed. I grant you that some of the current &quot;models&quot; are out
of whack<br>
price wise but hopefully that can work out. I am curious is it your<br>
belief<br>
that<br>
an entire book can be scanned and posted on &nbsp;line for a class provided<br>
it is<br>
&quot;password protected&quot; ?<br>
<br>
I am alsol curious about an example of an entire film being considered<br>
&quot;Fair<br>
Use&quot; . The only example I recall involved what would be called exigent<br>
circumstances but at most meant that the institution would have to pay<br>
for<br>
it after the fact not that it was actually covered so if you have an<br>
example<br>
I would love to hear it.<br>
<br>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Carrie Russell<br>
&lt;</font><a href=mailto:crussell@alawash.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>crussell@alawash.org</u></font></a><font size=3>&gt;wrote:<br>
</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp;I am writing again to try and clarify what
I said and have said in<br>
the<br>
&gt; past about the TEACH Act, about fair use and about anti-circumvention.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. TEACH Act applies to both synchronous and asynchronous
teaching.<br>
It<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;also applies to the blended classroom ? meaning you might
be taking<br>
a<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;regular face-to-face class but the teacher may use digital<br>
technologies to<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;deliver content to the classroom and to secure, networks
for<br>
enrolled<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;students only (like Blackboard). &nbsp;I quoted from
the legislative<br>
history to<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;explain this in an earlier post.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. TEACH limits the public performance
of audiovisual works</font>
<br><font size=3>(including<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;DVDs) to portions necessary to meet the teaching goal.
&nbsp;Throughout<br>
Section<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;110(2), we are reminded that one can use the portions
that they<br>
would<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;typically use in the analog/video/16mm classroom, but
for audio<br>
visual works<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;the law is saying even though you would ordinarily screen
an entire<br>
film in<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;the face-to-face classroom, you cannot do that under
TEACH.<br>
Audiovisual<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;works are treated differently than most other works in
TEACH.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. Switching over to fair use (Section
107) -- The third factor of</font>
<br><font size=3>fair<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;use asks that we consider the amount of work we want
to use. &nbsp;If<br>
one can<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;generalize, the less you use, the more likely your use
is fair.<br>
HOWEVER,<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;the third factor is only one factor that we are asked
to consider<br>
in making<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;a fair use assessment. So, it is POSSIBLE that screening
an entire<br>
film via<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;a digital network might be fair given the specific facts
of the<br>
situation at<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;hand.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; (Editorial comment: I have been asked before to give an example of<br>
when it<br>
&gt; might be fair to show an entire film via a digital network. &nbsp;Some<br>
people on<br>
&gt; the list cannot imagine a situation when it would ever be fair to
show<br>
an<br>
&gt; entire film. &nbsp;Other people think it could be possible and they
may<br>
even be<br>
&gt; doing it. &nbsp;Other people think this part of TEACH is absurd since
the<br>
same<br>
&gt; use is occurring for teaching purposes whether on Blackboard or in
the<br>
&gt; classroom so what is the difference. &nbsp;The difference is that
lobbyists<br>
for<br>
&gt; the motion picture industry fought hard to get this special treatment<br>
in<br>
&gt; order to establish a new revenue stream for licensing films for<br>
streaming.<br>
&gt; Even though you bought a DVD for teaching purposes, some vendors would<br>
like<br>
&gt; you to pay again in order to stream it).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. Fair use guidelines (10% of this,
10 lines of that etc) are MADE</font>
<br><font size=3>UP<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;rules. &nbsp;They are not in the law ANYWHERE. &nbsp;You
may choose to use<br>
guidelines<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;as your local policy but they do not have the force and
effect of<br>
law.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. On to anti-circumvention -- The DMCA
put in effect a new legal</font>
<br><font size=3>way<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;for rights holders to protect the use of their works
primarily to<br>
control<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;the unauthorized use of digital content that had not
been lawfully<br>
acquired<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;(paid for). &nbsp;It is a deviation from the rest of
the copyright law<br>
in that it<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;controls ACCESS. &nbsp;Under the copyright law?s exclusive
rights, there<br>
is no<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;right of access ? for example, you can go to the bookstore,
and<br>
look at<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;books and magazines, even read an article or two, without<br>
permission from<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;the rights holder -- &nbsp;but the DMCA adds this right
of access for<br>
digital<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;works. &nbsp;This makes sense to an extent because one
should pay to<br>
have digital<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;access (like with your cable bill). &nbsp;It would be
wrong to snag a<br>
cable box<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;and get free cable. The thought was that rights holders
need to<br>
make money<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;on digital works which are obviously more vulnerable
to easy<br>
copying and<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;distribution so this provision is necessary.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. The problem with digital locks comes
into play when one wants to</font>
<br><font size=3>use<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;a work in a lawful way but the technology prevents them
from doing<br>
so. &nbsp;For<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;example, the library buys lots of DVDs. &nbsp;Many are
encrypted with<br>
content<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;scrambling to prevent copying. &nbsp;But some copying
is fair, such as<br>
showing<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;clips of DVDs in the classroom. &nbsp;If you circumvent
the technology<br>
in order<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;to make the lawful clip, you are in violation of the
DMCA<br>
anti-circumvention<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;provision (described above). &nbsp;You may be exercising
fair use, but<br>
you broke<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;a code to do it and breaking the code is against the<br>
anti-circumvention<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;provision.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. Congress thought this might be a
problem, so they added</font>
<br><font size=3>rulemaking<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;proceedings to occur every three years to find out if
the<br>
anti-circumvention<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;provision was preventing the public from exercising fair
use. &nbsp;One<br>
exemption<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;to the anti-circumvention provision that has been approved
for<br>
several years<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;is that one can circumvent an e-book to enable the read
aloud<br>
function so<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;the reading impaired can listen to an e-book they have
lawfully<br>
acquired.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. Currently under consideration is
whether faculty can circumvent</font>
<br><font size=3>CSS<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;technology on DVDs that they have purchased, in order
to copy a<br>
clip for use<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;in the face-to-face classroom.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. Finally to complicate matters ? back
to TEACH (which was passed</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;after the DMCA). &nbsp;If you wanted
to use a clip from a DVD but could<br>
not do so<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;because of anti-circumvention, TEACH says you can go
ahead and<br>
digitize an<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;analog version of the title in order to create the digital
clip to<br>
use for<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;teaching. &nbsp;TEACH spells this out specifically because
Congress does<br>
not want<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;you to violate the DMCA in order to exercise a right
they give you<br>
in<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;TEACH. &nbsp;If you can only find your title in a format
that is<br>
encrypted (there<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;are no unencrypted version like a videotape), you are
out of luck.<br>
You<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;cannot break the code on the encrypted DVD UNLESS it
is decided<br>
that these<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;works are exempt in the DMCA rulemaking. &nbsp;At this
time, they are<br>
exempt for<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;faculty who teach film or media studies, not for any
other faculty<br>
unless<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;there is a change made at the rulemaking to expand the
provision.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. As my cataloging professor use to
say, ?Clear as mud??</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Carrie Russell, Director<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Program on Public Access to Information<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; American Library Association<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Office for Information Technology Policy<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 1615 New Hampshire &nbsp;Avenue NW, First Floor<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Washington, DC 20009<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 202.628.8410/800.941.8478<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 202.628.8419 (fax)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; </font><a href=mailto:crussell@alawash.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>crussell@alawash.org</u></font></a><font size=3><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>&gt; VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively
discussion of<br>
issues<br>
&gt; relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic<br>
control,<br>
&gt; preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in<br>
libraries and<br>
&gt; related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an<br>
effective<br>
&gt; working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of<br>
communication<br>
&gt; between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and<br>
&gt; distributors.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;</font>
<br><font size=3>-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment scrubbed and removed.<br>
HTML attachments are only available in MIME digests.<br>
<br>
End of videolib Digest, Vol 16, Issue 52<br>
****************************************</font>
<br><font size=3><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.</font>
<br><tt><font size=2>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 0063324F88257583_=--

--===============5420571877903034418==
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.

--===============5420571877903034418==--