Re: Duplication of Out of Print Video

Stan Diamond (
Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:03:51 -0400

I still think we are more or less in agreement. The key words in
section 108c (shown below) are "unused" and "fair price". Obviously, a
higher price charged for a rare print might be considered fair by the
courts. However would you expect Video oyster to have unused prints for
sale or are they in fact selling used copies of old and / or rare films? As
with all dealings with the vague language of the copyright law, the courts
will be the final arbiters of what is meant.

(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to a copy or
phonorecord of a published work duplicated in facsimile form solely for
the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged,
deteriorating, lost, or stolen, if the library or archives has,
after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused
replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price.

>My goodness I can not believe we are more or less in agreement on this.
>Common logic dictates that you can not copy videos just in case they might
>get lost or detoriate ( or at least you can not do it legally) as for ones
>that are on deaths door, I still have trouble accepting that section 108
>refers to this. Just what is " fair market" VIdeo Oyster carries out of
>print titles ranging from $10 to $1500. Is anything that costs more than
>its original price not " fair market". This surely is not the case with out
>of print books which can be very costly. I think everyone realizes that it
>is very unlikely anyone would sue, but if they did, especially if it were a
>major studio, I suspect they would win any case in which someone duplicated
>their copywrited material.
>Jessica Rosner
>Kino International Corporation
>333 W. 39th St. Suite 503
>New York, NY 10018
>fax: (212)714-0871

Stan Diamond, Manager (814) 863-3100
Audio Visual Services (814) 863-2572 (Fax)
Special Services Bldg (800) 826-0132 Order line
1127 Fox Hill Rd,
Univ. Park, PA 16803 HTTP://