Re: [Videolib] Question about Latin American and Spanish Films
Sir/Madam, Please, let us suggest you to contact us at our e-mail address: i...@algaeditores.com , where we will send information about of more that 160 DVD on Spanish Literature,Theatre,Cinema, Folklore (Flamenco) etc. All our production are available in Zone 0 , PAL or NTSC systems. In case of interest don t hesitate in contact us at the following address: ALGA EDITORES,S.L. Finca Machuca, s/n 30620-FORTUNA , Murcia SPAIN i...@algaeditores.com _ De: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] En nombre de Natalia Bowdoin Enviado el: lunes, 03 de octubre de 2011 22:35 Para: 'videolib@lists.berkeley.edu' Asunto: [Videolib] Question about Latin American and Spanish Films Dear All, I am new to this listserv and have an immediate, specific question. I am trying to find a source that has films from Latin America or Spain which our academic library can buy which will include the Public Performance Rights. I have looked at the Kino International catalog but it seems they have a very limited number of titles from this region. Can anyone recommend another source that would have more titles from this region that would include the PPR? Many thanks for your assistance in advance. Feel free to contact me off-list. Natalia Natalia Taylor Bowdoin Library Collections Coordinator Gregg-Graniteville Library University of South Carolina Aiken Aiken, South Carolina 803-641-3492 natal...@usca.edu 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.
Re: [Videolib] Question about Latin American and Spanish Films
Dear Natalia, SubCine is, as far as I know, the only distributor in the U.S. focusing exclusively on U.S. Latino and Latin American film for the eductional market. All of our films come with PPRs, and can be found here: http://subcine.com Great luck with your search, and please let us know if we can be helpful. Best, Alex Rivera SubCine Dear All, I am new to this listserv and have an immediate, specific question. I am trying to find a source that has films from Latin America or Spain which our academic library can buy which will include the Public Performance Rights. I have looked at the Kino International catalog but it seems they have a very limited number of titles from this region. Can anyone recommend another source that would have more titles from this region that would include the PPR? Many thanks for your assistance in advance. Feel free to contact me off-list. Natalia Natalia Taylor Bowdoin Library Collections Coordinator Gregg-Graniteville Library University of South Carolina Aiken Aiken, South Carolina 803-641-3492 natal...@usca.edu 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. *** http://www.subcine.com *** SUBCINE: Independent Latino Film and Video Find up to date news and information on the most relevant, challenging, and progressive Latino media being made today. Purchase tapes through: *** http://www.subcine.com *** 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.
Re: [Videolib] PayPal
I exceeded my PayPal spending limit a year or so ago. I contacted our Office of Institutional Purchasing folks to see if they had any ideas around this problem. They did not. Foolishly, I asked if I could pay directly from a university bank acct. (the way I set up the handling of our proceeds from Amazon sales), and they said no, which was no surprise. They did suggest that I look for an alternate way of paying when I got to that point in a transaction. At first I doubted that that there would be anything like that, but lo and behold ... If you don't login to PayPal, even when they say they know you have a PayPal acct., you are able to bypass PayPal and just pay with Visa. I don't think I have yet run into an instance where I don't see this as an option. Before I figured this out though, I did enter a personal credit card, because I had to complete the transaction. Luckily it turned out OK, but never again. Not a good idea. It is stupid to assume personal liability for an institutional purchase. On 10/3/2011 1:38 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: Don't you just hate how the bank account is now considered your "regular" method and you have to make sure to go the extra steps and click on the CC. Again for those of you out there who do not want to put your own accounts at risk, see if you can get your school to set up a special bank account for this and stick $100 in it. On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu wrote: Arg, I ran into this just last month. I ended up linking my personal account to that paypal account. I called Paypal and talked to them and I couldnt figure out any other way around it. And I use Paypal so often for purchases, not using that account just isnt an option. Paypal had only 2 options for removing that spending limit, either to link to a bank account or to apply for their credit card. Neither was ideal!!! Sarah E. McCleskey Head of Access Services Acting Director, Film and Media Library 112 Axinn Library Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549-1230 sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu 516-463-5076 (o) 516-463-4309 (f) From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Rhonda Pancoe Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 1:05 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: [Videolib] PayPal We have exceeded our spending limit on PayPal and now they are asking us to add and confirm our bank account which our accounting office will not do. I have gotten around this by signing on as a guest and using our corporate card but that option isn't always available. Has anybody run into this and how did you solve it other than notify the seller to complete the transaction? Rhonda Pancoe Media Acquisitions Coordinator Colgate University 13 Oak Drive Hamilton, NY 13346 315-228-7858 Phone 315-228-6227 Fax rpan...@colgate.edu 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Videolib] PayPal
Helen, I don't know which places this works, but one place it rarely works is eBay. Most regular places do in fact take a regular CC but not all. I work on two films where Paypal is the only credit card option ( both do accept checks and even purchase order numbers). On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Helen P. Mack h...@lehigh.edu wrote: I exceeded my PayPal spending limit a year or so ago. I contacted our Office of Institutional Purchasing folks to see if they had any ideas around this problem. They did not. Foolishly, I asked if I could pay directly from a university bank acct. (the way I set up the handling of our proceeds from Amazon sales), and they said no, which was no surprise. They did suggest that I look for an alternate way of paying when I got to that point in a transaction. At first I doubted that that there would be anything like that, but lo and behold ... If you don't login to PayPal, even when they say they know you have a PayPal acct., you are able to bypass PayPal and just pay with Visa. I don't think I have yet run into an instance where I don't see this as an option. Before I figured this out though, I did enter a personal credit card, because I had to complete the transaction. Luckily it turned out OK, but never again. Not a good idea. It is stupid to assume personal liability for an institutional purchase. On 10/3/2011 1:38 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: Don't you just hate how the bank account is now considered your regular method and you have to make sure to go the extra steps and click on the CC. Again for those of you out there who do not want to put your own accounts at risk, see if you can get your school to set up a special bank account for this and stick $100 in it. On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu wrote: Arg, I ran into this just last month. I ended up linking my personal account to that paypal account. I called Paypal and talked to them and I couldn’t figure out any other way around it. And I use Paypal so often for purchases, not using that account just isn’t an option. Paypal had only 2 options for removing that spending limit, either to link to a bank account or to apply for their credit card. Neither was ideal!!! Sarah E. McCleskey Head of Access Services Acting Director, Film and Media Library 112 Axinn Library Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549-1230 sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu 516-463-5076 (o) 516-463-4309 (f) [image: cid:image001.png@01CAFBE7.A883D670] *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rhonda Pancoe *Sent:* Monday, October 03, 2011 1:05 PM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* [Videolib] PayPal We have exceeded our spending limit on PayPal and now they are asking us to add and confirm our bank account which our accounting office will not do. I have gotten around this by signing on as a guest and using our corporate card but that option isn't always available. Has anybody run into this and how did you solve it other than notify the seller to complete the transaction? Rhonda Pancoe Media Acquisitions Coordinator Colgate University 13 Oak Drive Hamilton, NY 13346 315-228-7858 Phone 315-228-6227 Fax rpan...@colgate.edu 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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. -- Helen P. Mack, Acquisitions Librarian Lehigh University, Linderman Library 30 Library Drive Bethlehem, PA 18015-3013 USA Phone 610 758-3035 * Fax 610 758-5605 E-mail h...@lehigh.edu 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
Re: [Videolib] PPR Free videos online
It would be very unlikely the on line free DVD included PPR rights especially if it is sold separately with them. In general unless something says PPR, it probably does not have it, including online items at least those under copyright. There are now a number of titles on line for free through places like SNAG, that most definitely have no PPR. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Moshiri, Farhad mosh...@uiwtx.edu wrote: Dear all, Recently, I’ve noticed there are many video programs available online for free while the same programs are available on DVD with both home and educational plus PPR pricing on publishers’ websites. In case of PBS we may say it is partially government founded so the real owners would be the public. But this is not limited to PBS. There are many private founded programs online for free. My question is so we can just hook up a computer to a big screen and show the film to a group of people without getting PPR since it is online for free? If so, why they keep selling the DVD with PPR with high pricing? Thanks. ** ** Farhad Moshiri Audiovisual Librarian University of the Incarnate Word San Antonio, TX -- This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential or contain privileged information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete the email and any attachments from your system and notify the sender. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRmu=11100412 Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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.
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions - that streaming is not a distribution such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, as a potentially public performance, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued - that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? Susan at Wabash From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Hallman, Philip Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRmu=11100412 Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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.
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
I think you need to keep in mind that that section applied only to films sold with PPR and UCLA was streaming thousands of standard films. The problem is none of those rights holders got involved. Also I suspect that from now on any company selling films with PPR will add to their contract that no streaming is permitted and of course that would supersede any interpretation by this judge of copyright law. I want to add a general comment. I was told my oft mentioned copyright consultant that indeed this case was using the wrong arguments on a number of fronts. Had for instance Fredrick Wiseman or Universal who ARE the copyright holders of films streamed by UCLA been a party to the suite it would likely have ended very differently. The saddest thing to me is that UCLA and other institutions ( Like say Michigan in Hathi/Google case in which they just got bitch slapped on claiming orphan works that were anything but) set themselves up as poor little educators fighting evil corporations when in fact they are the ones the high powered lawyers and the independent filmmakers are the ones who have few resources to fight for their rights. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Susan Albrecht albre...@wabash.edu wrote: I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): ** ** What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. ** ** What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, *as a potentially public performance*, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued – that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? ** ** Susan at Wabash ** ** *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hallman, Philip *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! ** ** ** ** Two articles of interest this morning: ** ** ** ** http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ ** ** http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRmu=11100412* *** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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.
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Surely Universal Studios has more powerful lawyers than UCLA, I wonder why they, or other major studios, were not a party to the suit. Should we infer anything from their silence? Matt __ Matt Ball Media Services Librarian University of Virginia mattb...@virginia.eduhttps://mail.eservices.virginia.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=f9bb9e66e0cb45eb9c98da126198ad7eURL=mailto%3amattball%40virginia.edu 434-924-3812 From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:12 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! I think you need to keep in mind that that section applied only to films sold with PPR and UCLA was streaming thousands of standard films. The problem is none of those rights holders got involved. Also I suspect that from now on any company selling films with PPR will add to their contract that no streaming is permitted and of course that would supersede any interpretation by this judge of copyright law. I want to add a general comment. I was told my oft mentioned copyright consultant that indeed this case was using the wrong arguments on a number of fronts. Had for instance Fredrick Wiseman or Universal who ARE the copyright holders of films streamed by UCLA been a party to the suite it would likely have ended very differently. The saddest thing to me is that UCLA and other institutions ( Like say Michigan in Hathi/Google case in which they just got bitch slapped on claiming orphan works that were anything but) set themselves up as poor little educators fighting evil corporations when in fact they are the ones the high powered lawyers and the independent filmmakers are the ones who have few resources to fight for their rights. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Susan Albrecht albre...@wabash.edumailto:albre...@wabash.edu wrote: I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions - that streaming is not a distribution such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, as a potentially public performance, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued - that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? Susan at Wabash From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edumailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edumailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Hallman, Philip Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edumailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRmu=11100412 Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.commailto:jessicapros...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Trust me you can infer that they are idiots. These are the same people ( Through the MPAA) who testified before Congress and spent resources to stop schools from breaking encryption to use CLIPS. I would definitely NOT infer they are not going to protect their rights. Remember that the discovery which showed UCLA had in fact streamed all those studio titles came well after the case was underway and studios generally don't like to get involved in someone else's suit I am not saying they are going to run out and bring their own tomorrow. They tend to get distracted by on line piracy , bootlegs etc. Sometimes they can't see the forest for the trees. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Ball, James (jmb4aw) jmb...@eservices.virginia.edu wrote: Surely Universal Studios has more powerful lawyers than UCLA, I wonder why they, or other major studios, were not a party to the suit. Should we infer anything from their silence? ** ** Matt ** ** __ Matt Ball Media Services Librarian University of Virginia mattb...@virginia.eduhttps://mail.eservices.virginia.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=f9bb9e66e0cb45eb9c98da126198ad7eURL=mailto%3amattball%40virginia.edu 434-924-3812 ** ** *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:12 AM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! ** ** I think you need to keep in mind that that section applied only to films sold with PPR and UCLA was streaming thousands of standard films. The problem is none of those rights holders got involved. Also I suspect that from now on any company selling films with PPR will add to their contract that no streaming is permitted and of course that would supersede any interpretation by this judge of copyright law. I want to add a general comment. I was told my oft mentioned copyright consultant that indeed this case was using the wrong arguments on a number of fronts. Had for instance Fredrick Wiseman or Universal who ARE the copyright holders of films streamed by UCLA been a party to the suite it would likely have ended very differently. The saddest thing to me is that UCLA and other institutions ( Like say Michigan in Hathi/Google case in which they just got bitch slapped on claiming orphan works that were anything but) set themselves up as poor little educators fighting evil corporations when in fact they are the ones the high powered lawyers and the independent filmmakers are the ones who have few resources to fight for their rights. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Susan Albrecht albre...@wabash.edu wrote: I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, *as a potentially public performance*, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued – that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? Susan at Wabash *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hallman, Philip *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Two articles of interest this morning: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRmu=11100412* *** Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Re: [Videolib] Question about Latin American and Spanish Films
Dear Alex, Thanks very much! I wasn't aware of Subcine and we will definitely explore the catalog. Thanks again, Natalia Natalia Taylor Bowdoin, M.L.S., M.A. Library Collections Coordinator Gregg-Graniteville Library University of South Carolina Aiken 471 University Parkway Aiken, S.C. 29801 Office: 803-641-3492 Fax: 803-641-3302 E-mail: natal...@usca.edu -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of SubCine Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 7:19 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Question about Latin American and Spanish Films Dear Natalia, SubCine is, as far as I know, the only distributor in the U.S. focusing exclusively on U.S. Latino and Latin American film for the eductional market. All of our films come with PPRs, and can be found here: http://subcine.com Great luck with your search, and please let us know if we can be helpful. Best, Alex Rivera SubCine Dear All, I am new to this listserv and have an immediate, specific question. I am trying to find a source that has films from Latin America or Spain which our academic library can buy which will include the Public Performance Rights. I have looked at the Kino International catalog but it seems they have a very limited number of titles from this region. Can anyone recommend another source that would have more titles from this region that would include the PPR? Many thanks for your assistance in advance. Feel free to contact me off-list. Natalia Natalia Taylor Bowdoin Library Collections Coordinator Gregg-Graniteville Library University of South Carolina Aiken Aiken, South Carolina 803-641-3492 natal...@usca.edu 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. *** http://www.subcine.com *** SUBCINE: Independent Latino Film and Video Find up to date news and information on the most relevant, challenging, and progressive Latino media being made today. Purchase tapes through: *** http://www.subcine.com *** 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.
Re: [Videolib] PPR Free videos online
it is a very common confusion but the fact that an item is available on line without charge and that you show it without charge actually makes no difference in terms of copyright law. Any public performance requires permission of a rights holder. There was a time when there was in fact a crackdown on places openly showing a TV show for a group showing ( mostly bars) though that is pretty much been given up on as a practical matter. If students gather to watch something in the Union they are indeed supposed to get license, not that they do. Some years ago the NFL cracked down on groups watching the Superbowl in large gatherings, most were actually churches. If for instance you borrowed a film from a library without charge, you can't just show it to a group without charge. Making something available on line for individuals to watch does not mean a rights holder has given up the right to charge for a public showing. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Moshiri, Farhad mosh...@uiwtx.edu wrote: I'm confused Jessica. Do you mean we need to get PPR for something that is available for free online? So if you ask people to get together and watch a program on TV in the student union, you need PPR? What is the difference between a program aired on TV and a program available online? Farhad -- *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [ videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner [ jessicapros...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 8:39 AM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] PPR Free videos online It would be very unlikely the on line free DVD included PPR rights especially if it is sold separately with them. In general unless something says PPR, it probably does not have it, including online items at least those under copyright. There are now a number of titles on line for free through places like SNAG, that most definitely have no PPR. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Moshiri, Farhad mosh...@uiwtx.edu wrote: Dear all, Recently, I’ve noticed there are many video programs available online for free while the same programs are available on DVD with both home and educational plus PPR pricing on publishers’ websites. In case of PBS we may say it is partially government founded so the real owners would be the public. But this is not limited to PBS. There are many private founded programs online for free. My question is so we can just hook up a computer to a big screen and show the film to a group of people without getting PPR since it is online for free? If so, why they keep selling the DVD with PPR with high pricing? Thanks. Farhad Moshiri Audiovisual Librarian University of the Incarnate Word San Antonio, TX -- This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential or contain privileged information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete the email and any attachments from your system and notify the sender. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P jsh...@ufl.edu wrote: I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose’s license for public performance is very restricted—basically it is a limited version of face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt “it means whatever we say it means” and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library viewing. ** ** Judy ** ** ** I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): ** ** What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. ** ** What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, *as a potentially public performance*, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued – that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because* streaming is a form of public performance? I guess I thought the issue was of the right to transfer the format itself (from DVD to streaming), not whether streaming constituted a public performance. Or is that really neither here nor there? ** ** Susan at Wabash ** ** *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hallman, Philip *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! ** ** ** ** Two articles of interest this morning: ** ** ** ** http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ ** ** http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRmu=11100412* *** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian Donald Hall Collection Dept of Screen Arts Cultures / Hatcher Graduate Library 105 S. State Street 6330 North Quad Ann Arbor, MI 48109 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com 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.
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Jessica, From the Ambrose website: The Content is licensed solely for classroom teaching, research, educational non-commercial multimedia projects, classroom presentations, and individual presentations for use in educational institutions or public libraries. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHTS A public performance is any performance of a videocassette, DVD, videodisc or film which occurs outside of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family members, such as in a school or library. In most cases titles sold by video and retail outlets are restricted to home use only and do not include public performance rights. All of the prices listed on the individual film pages include public performance rights. http://www.ambrosevideo.com/order.cfm#terms And of course they explicitly forbid anything else, change of format, broadcast, etc. You are right--It is a red herring. I'm just saying that Ambrose calls this PPR and UCLA calls it PPR (and is in fact allowing use only for classroom teaching and research). I guess that the definition assumes that the face-to-face exception is an exception to PPR, and therefore forms part of PPR-the part you normally don't need permission for in the U.S. Also, Ambrose apparently does not have tiered pricing-you are not paying more for the PPR, or rather you have no way to buy the item without this very limited PPR. I find the text above shockingly misleading, though. NB as you know, one reason Ambrose is the plaintiff is that they actually have the streaming service to offer. I think few other potential plaintiffs can claim that-that 100% of their material being streamed by UCLA is available from them digitally, so UCLA is not only usurping their rights but also depriving them of income from their property. I also noticed that they have been careful not to stream anything that was made specifically for an educational-institution market. It's all entertainment or documentaries of broad interest. Judy From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P jsh...@ufl.edumailto:jsh...@ufl.edu wrote: I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose's license for public performance is very restricted-basically it is a limited version of face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt it means whatever we say it means and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library viewing. Judy ** I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions - that streaming is not a distribution such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. These points were not, as I say, discussed or unpacked, just accepted as part of a general dismissal of the copyright infringement claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus this ruling does not offer the higher ed community a slam-dunk fair use victory, it merely sharpens a couple of the arrows in the quiver of that argument. What seemed a little bizarre to me was the author noting how UCLA did not, in the end, need to make the claim that streaming, as a potentially public performance, was justified under section 110. Is that what the UCLA attorneys would likely have argued - that having PPR licenses meant they could stream, *because*
Re: [Videolib] UCLA case fallout PPR / VOD / CMS Rights
OK I am totally confused. Are they adding or limiting rights? I work mainly with filmmakers directly for very small distributors who basically can not afford (at least now) and delivery system of their own, but since they own the film they can pretty much sell any rights they want forever and for the most part they seem OK with selling the rights for a school to put it on whatever system they want so long as it is password protected. I think the big divide will be how educational distributors handle this Vs more traditional feature films owned mainly by studios, large European companies etc. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Elliott, Curleen celli...@ncc.commnet.eduwrote: The waters for specific rights from vendors of video media will definitely become more crowded. I was about to purchase some DVDs from a vendor and came across their new Course Management Systems (CMS) rights. This gives the right to load DVDs on Blackboard or Moodle ( legally change format, I guess). This of course is different from their Video on Demand and PPR rights, which also seems to be defined differently depending on the vendor. Very interesting. ** ** Curleen Elliott Library Associate Norwalk Community College Baker Library 188 Richards Avenue Norwalk, CT 06854 (203) 857-7215 Fx: (203) 857-7380 ** ** Reading is not just an escape. It is access to a better way of life. *** * Karin Slaughter ** ** 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. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com image001.gifVIDEOLIB 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.
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
Weird language. The other part though is not true. Virtually all of the studio titles streamed by UCLA could have been licensed through Swank and many of the others could have been gotten as well. However this would be another red herring as I don't think the but it is not available for streaming argument was used and would be unlikely to matter. I can't see any court saying that the fact that a rights holder did not make material available to be used in a certain way could be held against them. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Shoaf,Judith P jsh...@ufl.edu wrote: Jessica, ** ** From the Ambrose website: The Content is licensed solely for classroom teaching, research, educational non-commercial multimedia projects, classroom presentations, and individual presentations for use in educational institutions or public libraries. *PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHTS *A public performance is any performance of a videocassette, DVD, videodisc or film which occurs outside of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family members, such as in a school or library. In most cases titles sold by video and retail outlets are restricted to home use only and do not include public performance rights. All of the prices listed on the individual film pages include public performance rights. http://www.ambrosevideo.com/order.cfm#terms ** ** And of course they explicitly forbid anything else, change of format, broadcast, etc. You are right--It is a red herring. I’m just saying that Ambrose calls this PPR and UCLA calls it PPR (and is in fact allowing use only for classroom teaching and research). I guess that the definition assumes that the face-to-face exception is an exception to PPR, and therefore forms part of PPR—the part you normally don’t need permission for in the U.S. Also, Ambrose apparently does not have tiered pricing—you are not paying more for the PPR, or rather you have no way to buy the item without this very limited “PPR.” I find the text above shockingly misleading, though. ** ** NB as you know, one reason Ambrose is the plaintiff is that they actually have the streaming service to offer. I think few other potential plaintiffs can claim that—that 100% of their material being streamed by UCLA is available from them digitally, so UCLA is not only usurping their rights but also depriving them of income from their property. I also noticed that they have been careful not to stream anything that was made specifically for an educational-institution market. It’s all entertainment or documentaries of broad interest. ** ** Judy ** ** ** ** *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! ** ** Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? ** ** Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. ** ** On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P jsh...@ufl.edu wrote:*** * I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose’s license for public performance is very restricted—basically it is a limited version of face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt “it means whatever we say it means” and UCLA seems to have interpreted it simply as classroom-and-library viewing. Judy ** I found this a particularly interesting summation (from the Duke blogger): What solace the higher education market can take from this case is in a few lines in which the judge seems to accept without discussion two assertions — that streaming is not a “distribution” such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying
Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA!
One more thing. While the list did not include films made exclusively for educational instruction, they did include indeed many, many titles sold only for the educational market. Titles released by places like Bullfrog, Women Make Movies, California Newsreel ( and don't kill me guys) really do not have a broad interest and most are NOT sold to individuals, only to institutions. Legally I don't think it matters ( although nearly all probably came with PPR), but I think as you may have noticed many of us think morally it is very disturbing. It would less than honest to not to admit that people might be less upset if the films being streamed without rights were owned by Newscorp, as opposed to the diminishing number of independent distributors who have been providing quality films exclusively to the University library market for many years ( as well as some new comers who are naive enough to believe that schools won't digitize and stream a work without permission) On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Shoaf,Judith P jsh...@ufl.edu wrote: Jessica, ** ** From the Ambrose website: The Content is licensed solely for classroom teaching, research, educational non-commercial multimedia projects, classroom presentations, and individual presentations for use in educational institutions or public libraries. *PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHTS *A public performance is any performance of a videocassette, DVD, videodisc or film which occurs outside of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family members, such as in a school or library. In most cases titles sold by video and retail outlets are restricted to home use only and do not include public performance rights. All of the prices listed on the individual film pages include public performance rights. http://www.ambrosevideo.com/order.cfm#terms ** ** And of course they explicitly forbid anything else, change of format, broadcast, etc. You are right--It is a red herring. I’m just saying that Ambrose calls this PPR and UCLA calls it PPR (and is in fact allowing use only for classroom teaching and research). I guess that the definition assumes that the face-to-face exception is an exception to PPR, and therefore forms part of PPR—the part you normally don’t need permission for in the U.S. Also, Ambrose apparently does not have tiered pricing—you are not paying more for the PPR, or rather you have no way to buy the item without this very limited “PPR.” I find the text above shockingly misleading, though. ** ** NB as you know, one reason Ambrose is the plaintiff is that they actually have the streaming service to offer. I think few other potential plaintiffs can claim that—that 100% of their material being streamed by UCLA is available from them digitally, so UCLA is not only usurping their rights but also depriving them of income from their property. I also noticed that they have been careful not to stream anything that was made specifically for an educational-institution market. It’s all entertainment or documentaries of broad interest. ** ** Judy ** ** ** ** *From:* videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Case dismissed against UCLA! ** ** Honestly that makes no sense to me anyway. You don't need PPR for any film being PHYSICALLY shown or used in library or class. It is almost always meant for the ability to show it OUTSIDE of a class. In this case I think the PPR is a red herring here. It makes the c this case and the judgement virtually meaningless beyond the specific set of circumstances ( A State School streaming a film they bought with some kind of PPR contract). I can't go into detail but there was another title on the UCLA list that came with a contract that very clearly spelled out that it could not be streamed ( hell you could not get a screen grab without permission) and it was streamed. Unfortunately that title was not part of the suit and of course the rights holder who is independent filmmaker does not have the resources to sue UCLA. Does that make it right? ** ** Sadly bad cases make bad law and this case resolves virtually nothing in terms of copyright, streaming and educational institutions. ** ** On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Shoaf,Judith P jsh...@ufl.edu wrote:*** * I noticed in reading up on this case that Ambrose’s license for public performance is very restricted—basically it is a limited version of face-to-face teaching rights. The streamed films are accessible only to enrolled students for whom they were required viewing, and only on campus. So just what public performance means in this case is difficult to ascertain. Ambrose seems to have felt “it means whatever we say it means” and UCLA seems to have
Re: [Videolib] Question about Latin American and Spanish Films
Hi Natalia, I just checked our web site www.filmakers.com and under the subject heading of Latin America we have 101 documentaries. They are both from and about--many are award winners. Of course, we would be happy to help you if you have questions. And above all, welcome to the listserve. Sue E. Oscar Filmakers Library 124 East 40th St New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-808-4980 Fax: 212 808-4983 e-mail: i...@filmakers.com web: www.filmakers.com On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Natalia Bowdoin wrote: Dear All, I am new to this listserv and have an immediate, specific question. I am trying to find a source that has films from Latin America or Spain which our academic library can buy which will include the Public Performance Rights. I have looked at the Kino International catalog but it seems they have a very limited number of titles from this region. Can anyone recommend another source that would have more titles from this region that would include the PPR? Many thanks for your assistance in advance. Feel free to contact me off-list. Natalia Natalia Taylor Bowdoin Library Collections Coordinator Gregg-Graniteville Library University of South Carolina Aiken Aiken, South Carolina 803-641-3492 natal...@usca.edu 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.
Re: [Videolib] media workflow change
I'm finding that the process of acquiring streamed media is moving things more to Tech Services - Acquisitions (license review and purchasing), Systems. And my favorite: the serials committee, because licensed material is not a one-time purchase. I make the we should buy this presentation and then poke every so often to keep it moving. Currently frustrated because bureaucracy is slowing things down. A lot. Barb Bergman | Media Services Interlibrary Loan Librarian | Minnesota State University, Mankato | (507) 389-5945 | barbara.berg...@mnsu.edu From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Rosen, Rhonda J. Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:58 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: [Videolib] media workflow change Hi, 1.) I'm interesting in how moving from VHS/DVD to streaming changed your media department workflow. For any of you who have moved this way, have you needed more staff or less ? And 2) In this time of budget tightening, How has the personnel structure of your media department changed? Rhonda Rhonda Rosen| Head, Media Access Services William H. Hannon Library | Loyola Marymount University One LMU Drive, MS 8200 | Los Angeles, CA 90045-2659 rhonda.ro...@lmu.edu|mailto:rhonda.ro...@lmu.edu| 310/338-4584| http://library.lmu.eduhttp://library.lmu.edu/ You see, I don't believe that libraries should be drab places where people sit in silence, and that's been the main reason for our policy of employing wild animals as librarians. --Monty Python 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] AIME v UCLA, Mon. Oct. 3, 2011
The Duke Library blog may well be worth reading. Brigid Duffy Academic Technology San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132-4200 E-mail: bdu...@sfsu.edu From: Media in Education [medi...@listserv.binghamton.edu] on behalf of Ted Langdell [t...@tedlangdell.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:43 PM To: medi...@listserv.binghamton.edu Subject: Re: [MEDIA-L] DISMISSED--AIME v UCLA, Mon. Oct. 3, 2011-- (Was [MEDIA-L] Phase out of VCR's--Replacement by streaming media?) On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Deg Farrelly wrote: The conversion to digital files without licensed permission is at the core of the lawsuit between UCLA and AIME (Ambrose Digital) This case is far from resolved. The case was dismissed yesterday in a Los Angeles courtroom. Here's the ruling as a PDF: http://www.aime.org/news.php?download=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRmu=11100412 The Duke library blog summarizes: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/10/04/streaming-video-case-dismissed/ The federal judge said that AIME did not have standing to sue, and that the argument that UCLA had waived its right to Sovereign Immunity was too broad. UCLA argued that under Soveriegn Immunity, the State of California — and the state university, by extension—couldn't be sued in Federal Court without the State of California's permission. What wasn't decided—blogger Kevin Smith, J.D. notes—was the issue of copyright. He says that issue turned on the language of the license AIME granted regarding public performance. Smith says the judge seems to accept withouth discussion two assertions—that streaming is not a distribution such as to infringe the exclusive right to authorize distribution, and that copying incidental to a licensed right (the right of public performance) was fair use. The last two paragraphs of Smith's blog post outline what claims AIME can refile, the time limit and limits against the parties who can be sued. Smith's conclusion: The issue of streaming video as a fair use hasn't been decided. Hope this is helpful. Ted Ted Langdell flashscan8.us To unsubscribe or manage your subscription to MEDIA-L, go to http://listserv.binghamton.edu/archives/media-l.htmland click on Join or leave the list (or change settings). Archives are also at this location. 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.
