Thanks, CW, for your input on this issue. As Kevin Smith noted, when writing about the unfortunate AIME v UCLA case...
"We routinely assume that “contracts trump copyright;” libraries are told that all the time regarding the databases they license, and they often pass the message on to users. It is generally correct. In one of the most cited cases on this point, ProCD v. Zeidenberg, Judge Easterbrook of the 6th Circuit held that a contract creates rights only between the specific parties and thus those rights are not “exclusive” and so not preempted. But the question remains somewhat unsettled, and UCLA is exploiting an apparent loophole in the general rule that we have mostly taken for granted." http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/02/08/contract-preemption-an-issue-to-watch/ While the particulars of that case are different than what we are talking about, it's good to keep Smith's post in mind: contracts [such as the license we agree to when we stream from Amazon] may not always trump copyright. Maybe 107 or 110 could work. Maybe not. It sounds like we need a test case. Volunteers? - John Message: 3 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:24:55 -0400 From: Andrew Horbal <ahor...@umd.edu> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Amazon Prime To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Message-ID: <cag8x5tlyxqqxeptgnwzvwaaccrh1gkfxewe6hlktmwapany...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Bob, I think this might bring us back to 110(1)! If it's not clear whether a classroom screening is "personal" or "public," perhaps it could be either depending on the circumstances? I strongly suspect that your professor who invites the entire campus to a screening isn't complying with the requirement in 110(1) that the screening must be "in the course of face-to-face teaching activities," which would mean that even if this license is written vaguely enough that such activity is allowable under the terms of the contract, it would still constitute a copyright violation. In summary: as numerous people have pointed out, if you sign a contract, you must comply with the terms of that contract. In this case, the question is whether or not the license we've been discussing excludes a behavior (screening the film to a class) that otherwise would be allowed under 110(1). There's enough ambiguity here that I personally would feel comfortable concluding that it doesn't. You have concluded otherwise, which is fine: I don't see any reason why we can't agree to disagree! License writers take heed: perhaps you should consider wording more exact than "personal uses only" when telling people what they are and are not permitted to do! Andy 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.
