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.edu<https://mail.eservices.virginia.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=f9bb9e66e0cb45eb9c98da126198ad7e&URL=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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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=nG0kWaN9ozI3plMlCGRm&u=111004120000 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<mailto: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.
