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=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
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.

Reply via email to