I just posted this to the Chronicle of Higher Education comments on the article:
Sadly this ruling is being wildly and inappropriately misinterpreted as a ruling in favor of unlicensed video streaming by higher education. It is nothing of the kind. In fact, the opinion states specifically that the courts have NOT ruled whether streaming video (under certain circumstances) is fair use. The appeal was dismissed based on 2 points: UCLA has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued; and AIME lacked standing to file a copyright infringement suit. The ruling is not based on the merits of the case. Marshall could have, and should have ended there. By adding comments about fair use to the opinion Marshall only muddied the waters. This opinion reinforces the ambiguity of fair use: "the court concludes that there is, at a minimum, ambiguity as to whether defendants' streaming constitutes fair use." That's my story and I'm sticking to it. -deg 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.
