This person is so breathtakingly wrong it is hard to know where to start. Judith responded to some of it, but lets for a moment totally ignore the totally wrong assertions on copyright and go to the unbelievable claim that "Federal Law trumps contract law" WTF?? Really you mean that contract Paypall forced me to sign to give up all my rights as a consumer to complain to my CC or bring a case against them was not valid? Or ALL the times you "sign and agree" to a whole variety of issues to access web sites or other things? Unless someone requires to sign something that involves an illegal act ( murder, buying weapons of mass destruction whatever) a contract ALWAYS trumps law Federal or local , that is why they have lawyers and contracts. If a company requires you to give up the right to use a film in a class as a term of sale than it is a CONTRACT and as long as it was clear when you purchased it ( you can't just stick it on a wrapper) and this contract not copyright law is binding ( though it would not lead to many sales) Feel free to ask ANY lawyer you know about that staggeringlyidiotic claim.
As pointed out by Judith the UCLA case had zero impact and provides zero precedent as it was tossed for issues of standing The 1976 thing is equally nuts though it appears Judith traced the origin. One important note re Georgia State Case. Publishers hated it and are understandably appealing. Among more controversial elements was the judge pretty much stating that fair use did not require any transformative use but what was largely ignored by the those cheering the decision was the judge also wrote that 10% was the maximum amount of any work she believed could be covered under "fair use" and she made it very clear that digitizing and streaming a whole book was not fair use ( remember GSUoriginally DID have whole books up but took them down quickly when sued) so I can't imagine how any one would use that case to claim digitizing and streaming a whole film was legal. Now "fair use" has always been intentionally vague on any specific amount yet this judge said 10% was the bright line and for those who champion the decision you can't just take the parts you like. Personally I think it was a bad decision likely to be overturned on appeal but as someone involved in film distribution the bright line of 10% is fine with me. I can't imagine that the person making the presentation was lawyer. Do you know their background? Anyway I would certainly not want them to represent me in contract or copyright case On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Moshiri, Farhad <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Colleagues,**** > > ** ** > > Yesterday, I attended a webinar on recent copyright court cases in which > the presenter stated several points that confused me a lot since they were > completely the opposite of what I’ve learned up to this day. I need your > help to clarify these issues.**** > > ** ** > > **1. **The presenter stated that in the case of UCLA vs. Ambrose, > the judge ruled that changing the format of DVDs purchased legally with > PPR to streaming video at UCLA is considered “Transformative” and so it > falls into “Fair Use” ! As far as I know, this case was dismissed due to > legal technicalities based on UCLA being a state run public institution and > the ruling did not address the change of format issue. In addition, I don’t > understand what PPR has to do with change of format? Am I wrong?**** > > ** ** > > **2. **The presenter stated that copyright law, since it is a > federal law, prevails over contract law which is under state law. So, > digitizing books or transferring DVDs into streaming is fair use even if > the contract with the publisher accepted by the consumer states otherwise! > **** > > ** ** > > **3. **The presenter stated that the court said the 1976 Copyright > Guidelines are not legally binding for standards of fair use!**** > > ** ** > > **4. **The presenter stated that using the same material (journal > article, book chapters, etc.) for several consecutive semesters on reserves > is ok and falls into fair use!**** > > ** ** > > I’ve learned that one cannot change the format of videos without the > copyright holder permission. The only exception according to DMCA would be > short excerpts not the whole programs. Also, I have learned that if I > accept or sign a contract with the publisher, I have to abide to its > contents.**** > > ** ** > > 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. > >
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.
