deg and all, I'm having lunch with Forsberg tomorrow so I'll have to beat him up for Jessica's sake. :-) (I really can't, he's much bigger and younger than me, and besides, I've always liked him.)
And sorry, but I'm feeling kind of philosophical once again, so here's another long winded examination of an already beaten-to-death discussion. I just went over 108 pretty carefully just now and the only case it seems where streaming would be possible is what I call the Schwartz provision (17, 108, h, 1) which allows for distribution of the film in the last 20 years of a copyright if it is not in release. For commercial reasons, streaming is considered by most a contractual form of distribution. Here's what I got from my lawyer to include in contracts because it's the commonly agreed upon legal definition. (And they also have a fair use lawyer in the firm so they are not "commercial" only.) Computer Network Exhibition means the broadcast and exhibition of the Pictures by means (i) of the Internet or any other computer network system including, without limitation, any intranet (including wide area intranet) or extranet system, local area network, proprietary computer service, or any virtual private network, whether by wired or wireless means (including, without limitation, any “Wi-Fi” or “Wi-Max” protocols); and (ii) that geographically filter transmission so that the Pictures are available solely to consumers within the Territory. For the avoidance of doubt, Computer Network Exhibition includes transmission of an audiovisual program by means of Video Streaming and Video Downloading. So streaming is considered Exhibition. There's an interesting clause I just saw. If 17, a, 2, ii is in effect, does that mean only one library can do that particular film? It seems so. I don't know whether a judge would say that it's only one to three copies if you stream it and is available to multiple students at one time and if the copy is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives. I'd say it would be an interesting case for the judge, but beyond 108 which I think has a number of restrictions the judge could find against the library along with a number of rules that might favor them -- that's what makes it interesting), but what if the plaintiff could prove best efforts haven't been used to keep the system properly secure (and that's a tough one since it's almost a daily battle) and commercial value would be threatened? Anyway, besides my real belief that streaming is exhibition, I could bring up the practical matter. Not only my old belief that it would further damage the financial model that allows smaller films to be distributed (because those are the ones most likely to be affected by this use -- Disney would not be hurt from ten less sales of FROZEN), but also it would discourage costly preservation of the very films needed by librarians. The public has proven that they want better versions of films they love. Librarians tend not to buy unless their copy is unplayable. How many librarians see a title newly revised and go to their stacks to see the quality of their version? I have three great examples from our recent releases. There was a version of Shirley Clarke's THE CONNECTION that was put out ten years ago on DVD. The cover looked so professional, even the producer's estate thought it was legit. But upon watching the DVD itself, it's a terrible copy stolen from Mystic Fire's 1980s vhs copy. Even the legit copy of PORTRAIT OF JASON put out by Second Run in 2009 turns out to be missing five minutes of footage by error. And of course IN THE LAND OF THE WAR CANOES has been replaced by a newer version (IN THE LAND OF THE HEAD HUNTERS) that has fifteen more minutes including some very important rituals. So, I'd love to know the number of librarians who saw the release and decided not to buy because their library already had a copy? And how many times does this happen on a monthly basis? To use Jessica's most popular analogy, what if you had a copy of MOBY DICK that was missing five pages? Anyway, I'm so sorry I had to use my own examples and it does sound like a sales pitch but I know that you already bought them deg, so I was sure you wouldn't feel like I was picking on you. It's MAINLY to show that while 108 can be a very valuable tool, like everything about copyright, it can be a dual-edged sword. It actually can be an inhibition against further innovation! Best regards, dennis doros (small d's in honor of deg) Milestone Film & Video PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640 Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: [email protected] Visit our main website! www.milestonefilms.com Visit our new websites! www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com, www.shirleyclarkefilms.com, To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here <http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0150/7896/files/2014MilestoneVideoCatalog.pdf?75> ! Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milestone-Film/22348485426> and Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>! On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Jessica Rosner <[email protected]> wrote: > ????? How does the law not preclude streaming without a license? If you > don't need a license to stream ( and FYI streams often if not mostly viewed > OFF campus so ) then why ever pay for them? Streaming is an exclusive > right of a rights holder You have to pay for any title you want to stream > at least an entire film . Ironically it was the GSU and Google Books cases > which made this even clearer recently as in both cases it was emphasized > ONLY portions of works could be digitzed and put online ( and that portion > is still under appeal) without approval of the rights holder so not like > there is not very current law on the issue. > > How is work copied from a presumably out of print VHS able to be streamed > without clearance from a rights holder if you could not do that with say > Citizen Kane or Grey Gardens? > > Please show me where Section 8 makes reference to that or are you claiming > "fair use" despite the GSU and Google book case decisions? > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Deg Farrelly <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sarah >> >> US Copyright Law, Section 108 grants libraries rights to make digital >> copies of works they own that are lost, stolen, damaged, deteriorating, or >> in an obsolete format, provided they are unable to find an unused copy at >> a reasonable price after a reasonable search. >> >> Research by Forsberg and Piils demonstrates that VHS (while not obsolete >> by the LC definition) is a deteriorating format. >> >> If you have been unable to locate a new copy in the marketplace you do not >> need permission. You should feel comfortable envying Section 108 to make >> up to three (3) digital copies. The law does not preclude streaming as >> the format of a digital copy. >> >> -deg >> >> deg farrelly >> ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian >> Arizona State University Libraries >> Tempe, AZ 85287-1006 >> 602.332.3103 >> >> >> >> > >> >I'm trying to figure out if I can stream the John Marshall film made for >> >National Geographic television, Bushmen of the Kalahari (narrated by >> >Leslie Nielsen). 1974. I don't think it was ever released on DVD. >> > >> >Any clues? >> > >> >Thanks! >> > >> >Sarah E. McCleskey >> >Head of Access Services, Film and Media >> >112 Axinn Library >> >123 Hofstra University >> >Hempstead, NY 11549 >> >516-463-5076 >> >[email protected] >> > >> >-------------- next part -------------- >> >An HTML attachment scrubbed and removed. >> >HTML attachments are only available in MIME digests. >> > >> >------------------------------ >> > >> >Message: 3 >> >Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:33:41 -0500 >> >From: Jeanne Little <[email protected]> >> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] Bushmen of the Kalahari >> >To: [email protected] >> >Message-ID: >> > < >> calghjpmt5wduii8iilhbrpxt9t_fdq7u6l+fwgt6-_bcc7m...@mail.gmail.com> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> > >> >Try David Pierson at [email protected] for permissions, which you will >> >need, >> >since it is still under copyright. It has been a bit since I contacted >> >him, >> >so fingers crossed he is still available... >> > >> >Jeanne Little >> >> >> 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. > >
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.
