Dennis, Just because “people” are breaking laws doesn’t mean the laws don’t exist and are not heavily weighted for content creators. Your “test” is disingenuous, and no test at all. Watching a video, even one put up illegally, is not, AFAIK, a crime. Rephrase your question: how many of us in this community converted and posted David Bowie clips without permission? That, at least, would actually be breaking the law.
In fact, I believe part of the reason people are so willing these days to break the laws is because they see exactly how skewed they have become to the creators. How long does it take for something to enter public domain today, compared to 25, 50, etc., years ago? How much influence do corporate content creators have when it comes to lobbying for legislation vs. the general user, or even vs. the educational community? Where is reasonable legislation to deal with orphan works (and no, last year’s report on that issue does NOT lay out a reasonable solution)? Yes, there are streaming options, etc., out there that there weren’t in years past, and yes, technology has made it easy to break the law, and you and Jessica can holler all you want about us cowboy-renegade librarian types breaking the law. Some do, surely, but most of us try to scrupulously adhere to a reasonable interpretation of the law, supported by court cases and opinions from folks like Kevin Smith and the Center for Social Media, to make quick decisions every day in a fluid and demanding environment. We have the reputations, and liability, of our institutions to consider, and I, along with most of the people in this area I have ever met, take that responsibility very seriously. I don’t particularly like being accused of duplicity in my work. The fact is, when we are talking about the community of librarians and educators like those on this list, we are not generally talking about willy-nilly scofflaws. I sympathize with you as a small, independent distributor. I do. But most of us on this list DO try very hard to adhere to the laws, despite their obvious problems and biases, and when they are a) yes, so skewed to favor creators and b) skewed further by nonsense like “you can’t just by a used VHS to make a preservation copy,” well, let’s say my sympathies have limits. Terry Terry Simpkins Director, Discovery & Access Services Library & Information Services Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 (802) 443-5045 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dennis Doros Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:18 AM To: Video Library questions Subject: Re: [Videolib] Native Son I happen to agree with Terry and deg except for this: "Copyright law has shifted far far to the side of protections for content creators." That's just not true and Jo Ann, this would also be an example of misinformation. Access has never been cheaper (anyone remember $2000 for a 16mm lease?) because of the Sony decision, easier to acquire and project, and frankly, so much of it is online for free illegally (and here I agree with Jessica -- being used by some educators) that you may say that the laws and court decisions have been in favor of the content creators, but in practice, the copyright holders have never had less power than we do now. Twenty years ago, film clips in documentaries were practically never based on fair use. Thanks to Mark Rappaport and Thom Andersen among others, it's widely accepted now. Here's a test. How many of you have watched a David Bowie video this week that wasn't put up by the copyright owner? (Me too.) Every time I take an illegal upload of one of Milestone's copyrighted films down from YouTube, there have already been thousands of viewers and ten more copies pop up in its place. Same for other sites as well including Vimeo and yes, even Archive.org. And let's face it, most of the copyright laws after the Sonny Bono act in 1998 have been in favor of education. My true belief is that the lack of funding for media in education by the government and by your institutions has made the content owners the scapegoat. There! I said it. ;-) Best regards, Dennis Doros Milestone Film & Video PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640 Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> JOIN OUR MAILING LIST TODAY!<http://milestonefilms.us3.list-manage1.com/subscribe/post?u=4a0b9e434a9f3e8603c29806e&id=f30d1906e2> Support us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milestone-Film/22348485426> and Twitter<https://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>! On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Simpkins, Terry W. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Greetings, everyone I second this interpretation by Deg. There is nothing in 108 that specifies a film must "already be in the collection" (if that were the case, then already in the collection since... when?). There is so much misinformation about this stuff, especially, at times, from certain quarters on this list, that it is important to look at what the law actually says. 108 says nothing about libraries having to hold copies of an obsolete format for some specified period of time before invoking 108, nor does it say the library had to have purchased the item now considered obsolete in new condition. I don't even think this is a particularly unusual situation. If anyone can point out the actual text of the law, or a court case that established this as an interpretation, that says otherwise, it would be news to me and I'd be grateful to learn about it. I'm all for telling faculty when something can't be done, but not for erecting imaginary and unnecessary barriers to their work. Copyright law has shifted far far to the side of protections for content creators. Let's not make our lives as librarians and educators even more difficult through timidity, as Deg rightly says, or self-imposed restrictions with no basis in law. Terry Simpkins Director, Discovery & Access Services Middlebury College Middlebury VT 05653 892-443-5045 > On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:12 AM, Deg Farrelly > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I wholeheartedly disagree. > > There are 2 issues here: obtaining a video to meet a faculty member's need > and applying section 108 to make a copy of that video. > > After diligently looking, it's been determined that the only sources for this > video are used VHS. > > If the library purchases a video for its collection, even if it is used, it > is a legally acquired copy. Most of us, I'd wager, have done that at some > point.... > > The law provides for the legal duplication of a legally acquired copy. > > Since the video, now in the library's collection is VHS, and cannot be > replaced with a new copy in any format, the library can apply Section 108 to > make up to 3 copies. > > The argument is not that VHS is obsolete, but that the format is > deteriorating. > > The law does not require tracking down the copyright holder(s) and asking for > permission. > > Painting this question as a matter of librarians or faculty wanting > everything is a broad overstatement. > > Is this unusual? Yes. Is this a blatant attempt to cheat a system? Hardly. > > The law lays out specific protections for libraries and too many librarians > for whatever purpose are too timid in asserting the rights that law has > provided. > > deg farrelly, Media Librarian/streaming Video Administrator > Arizona State University Libraries > > >> Actually not. 108 is for replacement copies already in a collection and >> Lorraine's school never had a copy. The idea that one would purchase a used >> VHS the supposedly "dead" format for the express purpose of making a DVD is >> not what the law says. >> >> In general this just goes to the issue that not every film ever made is >> going to be available and sometimes instructors will have to find something >> else >> > > <snip> > >> I have a faculty that wants to screen Native Son, 1986 w/ Oprah Winfrey. >> As far as I can see ONLY a VHS exists. My first Q is, if we do not have >> players in the classroom, and I am not seeing any copy of this on DVD, are >> we SOL? >> >> My only other option is to purchase the VHS and have her screen in the >> library (we do have VHS players). In terms of Fair Use checklist, if we >> have a VHS, that is my only option, correct? >> >> Btw, all the VHS copies are used; which could be fine. >> >> Your advice is appreciated. > > 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.
