Re: copyright under stress

On Wed, Jun 14, 2000, Fritz Dolak <fdolak[_at_]gw.bsu.edu> wrote:
>
> I always lurk and when I feel a need to reply to something, I do
> so by writing personally to the poster. I did this with Mr. Cumbow
> and he kindly wrote back and suggested that I post to the list what
> I wrote to him.
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be interested in seeing concrete examples of situations in which
> > copyright causes denial of access.
>
> In my view and in my experiences here at Ball State, I can relate
> that dealing with permission for transmitting audio/visual materials
> for distance education [Section 110 (2) of Our Copyright Law]
> causes denial of access. How? By the copyright owner either
> totally denying our request for the transmission or placing such
> a high licensing fee for the transmission that we, as a public
> institution, cannot afford the cost. Effect: on-campus
> students get to view the audio/visual material in class; the
> off-campus students do not. That's denial of access in my
> view -- admittedly, a non-lawyerly view.
>
> One concrete example [a classic horror story that I reiterate
> whenever I can]. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum
> Development has the rights for 19 curriculum videos we wanted
> to use for a graduate course for in-the-field teachers. Total
> cost for transmitting these 19 videos: $27,271.00. Obviously
> for a course with 30 remote students, this cost was prohibitive
> and confiscatory...unless, of course, we wanted to raise class
> fees $900 per remote student ;-)
>
> Yeah, I know, you might say this is a licensing issue, but
> nonetheless, our 30 remote, off-campus students were denied
> access to these curriculum videos because of Section 110(2).
> This concrete example and others were part of my testimony
> I gave in Chicago when the U.S. Register of Copyrights held
> her hearings for her May 1999 Report as per the DMCA.
>
> By the by, to be fair and truthful, we do license transmission
> fees at prices we can afford. It always seems, however, that
> the more critical videos for class development and enhancement
> are those that are either denied or are cost prohibitive.

   Some of you folks have a strange definition for "denial of access." Maybe you should call it the inconvenience of not being on campus.

   The material exists and the students, should they wish to journey, are free to avail themselves of it.

   Should I feel "denied" if my public library has the capability of streaming something to me directly but cannot or will not because of licensing issues? I think not. If I want the material that badly, I'll just have to go to where it can be found. No denial there.

   And if you folks have the rights to the videos then why not just lend a copy to the remote students secured with a refundable security deposit?

Don Roemer
<droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> Received on Sat Jun 17 2000 - 22:27:12 GMT