Re: copyright under stress

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Don Roemer <droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> 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?

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of Fritz's claim here. But maybe it is just me that is missing something.

The Copyright statute (Sec. 110) allows the Ball State instructor to show these videos in a face to face classroom situation. But Section 110 explicitly states that the instructor does not have the right to show it in a distance education context. This limitation is based on copyright, not a licensing issue. The issue of licensing arises only because the statute specifically limits the usage which then leads the university to seek a license for the alternative usage.

Yes, Ball State can (in some sense of can, not a realistic one) pay for the license that allows them to provide access to distance education students. Yes, they can send a copy around to each individual. But this is certainly a different sort of access, if not indeed a limitation on access.

Dan Lee
University of Utah
<dlee[_at_]library.utah.edu> Received on Mon Jun 19 2000 - 16:47:25 GMT