Re: copyright under stress

We have to be mindful of the original post to which I responded. The poster CLAIMED denial of access BECAUSE of copyright but never gave one iota of evidence and I, along with others, questioned that ludicrous statement.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Daniel Lee <dlee[_at_]library.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

That may or may not be so. There was a statement of licensing. But no particulars. If so, private contracts prevail.

> 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.

Perhaps. But that isn't the point here. The point is that the material is available to all the students and, presumedly, the entire world. All they are claiming is a mere inconvienance as to time and place. Certainly there is no denial of access. Maybe we could call it denial of the mode of the most convenient access.  

> 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.

Merely symantics if we are to reference the original post that lead to this post.

Don Roemer
<droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> Received on Tue Jun 20 2000 - 15:07:24 GMT