I think that Dan's analysis is right on point--although I am not sure I totally agree with the Texaco case analogy, since that was in a for-profit, not a non-profit educational, setting.. The legislative history of Section 110(2), the transmission exception, makes it pretty clear that it was intended to be a narrow exception and really contemplated systems that are more closed than open broadcast in nature. It also only applies to non-dramatic literary and musical works.
The gray area is that what may be permissible under Section 110(1), the face-to-face classroom exception, may not be permissible if a live class showing the video tape is simultaneously transmitted to remote sites.
Legislation introduced last month by Senator Ashcroft (R-MO) would clarify the gray area. The Ashcroft bill principally deals with on-line copyright liability and implementation of the WIPO copyright treaty, but it also amends Section 110 essentially to provide that if the transmission of any type of work is by a non-profit educational entity and the transmission is for an educational purpose, no prior approval of the copyright owner is required.
Voice 202.776.2566 Fax 202.776.2222 Email ksalomon[_at_]dlalaw.com Web http://www.dlalaw.comReceived on Wed Nov 05 1997 - 14:37:47 GMT
===============================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:27 GMT