Re: Copyright - copying for preservation?

[bholaback@xxxxxxx]

Is all bPropagandab negative? Undocumented,
unsubstantiatedb&biased..perhaps.  Although I respect your opinion, I, of
course, beg to differ..for this cause is not about me!

A prominent attorney, not I, documented in his article "Death of Copyright"
The Perfect Storm that in the last 20 years 48/48 cases against Networks and
Studios were litigated to final judgment and 46/48 were thrown out on Summary
Judgment. Two other learned scholars have been writing legal journals/papers
on this issue for years. ( Prof. John Bronsteen and Suja A. Thomas).

There comes a time where citizens must move from writing articles to taking
ACTION!
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/40646660/Los-Angeles-Lawyer-Nov-2010-Death-of-Copy
right
www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=131

 http://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/docs/bronsteen/against_summary_judgement_1.pd
f-
Here's an excerpt from this article:

Despite strong evidence that summary judgment violates the
right to jury trial in civil cases guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, most
people assume this mechanism is necessary for our system to function at
reasonable
cost. This Article calls that assumption into question, suggesting that
summary judgment actually costs us more than it saves and that our civil
justice
system would be both fairer and more efficient without it.

Here's an excerpt from this article:

Despite strong evidence that summary judgment violates the
right to jury trial in civil cases guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, most
people assume this mechanism is necessary for our system to function at
reasonable
cost. This Article calls that assumption into question, suggesting that
summary judgment actually costs us more than it saves and that our civil
justice
system would be both fairer and more efficient without it.

And yes, when an issue hits home, one is more inclined to do just that!

We will get this Unconstitutional practice in the forefront and Abolished by
any legal means necessary!

Perhaps if you (or one of your children/grandchildren) were one of the
creators of one of these pieces, spent $100,000 of your family's hard earned
monies, lost MILLIONS/BILLIONS in revenue believing that you would, as
mandated by the Seventh Amendment, get your "day in court" and then your case
(and you later find out that thousands of others) are being tried by
subjective decisions of Judges in total disregard of black letter law, you
would feel differentlyb&. Or perhaps you are on the other side and simply
believe in the status quo..
In any event, we are fighting for the future of exactly what these posts are
trying to preventb&the Infringement of onebs Intellectual property!
These protections do not only belong to the wealthy or scholarlyb&Justice is
supposed to be bFOR ALL!.b
InJustice for All..Summary MisJudgment...coming soon!


-----
From: Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bholaback <bholaback@xxxxxxx>; kevin.l.smith <kevin.l.smith@xxxxxxxx>;
Nieuwr <Nieuwr@xxxxxxxxxx>; cpwiggins <cpwiggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
digital-copyright <digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 9:02 am
Subject: Re: Copyright - copying for preservation?



Sounds like propaganda to me....

t 5:10 PM -0400 8/30/11, bholaback@xxxxxxx wrote:
I would like to provide each of you with a copy of the Trailer of a
Docu-Series that will be in theatres shortly regarding Copyright Infringement
and How Hollywood...allegedly...steals..In the Name of the Law!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGrZfozHE4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

THE NAME OF THE LAW..



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Smith <kevin.l.smith@xxxxxxxx>
To: Randal Nieuwsma <Nieuwr@xxxxxxxxxx>; Charles P. Wiggins
<cpwiggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; digital-copyright
<digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Aug 30, 2011 1:24 pm
Subject: RE: Copyright - copying for preservation?


I can't agree with Randal that "Copyright doesn't allow converting
non-library" videotape to another format for preservation or convenience
urposes."  The best we can say, I think, is that the situation is not clear.
Obviously you will not be relying on section 108 if you choose to reformat
for
hese purposes.  Nor can you rely on a specific "orphan works" law, as Randal
oints out.  But section 107, fair use, may allow reformatting in some
ircumstances.  Fair use is, we all know, highly dependent on the specific
acts, and it is possible to imagine facts that would support a fair use
nalysis.
You mention the question of whether or not "the content is available in the
arketplace."  This is a good place to start; I would not rely on fair use,
ersonally, if a digital version of the film could be purchased.  If a digital
ersion is not available, you could also improve the fair use argument, in my
pinion, by taking steps to ensure that you do not make two copies available
here previously there had been only one. Restricting the copies to clearly
ducational purposes would also help.
Sometimes people say that fair use never supports copying an entire work, but
his is demonstrably untrue.  Two of the most famous Supreme Court decisions
n fair use -- the Sony case and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose -- both involved all
f the works in question (or nearly all, in the case of the parody of "Oh,
retty Woman" in Campbell).  The Sony case especially, with its emphasis on
ime and space shifting (rather than transformation), seems useful for your
rgument.
I can't tell you if the specific reformatting you are considering is or is
not
air use.  But I believe that a reasonable argument for reformatting can be
ade in some cases.  In any case, it seems that it is fair use you would have
o rely on; no other copyright exceptions really gets you where you want to
e, and fair use was developed for precisely those kinds of situations.
Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
irector of Scholarly Communications
uke University, Perkins Library
.O. Box 90193
urham, NC 27708
19-668-4451
evin.l.smith@xxxxxxxx

----Original Message-----
rom: Randal Nieuwsma [mailto:Nieuwr@xxxxxxxxxx]
ent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:13 PM
o: Charles P. Wiggins; digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ubject: Re: Copyright - copying for preservation?
Charles,
(Just my opinion)
When a person or school purchases a videotape or dvd, they become the owner
f the plastic item and an implied license to view the contents as long as it
orks. What they do not acquire is the right to use it eternally. When it
ears out or breaks, it is over. In the old days of 16mm film, people were
ore accepting of that concept since they could understand that replacing film
as expensive. Now that duplicating and digitizing video is easy and common,
eople assume that it is legal.
Copyright doesn't allow converting "non-library" videotape to another format
or preservation or convenience purposes, eventhough it is easy to do.
The given reason of wanting to convert it to preserve the content of a
on-library videotape is understandable, but not clearly legal, yet. It is not
n obsolete format, yet, since it will still be a few years before you just
lain cannot get a vhs player. Also, I hope for, but am not aware of, legal
rogress on Orphan Works legislation to make copying old tape legal or at
east easier.
andy
>>>  "Charles P. Wiggins" <cpwiggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 8/29/2011 11:22 AM
>>  >>>
ello all,
I have a dean that has requested that some VHS tapes be converted to DVD to
reserve the content. Assuming that the content is no longer available in the
arketplace, I know that Section 108
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108) allows copying and
onversion in the library setting for preservation purposes, but these are not
ibrary materials.  They are owned/used in the department exclusively.
Has anyone ever heard of this provision or another part of the code being
used
o copy and convert at an educational institution, but outside the library
etting?
Thanks,
harles

Charles P. Wiggins
irector of Library Services
sothermal Community College
.O. Box 804
pindale, NC 28160
28-286-3636 ext. 216
cpwiggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

E-mail correspondence to and from this sender may be subject to the North
arolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.

-
anford G. Thatcher
201 Edgewater Drive
risco, TX  75034-5514
-mail: sandy.thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
hone: (214) 705-1939
acebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher
"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)
"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people
ho can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)