Re: [digital-copyright] RE: Amazon streaming video for classroom use?

[John Mitchell <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Certainly, Section 107 may be applied to movies. And it must be. Section 106
makes all copyrights expressly "subject to" Section 107, which I often explain
as meaning, "You don't even get the copyright without it being limited by
Sections 107-122 at the inception of the copyright."

Worth noting, also, that audiovisual works are not limited to what are
generally referred to as full length motion pictures. The 30-second clip of
the prank you pulled on a roommate and uploaded to YouTube hoping it will go
viral would be treated same, under copyright law, as the multi-million-dollar
box office-busting Academy Award contender.

John

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Colson, Jeannie wrote:

> I have a tangential question. I was under the impression that 110(1) and (2)
provided the only exceptions to the right of public performance of motion
pictures. I've been surprised to see references on this list to fair use
evaluations regarding movies. Have I misunderstood? Can 107 be applied to
movies?
>
> ~Jeannie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Mitchell [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:44 PM
> To: Digital-Copyright
> Subject: Re: [digital-copyright] RE: Amazon streaming video for classroom
use?
>
> Consistent with my post of a few hours ago, I can agree with the first
sentence of your second paragraph, but not the rest.
>
> The Section 109 right is completely silent with respect to public
performances. And, as I stated before, if one is authorized to perform the
work publicly, that authorization is discrete, and is not dependent upon
whether the work was on a rented copy of a remote streaming server.
>
> Although the Ninth Circuit seems to be tone deaf on the distinction, the
fact that the access has "licensing" terms associated with it is not
determinative.
> That is, I can rent a copy from the video store, and have no right to
perform it publicly by virtue of the rental, but just as plainly, I can obtain
a separate license to perform the work publicly (and then perform it from the
rented video), or the video store may have obtained the authority to license
me to perform it publicly (unlikely in practice, but easily done as a matter
of law).
>
> I see several problems that would be raised if a video streaming service
stated, "You have no 110 rights."
> 	If the streaming service is the copyright holder, I would consider that to
be void as a matter of public policy, actionable as a matter of antitrust law,
and place at risk the copyright, as a matter of copyright misuse. That is
because, since the copyright itself is granted "subject to" Section 110, it
would not be permissible for the copyright holder to circumvent the limitation
on the copyright grant by licensing solely to those who agree to nullify the
limitation.
> 	If the streaming service is acting independently, and not as an agent for
the copyright holder, then the three faults would not apply. But I suspect
that it would make no more business sense for the streaming service to say
"You agree not to exercise your 110 rights" (or, more precisely, you agree not
to perform the work in the manner authorized by Section 110) than it would be
for the bookstore to say, "By purchasing this book, you agree never to
exercise your right to sell it, lend it, or give it away." Breaching either
agreement could not be a copyright violation, and the merchant placing those
limitations upon the customer risks losing customers.
>
> I hope that if you read my earlier post, you will see that this does not
boil down to just those two issues.
>
> John
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Peter B. Hirtle wrote:
>
>> "A Netflix or Amazon or ITunes rental is no different from a "motion
> picture"
>> rental paid for at a local video store."
>>
>> I disagree.  The video store rental (or using a copy we have
>> purchased) is based on 109 rights.  The streamed movie has license
>> terms associated with
> it.
>> It would be quite possible to have a license that says "You have no
>> 110 rights," and you would have to obey it.
>>
>> To the extent that the license is silent on what you can do under 110,
>> then Kevin is right: it would be a lawfully made copy.  But if the
>> license
> forbids
>> 110-type performances, then you can't do it, no matter what the law
>> may
> say.
>> (And this is one of the great innovations in the proposed copyright
>> changes
> in
>> the UK: namely, users cannot sign away their rights under copyright
>> when
> they
>> sign a license.)
>>
>> The discussion seems to boil down to two issues:
>> 1. Is classroom use a private, non-commercial performance authorized
>> under
> the
>> licenses?
>> 2. If not, should we ignore the license terms because Amazon/Netflix
>> is unlikely to sue us for violating their terms of use and the movie
>> studios,
> who
>> are the most likely to take umbrage, have bigger fish to fry?  (And
>> BTW, I don't think Netflix or Amazon could grant us permission to use
>> this stuff
> in
>> their licenses even if they wanted to.  I assume that their licenses
>> with
> the
>> studios stipulate that they can only license content for private,
>> in-home viewing.  That is why people like Swank are selling
>> separately-negotiated streaming services to universities.)
>>
>> Peter Hirtle