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

["Janice T. Pilch" <janice.pilch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Coming to this conversation late and with respect to all who have weighed in previously. One may argue that the classroom is a private place in the sense that one may argue anything. But to my knowledge, classrooms are not regarded in federal or state law as private places. If that were the case, section 110(1) would not need to exist. I think it's misleading to argue that the Amazon license applies to classroom uses, however much some would like to think that.

Private uses occur within a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances. That's not what happens in a classroom. Public performance happens "where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." There is obviously a gray area if the number of people in the classroom is not substantial. But I think it's not gray enough, given the the need for and existence of classroom exceptions in the federal law, and given that state privacy laws, as I understand, treat the classroom as a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.

------------------------------
Janice T. Pilch
Copyright and Licensing Librarian
Rutgers University Libraries
Tel. (848) 932-7505 or (848) 932-5944

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Please do not further disseminate, distribute, or copy this message or its attachments without contacting the sender.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <pbh6@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:36:32 PM
Subject: RE: [digital-copyright] RE: Amazon streaming video for classroom use?

This is a thread that will not die.  We have zombie (aka "orphan") works; now we have zombie streaming videos...  :-)

So what have I learned from this discussion?

1. The streaming services seem to authorize "private, non-commercial use."
2. Some argued that showing a film to a class was a private use.  If it is a private use, it would not be in violation of the license.
3.  You could also argue that a private use was a non-public performance. If a private use was not a public performance, then you don't have to even think about 110, since the copyright owner does not have the right of public performance.
4. If it is the library or institution that is arranging for the streaming, it may become harder to argue that the use is private.  It is more likely that this is a violation of the terms of use. 
5. If you view showing a movie to a classroom as a public performance, then you may have a copyright problem.  The streaming service is not authorized to allow public performances.  At that point, you have to turn to 110 for a defense.
6. But if you are using a 110 defense, then it is likely that you are in violation of the terms of use.  I can't see how one can call a public performance (for copyright purposes) a "private use" (in the terms of the license).

In sum, there appear to be 4 ways to balance the private/public use (license) and the public/non-public performance (copyright):

1. If you conclude that showing a movie from a streaming service to a classroom is a private, non-public performance, then you are likely in the clear.  
2.If you conclude that showing the movie to the classroom is a private use but a public performance, then you are OK in terms of the license but have to look to 110 for copyright protection. (This position seems to be the least defensible.)
3.  If you conclude that showing the movie in the classroom is a non-private use but still a non-public performance, then you are only in violation of the terms of use.  
4.  If you conclude that showing a movie from a streaming service to a classroom is a public performance, it is likely to be a public use and hence not allowed by the license (even if 110 would keep it from being a copyright infringement).

And the bottom line in all of this is a matter of risk assessment.  You may conclude that ignoring the terms of use in the streaming service agreements is acceptable since it is unlikely that the service will ever complain and the copyright owner can't complain if what you have done is merely violated the terms of use.  See http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2013/02/media/one-way-to-get-streaming-content-from-the-library-ephrata-pl-looks-to-expand-roku-lending-program/ for  a story about a library that is loaning out Rokus, seemingly in complete disregard for the agreements it signs with the service. 

Peter Hirtle

-----Original Message-----
From: Mariann Burright [mailto:mariann@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 5:25 PM
To: Brandon Butler; digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [digital-copyright] RE: Amazon streaming video for classroom use?

Greetings, 

I hope it's not too late to join this thread. Most of the discussion so far has centered around 110(1). Suppose an instructor wanted to provide a video clip under the same Amazon TOU in a password-protected online course site, limited to the duration the course was in session. 
Assuming the institution is compliant with the TEACH ACT, how strong would the 110(2) safe harbor work in this situation? Appreciate any thoughts. 



-----

Mariann Burright
Head, Science Collections & Scholarly Communication University of Georgia Libraries Athens, Georgia 30602
706-542-6643
mariann@xxxxxxx

________________________________________
From: Brandon Butler [brandon@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:08 PM
To: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [digital-copyright] RE: Amazon streaming video for classroom use?

I'm with Peter, I think, though I'd love to be convinced by the other side.
This situation reminds me of the MDY v. Blizzard case (good summary here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/mixed-ninth-circuit-ruling-mdy-v-blizza
rd-wow),
which dealt with a similar situation of contract and copyright overlap. In that case, the 9th Circuit ruled that although users of a video game violated the EULA by using a third-party bot to play the game on autopilot, they did not infringe copyright. The court distinguished between a condition on the grant of a license and a separable covenant not to engage in particular conduct. So, even though part of the EULA forbade certain conduct, since that conduct was not independently a copyright infringement, it could not be magically transformed into infringement merely by its association with a license to use copyrighted content. That's the good news. The bad news is that just because something is not copyright infringement doesn't mean it can't nevertheless be a violation of the covenant in the contract.

In this case, it may be that because of '110 the performance of streaming videos in class is not a violation of '106, but the terms of the agreement with Netflix would still govern and provide an independent covenant describing which performances are allowed by the contract and which are not.

Here's something I should know but don't: are there any federal preemption issues when a claim is brought under state contract law but seems to be basically about the same subject matter as federal copyright law (and inconsistent with the federal regime, i.e., 110)? Seems like this came up in the UCLA case, but I'm too lazy to go back and look at whether and how it was resolved.

And to iterate this question further down the rabbit-hole: I just heard from Gary Price at InfoDocket about a public library that is buying Roku players, and signing up for Netflix and Hulu accounts, and loaning those boxes to patrons. Here the ultimate performance is probably of the kind contemplated by the license (a family and its invitees in a private home), but the licensee (the library) is not the one initiating the performance, and is in fact engaged in behavior (lending a piece of hardware with the streaming platform embedded) that probably isn't even addressed or contemplated in the TOUs. Fun!