Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UCLA Profs Banned From Posting Course Videos

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the film-professionals-of-tomorrow dept.

Education 134

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "As of Winter Quarter 2010, UCLA professors will no longer be able to post videos on their course websites. Although they've long relied upon fair use protections for educational use, the Association for Information Media and Equipment has made claims that they're copyright infringers, even though the videos are only available on campus and the students are allowed to watch the videos in the Instructional Media Lab. Even though they believe their use of the materials to be fair, the UCLA has decided to back down rather than face litigation. Many professors have commented that this will hurt students, because they now have to watch all videos at the IML, which isn't open on weekends, forcing students to try to fit assigned videos between classes."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Torrent it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034310)

Hur durr

Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034314)

Although they've long relied upon fair use protections for educational use, the Association for Information Media and Equipment has made claims that they're copyright infringers, even though the videos are only available on campus and the students are allowed to watch the videos in the Instructional Media Lab.

That may be the case now but according to the article, that was the specific problem. That they were using Video Furnace to post videos online so students could view the videos outside of the IML which has horrible hours like being closed on weekends. From one of the students:

"If we want students to write a paper on the film over the weekend, it’s more convenient for the student to rewatch the movie online over the weekend. (The ban) makes teaching cinema more difficult (because) Video Furnace was extremely useful," Gans said. "I very much hope (the university) will reach some kind of agreement."

It seems they licensed Video Furnace for use of its technology only on campus and only on campus machines. But the ease of use means that if you post a Video Furnace movie on your course website then students -- or maybe even anyone -- could access it using a browser from anywhere. The summary link says that this may work but is not recommended due to possible latency from the server.

The ACLU backed down because, well, the university is probably violating its licensing agreement with Video Furnace. The professors don't do licensing so they didn't understand that what they were doing was wrong. The solution is to threaten to leave Video Furnace unless they amend their licensing contract or give you a way to convert to an open format that the professors can post where ever they want -- once you have the raw video, upload it to YouTube or Vimeo. It's been shown that free online courses don't hurt enrollment anyway [arstechnica.com] .

$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fuck? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034530)

What the fuck? There are Americans out there who are willing to pay $40,000 a semester just to watch some goddamn "educational" videos? Is this for real?

Back when I was in college, I wasn't paying anywhere near that much, but you'd better fucking imagine that I got my money's worth by dealing with the professors and making sure they were teaching me directly, and not just telling me to watch some cockbiting "supplementary videos" or any fancy shit-in-my-pants like that. Fuck.

Re:$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fu (2, Funny)

Kleiba (929721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034874)

You have a college education?

Re:$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034978)

What the fuck is wrong with you.

Re:$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fu (4, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035030)

What the fuck? There are Americans out there who are willing to pay $40,000 a semester just to watch some goddamn "educational" videos? Is this for real?

Back when I was in college, I wasn't paying anywhere near that much, but you'd better fucking imagine that I got my money's worth by dealing with the professors and making sure they were teaching me directly, and not just telling me to watch some cockbiting "supplementary videos" or any fancy shit-in-my-pants like that. Fuck.

Kinda hard to teach film without, you know, watching films.

Kinda like teaching literature without reading books.

Re:$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fu (-1, Troll)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037902)

"Kinda hard to teach film without, you know, watching films."

BULLSHIT. You can learn practically everything about film from a photography class in high school.

Now, learning about PERFORMING ARTS usually requires watching films.

Re:$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fu (1)

Marful (861873) | more than 4 years ago | (#31038294)

So... how exactly do you learn about using a trolley to do a trucking shot, while doing still photography?

How exactly do you learn about what makes a good scene break / transition, while doing still photography?

Re:$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fu (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035054)

What the fuck? There are Americans out there who are willing to pay $40,000 a semester just to watch some goddamn "educational" videos? Is this for real?

Back when I was in college, I wasn't paying anywhere near that much, but you'd better fucking imagine that I got my money's worth by dealing with the professors and making sure they were teaching me directly, and not just telling me to watch some cockbiting "supplementary videos" or any fancy shit-in-my-pants like that. Fuck.

UCLA tuition is more like $5000/semester.

Re:$40,000 a semester to watch videos? What the fu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31035738)

UCLA does not operate semester schedules but quarters. Otherwise, yes, tuition is not cheap but nothing compared to private universities. As usual room and board are the big expenses. Having roommates and a well-paying summer job helps alot. It gets you experience and connections for post-university life too!

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034660)

Video Furnace and HaiVision merged in March 2009 to form HaiVision Network Video. Please continue to the HaiVision site for all Video Furnace related

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (5, Informative)

reg106 (256893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034754)

The summary is *very* confusing. In fact, TFA is very confusing. From the first few paragraphs, it is easy to misinterpret the videos in question to be recordings of lectures, but that is not the case. After reading the whole article, it is clear that the courses under consideration require students to view movies, produced by some external content-provider, outside of the class. They watch the *whole* movie, not just a part, so educational use alone isn't enough to trigger fair use. (Otherwise we'd all just use photocopied textbooks)

When you buy a DVD, it has an implicit license to the conditions under which you can watch it (That FBI warning at the beginning indicating you can't show it to a large audience). To comply with copyright law, an "instructional" DVD which permits showing to an audience is required. I am only aware of this because our design course shows the Nightline "Deep Dive" video [go.com] . If you look at the educational version (checkbox), it allows you to show to a group, but NOT to stream it. In order to stream the content, a difference license for the video would be required. I'm not sure how to get such a license right now, and this will be inconvenient for a few semesters worth of Bruins, but as demand for streamed instruction content grows, I'm sure viable licensing options will arise (as we have seen for music and popular video content).

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (4, Informative)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035314)

Fair use still applies to the whole movie:

US Code Title17, Chapter1, ss107 is crystal clear:

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

-nB

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (3, Informative)

reg106 (256893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035630)

US Code Title17, Chapter1, ss107 [cornell.edu] also says:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

IANAL, and I am unclear on the full implications of the case law surrounding this, but clearly the interpretation cannot be so broad as you suggest. Otherwise it would be useless to copyright educational materials. Educational purpose is one aspect to be be considered, but (3) is also a significant consideration here. If you showed clips of a movie in a cinema class for the purposes of analysis and criticism, that would be fair use. To show the whole movie, you need an appropriately licensed version. Similarly, since the 90s universities (and students) have been paying royalties on papers included in course packs, even though these papers are clearly for educational purposes.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (2, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036602)

True, but given that this is EDU and likely won;t impact market as clause 4 indicates means that it should apply as fair use (IANAL either), textbooks on the other hand would have clause 4 severly impacted, thus fair use would not apply.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037820)

Well it's not that it "would not apply," but that the balance would likely be determined against fair use. The tricky thing about fair use is that all four of those criteria must be considered, but there is no indication of how to quantify their implications. A lot of university lawyers try to get out of this by saying arbitrarily that 10% (or whatever) of a copyrighted work is all that may be used, but that is just a number pulled out of the air. In general violations of this sort are likely to be treated on a case by case basis by the courts, and gray area cases can be pretty unpredictable.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (1)

reg106 (256893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31038152)

I still believe a fair use argument would be on shaky ground, but as someone else pointed out below, Fair Use is not the most relevant section of copyright law in this instance. Sec110 - Exemption of certain performances or displays [copyright.gov] applies more directly. Certainly (1) seems to permit showing a full video so long as the instructor is present in the classroom and the video is directly relevant to the class. (I am now confused. We were advised to buy the "educational group licensed" version by the university, but I am not sure what further benefit this license provides, and I can't find one of the licenses right now to be more concrete.).

Regarding the issues at UCLA, Sec110, (2) covers transmitting a work (as also pointed out below). The exemption in (2) applies to:

the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission, if.... [more conditions]...

Since a movie does not seem to be a nondramatic literary or musical work [washburn.edu] , the movie would fall under "any other work," so a "reasonable and limited [portion]" of the work may be performed if the subsequent conditions are also met. For the UCLA case, that seems to imply that you are limited to using a part of the work. The alternatives would be to show it live with an instructor present (but the faculty don't want to waste class time or schedule TAs for group showing) or to provide copies for individuals to check out (but the hours of the media center are inconvenient). (Hmmm, the educational license I mentioned may have allowed a group to watch for educational purposes without an instructor present, e.g. a group showing in a library media center). In any case, it seems that the problem can be solved by working out a different licensing agreement.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (3, Informative)

sribe (304414) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035652)

...crystal clear:

Yes, it's pretty clear. It's your reading comprehension that's lacking. "The fair use... for such purposes as... is not an infringement..." does not mean that "any use... for such purposes... is fair use and therefore... is not an infringement..." The other requirements for fair use still apply even for such purposes.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035774)

Fair use still applies to the whole movie:

Of course it does.

But when you have the money and will to sue anyone whose fair use you don't like, you get to make the rules and the law be damned.

And now that industry groups like AIME and RIAA can dump millions into swaying elections with impunity, they probably won't even have to go to the trouble of taking anyone to court, because even the smallest copyright "infringements" will become criminalized rather than a civil matter.

That's their holy grail: to make all intellectual "property" "infringement" a felony, no matter how small, and to wipe out once and for all the notion of "fair use".

Watch for public libraries to start closing then. My guess is they'll open up low cost, privatized "ebook libraries" where the the ebooks will self-destruct via DRM after a short time. They'll say this approach is "better than libraries". The privatization of the public library system is coming to America. Bet on it.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31037986)

That's their holy grail: to make all intellectual "property" "infringement" a felony, no matter how small, and to wipe out once and for all the notion of "fair use".

At which point it becomes clear to everyone that to play by the rules is to be a sucker. Currently there are people who won't use bittorrent to download movies or other copyrighted material because they think it's wrong. But their numbers will dwindle if corporations become more and more dickish.

Personally I think that copyright was a good idea in its original form and with fair use considerations, but the extensions and restrictions have essentially broken the original deal. Now the moral thing it to consider the source of material -- support artists where possible, screw corporations.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (2, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035398)

When you buy a DVD, it has an implicit license to the conditions under which you can watch it (That FBI warning at the beginning indicating you can't show it to a large audience). To comply with copyright law, an "instructional" DVD which permits showing to an audience is required.

This is false. There is an explicit exemption for use of videos in the classroom. From 17 USC 110 (1) [copyright.gov] :

(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;

However, this does not cover posting videos online, like UCLA was doing. IIRC (can't find a link right now), there have been cases where schools tried to include videos in distance learning classes, and the judge ruled that it was not fair use.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035826)

However, this does not cover posting videos online, like UCLA was doing.

That would be 110(2), but it has a number of limitations to it, such that UCLA might not have qualified for it, depending on precisely what it had been doing.

And of course, where no other exception applies, and where the use would otherwise be infringing, fair use may always be raised as a defense. It might not succeed, as not every use is necessarily a fair use, but it might succeed, as any use is potentially a fair use.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (3, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034778)

And then - people are surprised that the quality of education is getting worse.

The copyright and patent issues seems to put a blanket over everything, so soon is the western world going down the drain while countries where copyright and patents are weak will outpace the western world.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034888)

The solution is to threaten to leave Video Furnace unless they amend their licensing contract or give you a way to convert to an open format that the professors can post where ever they want -- once you have the raw video, upload it to YouTube or Vimeo.

Surely the 'solution' would be for the customer, in this case the ACLU, to buy the correct licensing - not threaten the license holder...

Your suggestion smacks of 'wahhh I didnt buy what I should have but give it to me anyway!'

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (1)

quetwo (1203948) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035520)

The VideoFurnace product they are using allows users to stream the video using Multicast, using their VOD (Video On Demand) module. In theory, this content can be viewed anywhere on the UCLA Multicast Domain, which also includes a majority of the Internet2. Generally this is seen as "on campus only" Consumers cannot watch this content from home, as most commericial ISPs don't participate in Internet2, nor do they support multicast. Additionally, the VideoFurance equipment allows for this content to be encrypted, which disallows users to simply copy the content.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035760)

The ACLU backed down because, well, the university is probably violating its licensing agreement with Video Furnace

Frankly, I don't know why the american civil liberties union was sticking their nose into the University of California at Los Angeles' business anyway. I'm guessing they got the acronyms mixed up, which must have been very embarrassing for them at court.

"Your honor, the ACLU feels it's use of video in online courses not only is a fair use, but also we don't even offer courses, nor do we put videos up for said nonexistent courses, so we ask you to dismiss the case."

"Uh, this was a case against UCLA, not the ACLU"

"... We knew that. Just wanted to point out we're not using video. I'll show myself out."

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036070)

The professors don't do licensing so they didn't understand that what they were doing was wrong.

You're confusing things. You should have said:
The professors don't understand licensing, so they didn't understand that what they were doing violated license agreements.
and separately:
The professors didn't understand what they were doing was wrong, because they weren't doing anything wrong.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036562)

from what i've seen, uni's get such a deep discount on software that i doubt their loss of business is much of a threat.

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037062)

The ACLU backed down because...

Did I miss something? How is the ACLU involved in this?

Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31038330)

The Video Furnace recordings are ONLY available on campus (not from the general internet), as you can see from the link included. But yes, these are (for example) foreign films and whatnot, rather than class lecture recordings.

Fair Use (2, Insightful)

conureman (748753) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034354)

Time to get a new edition of the Legal Dictionary, the one with the correct interpretations of words you THOUGHT you knew, like Common Law, and Common Sense.

Re:Fair Use (3, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034524)

Common Law, and Common Sense

Aren't those two basically a dichotomy when it comes to copyright law and the like?

Granted, there may have been other issues involved here (e.g. licensing) but the issue that is presented seems reasonable enough for it to be silly to threaten the profs/university.

Law School Opportunity? (2, Interesting)

HTMLSpinnr (531389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034376)

What a better way to break in some law or pre-law students than to represent this case. Backing down benefits nobody but AIME and future precedent for online coursework.

Re:Law School Opportunity? (1)

JNSL (1472357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31038348)

Except that allowing or enabling licensing violations is bad precedent. Surely they backed down because they realized they had no case. After all, they needed licensing in the first place. If this were to qualify as fair use, so too would that.

Excellent, two thumbs up! (2, Interesting)

moz25 (262020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034402)

Isn't this *exactly* what we want? Let the next generation get first-hand generation of the worse sides of copyright law. THEY are the ones who will tip the balance to actually change things as the older generation is phased out.

I hope they will remember this incident very well in their future careers.

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (4, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034504)

I'm reminded of a quote by the great libertarian socialist (anarchist) thinker Mikhail Bakunin which goes "To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover every day anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion." I think that you might be too hopeful if you think that kids are going to get a bum idea of copyright law then take to the streets to change it. I would hope that institutes of education would take a stand against such an inequity, but apparently this is what happens when school start to be run as businesses rather than as institutes of learning.

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034664)

Not by taking to the streets, by taking to the boardrooms (and courtrooms and congress chambers). In 20 years, the generation that grew up loathing the copyright moguls will be the ones making the decisions, and I'd be willing to bet that they'll make their decisions a little differently than the groups that are in charge now.

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (2, Informative)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034758)

Not when they get a taste of the almighty Dollar (or Euro). They will then be turned to the dark side...

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (2, Informative)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035522)

Yeah, just like all the hippies in the late 60s who grew up to be the conservative corporate suits now. I am not holding my breath. The almighty dollar can really do some damage to morals and ideals over 20 years of time.

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035912)

In 20 years, the generation that grew up loathing the copyright moguls will be the ones making the decisions, and I'd be willing to bet that they'll make their decisions a little differently than the groups that are in charge now.

You'd lose that bet. Back in the seventies we were a new generation with new ideas. The old sexual taboos were gone, nobody called a loose woman a "slut" because they all were as "slutty" as we men, marijuana was going to be legal as soon as the dinasaurs were out of power.

Then came AIDS and free love went out the window. My generation is now in power, and guess what? Those in power are the same kinds of assholes that were in power when my dad was younger than I am now, and I no longer see pot being legal "any day now".

It's not a generational war, it's a class war, and you and I are on the losing side.

California has gone to pot (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037904)

I no longer see pot being legal "any day now".

Months ago, President Obama announced a policy revision [huffingtonpost.com] not to interfere with states that legalize medical cannabis. One might compare this to the 21st Amendment, which devolved the power to ban alcohol from the federal government to the states. I wait to see how this will apply if California voters put pot over the counter this November [latimes.com] .

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (2, Insightful)

quanticle (843097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036416)

Really? Why don't we look at the previous generation? The same boomers that participated in Woodstock ended up voting for Reagan and Bush. So you can't expect that sort of attitude to remain

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (0, Troll)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035178)

"To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover every day anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion."

Leaders matter and masses are literally stupid cattle to be manipulated for good of ill by their betters. If some of those students become leaders, we may see change.

"I would hope that institutes of education would take a stand against such an inequity, but apparently this is what happens when school start to be run as businesses rather than as institutes of learning."

'Start??" Education IS a business, to train people to function in a world of business so they can trade for food, clothing, and shelter.

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035394)

Schooling and education aren't the same thing, but maybe I just have a different perspective on things -- my academic degree is in English and Classical History. I work a system administrator, but I'm not really an "IT person" in the traditional sense. As the head of the Classics department at my school used to say, "a liberal arts education prepares you to fully enjoy the life you'll never be able to afford." Before I finally bit the bullet and got back into computers ( do have a valid nerd background -- a 5-digit id and I'm only 25 and a half), it was pretty true.

But, when I was in school studied literature, history, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc. I traveled abroad and made friends with foreign students who came to my school to study. I was always reading on my own, debating, etc. Do I use anything in my schooling for my job? No, not really -- but I use what I was educated with every day, because it gives me a very different perspective on things than I would have gotten if I just plugged into a terminal for the whole time I was at college. I was the English major who used unix and who occasionally wrote perl scripts to help with structuralist analysis of literature.

Of course, this is all off-topic now, but its just that the idea that an education is supposed to turn one into a good little worker bee really gets under my skin.

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036132)

"...an education is supposed to turn one into a good little worker bee..."

That's exactly what PUBLIC education is for. Private education is for whoever pays the bills to determine.

If the customer/student wants a particular curriculum, they can choose freely among the offerings in the market (or self-educate if the market doesn't suit).

Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (2, Informative)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035914)

"To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover every day anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion."

Why should there be? It'd almost be like expecting most people to have a particular mental illness (with the implication that the mental illness is a good thing). The masses have been burned every time that they entertained revolutionary ideas, hopes, and passions of the sort promoted by Mr. Bakunin and his ilk.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts (3, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034412)

by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

What a curious definition of "promote" we've arrived at.

Re:To promote the Progress of Science and useful A (4, Insightful)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034638)

by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

What a curious definition of "promote" we've arrived at.

It's actually pro-mote. As in "in favor of dust". As in the progress of science and useful arts should collect dust if it's not making some business (read: MY business) money.

Re:To promote the Progress of Science and useful A (1)

JNSL (1472357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31038422)

"Promote" in the sense you want to use it is shortsighted. Copyright promotes science and art by incentivizing authors to create/author works by providing economic reason to justify competing. If you imagine, 'how can we do the most with what we got' as some kind of promotion, you're losing sight of how to get there in the first place, and how to incentivize people to share too.

To clarify: (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034414)

They are NOT talking about videos of the courses

The ban applies to videos assigned by professors for students to watch.

Previously these could be streamed and watched at student's leisure. Now they have to go to the media lab to watch them.

Re:To clarify: (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31038228)

Now they have to go to the media lab to watch them.

If the demand on the media lab increases to the point where students need to use it on weekends, the university should extend the hours of the lab if it has any sense.
They're deliberately trying to save court fees... will they also say they can't pay a few students minimum wage to sit at a reference desk on Sunday?

So negotiate a license with the copyright holders (4, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034422)

This seems like just a 'simple' negotiating situation to me. UCLA should just refuse to buy or use any instructional videos which don't grant them a license to make the videos available to enrolled students and faculty online. If the copyright holders want to play hardball, play hardball. Heck, extend this beyond UCLA, and make it a State of California mandate for all state Universities in the California system. What instructional video publisher wants to be locked out of all California public Universities?

Re:So negotiate a license with the copyright holde (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035662)

Yes, because Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama is a perfect substitute for Citizen Kane.

Re:So negotiate a license with the copyright holde (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035918)

I'm no negotiations expert, but my understanding is negotiations work because bothsides have a stake and in fact want the negotiations to succeed. Sure, UCLA and the UC System wouldn't want to lose access to the video works. But, neither would the copyright holders want to risk losing the revenue they get from the UC system. But, if the California powers that be (I'm not sure what it's called in California; in Ohio we have the Ohio Board of Regents, and ultimately, the governor and legislature) threatened or even passed such a resolution, it would be an interesting game of chicken. *grin*

In any case, my ultimate point is that this isn't an issue of 'fair use' or an issue, really, of inadequate copyright law - it's an issue which can and should just be negotiated. The UC System and the State of California are big enough that if they just manned up, they could get whatever they need from the copyright holders.

torrent? (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037874)

link please?

Re:So negotiate a license with the copyright holde (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036748)

This seems like just a 'simple' negotiating situation to me. UCLA should just refuse to buy or use any instructional videos which don't grant them a license to make the videos available to enrolled students and faculty online. If the copyright holders want to play hardball, play hardball. Heck, extend this beyond UCLA, and make it a State of California mandate for all state Universities in the California system. What instructional video publisher wants to be locked out of all California public Universities?

I fully agree with playing hardball.

I say take it a few steps further. Comply with their request for 6 months. This will give UCLA an exact dollar value of damages caused by this illegal threat for a baseless case.

Then go to court, this time not as a defendant but as the litigant. Fair use exemptions are clearly in force here so this is a frivolous lawsuit made in bad faith (Giving oneself a title of 'copyright holder' requires you to be aware of the laws related to such a title. As far as I am concerned, not doing so is negligence, and any damage caused by their negligence is made in 'bad faith')

UCLA really should also look into a government exemption to copyright restrictions, seeing as most of their money comes in the form of federal grants. It should only be a paperwork issue for the video purchases to show as coming from the US Department of Education (a federal agency except from copyright restrictions) instead of coming from UCLA.
Any federal government office is automatically except and is legally unable to violate copyright (At least the copyright of American made works. I assume it might not apply to other countries, but also assume we will respect those countries laws about as much as we do now, aka not much at all.)

Actually *attend* the lectures? (-1, Offtopic)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034424)

When I was at university, we had to go to the lectures in person - not wait for them to come out on video. How times change.

Re:Actually *attend* the lectures? (2, Informative)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034478)

This is about supplimental learning from what I understand. Not lecture material, but educational videos that relate to the topic made by someone other than the prof and for which there is not time in class to view.

Re:Actually *attend* the lectures? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034518)

When I was at university, we had to go to the lectures in person - not wait for them to come out on video. How times change.

I'm sure these aren't the lectures, or else there wouldn't be an intellectual property issue. Then there's the issue of online classes. I work in distance education, and have to put a lot of video in classes, because students don't attend a lecture. We embed them in our course management system (Moodle), so they're only accessible to our students, not just out in the wild.

Re:Actually *attend* the lectures? (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034590)

I have a job at my university operating a remote-control set of cameras to record professors teaching their classes. We then upload the videos online for students to watch. Times do change.

Re:Actually *attend* the lectures? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037994)

When I was at university you could smoke cigarettes in class, and smoke pot with the professors after class.

How times change!

Videos? In college? (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034456)

What sort of videos are we talking about? The only videos I've ever watched in an educational setting were pointless time wasters intended to give the teacher a break. If that's what we're talking about, they have a point. But there's really no loss as they're a waste of time anyway.

If we're talking about video recording of lectures given by professors, then the professors should have the copyright and should be able to distribute them any way they want. This would be far more useful than some generic educational video anyway.

Re:Videos? In college? (1)

tristanreid (182859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035684)

I took a lit class called "An Introduction to Vice" in which we read a bunch of Shakespeare plays (Othello==Rage, Merchant of Venice==Greed, etc) and watched 12 Hitchcock films. The films were an integral part of the course.

In high school and before, I can (sadly) see your point. But if you have a prof. showing a film in college and you consider it a pointless time waster, I think you went to the wrong school or took the wrong class.

-t.

Re:Videos? In college? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035876)

No, I didn't watch any videos in college, just HS. Which is why I expressed surprise at that. Generally though, I'd consider English Lit to be a pretty pointless waste of time, videos or not.

Re:Videos? In college? (1)

tristanreid (182859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037746)

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. If you've never read something that moved you, you haven't read the right books.

-t.

Re:Videos? In college? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035724)

If you RTFA, you would see that they mention several examples. This is not about lectures. Some of them are educational videos, which I tend to agree are often a waste of time. However, some of the videos are absolutely necessary for the course (in some form or another), like this one:

Eric Gans, a French cinema professor, has also been impacted by the video ban. Because his class falls on Mondays and Wednesdays, Mondays are usually designated to watch the movies that they discuss on Wednesdays. However, two weeks this quarter, due to the national holidays that fall on Mondays, Gans’ 40 students will have to individually watch the one copy of the movie held at reserve in the Media Lab.

“If we want students to write a paper on the film over the weekend, it’s more convenient for the student to rewatch the movie online over the weekend. (The ban) makes teaching cinema more difficult (because) Video Furnace was extremely useful,” Gans said. “I very much hope (the university) will reach some kind of agreement.”

I imagine that buying a dozen imported french films would be fairly expensive for a student, so it would be nice if they could come to some sort of arrangement that is better than a single reserve copy.

Clarification of the issue. (1)

managerialslime (739286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037226)

What sort of videos are we talking about? The only videos I've ever watched in an educational setting were pointless time wasters intended to give the teacher a break. If that's what we're talking about, they have a point. But there's really no loss as they're a waste of time anyway.
If we're talking about video recording of lectures given by professors, then the professors should have the copyright and should be able to distribute them any way they want. This would be far more useful than some generic educational video anyway.

Your understanding of the problem is close, but imprecise.

What is at stake here are professors whose lectures routinely use copyrighted materials.

One prior post speculated that the resulting video should be legal due to the "fair use" doctrine.

Another prior post speculated that due to a technicality, that lecture reproduction is fair use for an educational DVD, but specifically not legal (i.e. infringing) when used with streaming video.

As a result, rather than figure out which lectures are infringing and which are legal, the school has just banned everything to be safe.

Remote Access? (1)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034466)

Couldnt this be solved by simply allowing some sort of remote, vpn-type thing so that only students can access the videos (but the videos/vieo files still physically remain on campus)? Files don't have to be "online" to be remotely accessible and it seems to be the internet part that the copyright people object to.

Strange wording in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034482)

(1) "the Association for Information Media and Equipment has made claims that they're copyright infringers, even though the videos are only available on campus and the students are allowed to watch the videos in the Instructional Media Lab." (2) "Even though they believe their use of the materials to be fair, the UCLA has decided to back down rather than face litigation. Many professors have commented that this will hurt students, because they now have to watch all videos at the IML,"

In sentence 1, the fact that videos are available to watch in the IML is used as an argument that this is fair use. It is implied strongly (without it, the sentence makes no sense) that videos are ONLY available to view in the IML. However, in sentence 2 it is asserted that restricting viewing to the IML would be a change from today and more limiting.

Effectively translated: 'VIAA claims that this is not fair use, because videos can be viewed from anywhere. But we refute this, because videos can be viewed from anywhere including the IML!'

How is this different from course readers? (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034560)

Written material by others, namely, course readers, have to abide to copyright: there is no fair-use exemption that allows the readers to be made without paying the copyright holders, nor for faculty to copy textbooks.

Why should videos not done by the faculty be any different?

Use Textbooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034608)

As a side effect, just get back to traditional teaching methods and start using text books($$). Also big large buildings and pass the cost to students in name of increase in tution cost.

Re:Use Textbooks (1)

CarlDenny (415322) | more than 4 years ago | (#31038544)

Teaching film classes from textbooks is like masturbating to ASCII porn.

digital libraries (1)

uiberto (830033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034620)

Since these videos are for educational purposes for students of the university, it seems simple enough to restrict access based on student IDs. Perhaps there is a method to check out online media from the library.

This article (being that it's on UCLA's site) mostly seems like a ploy to gain popular support even though they violated their contract with Video Furnace (who respects copyright law). "We can't provide this free service anymore because of the big bad company we just scammed!" I could not envision a similar article complaining about Coca-Cola refusing to stock vending machines that were being robbed routinely.

Digital libraries are going to face a whole slew of copyright issues over the next century. I imagine this concept of intellectual property will become more and more absurd. If there are any modern librarians out there, I'd love to hear what challenges you face.

Of course by the year 2110, copyright will struggle to adapt to telepathy, but it will be in vain, as no one can stop me from watching Free Willy with my mind. I like the part with the whale.

Not nearly as bad as the summary sounds (4, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034628)

This isn't about a recording of a lecture that gets posted, this is about copyright protected videos that a professor shows during a lecture being posted.

So under this threat, a professor that shows "Steamboat Willy" in a class can not post "Steamboat Willy" onto the more accessible distribution system.

-Rick

Re:Not nearly as bad as the summary sounds (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036364)

Mod parent +1 Insightful, succinct.

Re:Not nearly as bad as the summary sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31038174)

You write that as if your clarification does not still sound completely batshit insane.
Do you think that just *maybe* going to still try to download these movies for study? They'd better hope that their professors assign more recent movies; if they have to study Blade Runner, they're probably fine, but if they're trying to find a torrent of Battleship Potemkin, they'll probably be SOL.

I'm not sure to understand (0)

werfu (1487909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034650)

The AIME is saying the teachers posting video online of their lecture are infringin copyright laws. But aren't the teachers owner of their lecture copyright?

Open IML on the weekends (4, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034654)

If the profs feel that strongly, then they need to vociferously make it clear to the administration that no action comes without a consequence. Specifically, demand the IML be open on weekends. UCLA probably instituted the ban to save money on legal fees and/or licensing but now need to be made to pay to open the IML at hours the students can use it. TANSTAAFL.

Re:Open IML on the weekends (1)

John Little John (842934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034734)

Exactly. If they don't want to fight this legally, then open the damn lab up. It is UCLA for the love of Christ. It's one of the largest universities in the nation. It can't staff the media lab on weekends?

"The UCLA"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034722)

That's as good as Bear Grylls "In The Moab"...

RTFA (4, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034838)

The summary almost makes it sound like professors can't put up videos of their own lectures. But that's not what this is about at all. It's about professors not being able to put up other people's video. It even mentions a cinema professor. e.g. "Hey, we're gonna watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre tonight and talk about it tomorrow. Oh, you can't come tonight? No problem, I'll just put the movie up on the class website." It's not exactly shocking that someone objected to that.

Re:RTFA (1)

SoTerrified (660807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037006)

"Hey, we're gonna watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre tonight and talk about it tomorrow. Oh, you can't come tonight? No problem, I'll just put the movie up on the class website." It's not exactly shocking that someone objected to that.

WAITAMINUTE.

Copyright was created to protect the rights and ownership of the author and insure they were compensated for their work for a limited time in return for the work becoming publicly available to enrich the community later. However, there are exceptions. Specifically...
"In the United States, the fair use doctrine, permits copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and critique; parody and satire; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (i.e. legal advice)."

Which use of this material by this class DOES NOT fall into research, study, review or critique? The method the information is transmitted is utterly irrelevant. On what basis could you object?

They're not showing them to everyone... (2, Insightful)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31038470)

> No problem, I'll just put the movie up on the class website." It's not exactly shocking that someone objected to that.

Actually, it's still pretty unreasonable, because the videos on the class website are only available on campus [ucla.edu] and not (easily) saved (unless you have a stream ripper for media furnace or something). That link is in the submission, but it seems like people are busy pointing out that the videos in question are commercial videos that are class assignments (rather than videos of lectures) while ignoring the fact that they're not just distributing these videos to all and sundry. They're only letting students watch them.

Similar as with copyrights on scientific papers (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034856)

The copyrights are NOT owned by the authors (the researchers, who did the experiments, compiled the results, came up with theories, ideas, formulas and supporting material, wrote the whole damn thing), but by the journal. Who gets all the revenue, too. The researchers get jack. And their work, since copyrighted, cannot be distributed to the humanity as a whole, even though that was the intention of the scientists.

Who owns the copyright? (-1, Redundant)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31034998)

I'm confused. The professors were posting the video's, you would figure they owned the copyright to their material. Some universities have you sign a paper that says that they own your course material. While I totally disagree with the concept of buying copyrights from the original authors, I can understand this. But here is said the University was back down, from whom? Who is threatening to sue? Who thinks they own the rights to UCLA's professors course material???

Please someone tell me whats wrong with this picture.

Re:Who owns the copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31035116)

RTFA!

Re:Who owns the copyright? (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035542)

I did read the article and it did not make sense to me. Maybe because I am unfamiliar with Video Furnace or whatever that is and how it works. The article never said who owned the copyright, who was threatening to sue. The group that notified the University seemed to be like RIAA for teachers, the Association for the Information Media and Equipment, can not be the copyrighter certainly, it is a non-profit membership organization offering copyright information and support to teachers, librarians, media center directors, producers and distributors of informational film, video, interactive technologies, computer software and equipment. So they are the RIAA in this case not the copyright owner. We know its not the teachers, they were trying to post their course. It's not UCLA they backed down, its not the media center. No where in the article does it say who owns the copyright, no where.

I did RTFA, and thank you for asking. BTW RTFA before making such a claim about my claim that that was not information given in the article.

My confusion comes too from the fact that I taught for 27 years and did some video classroom work.

Re:Who owns the copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31037958)

No where in your testimony does it seem like you taught for 27 years.

Re:Who owns the copyright? (1)

ABasketOfPups (1004562) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035132)

They don't own the copyright to the movies, which is what was being posted, not their lectures. Check out the rest of the comments where the incredibly poor lead-in is taken to task.

Re:Who owns the copyright? (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035424)

Why would they not have the copyright to the movies of their classes? Is Video furnace a movie production company that comes in and videos the classes (av staff) or just some software used to create the movies?

Re:Who owns the copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31037372)

Why would they not have the copyright to the movies of their classes?

Nowhere does TFA article say anything about movies of their classes, only about movies for their classes.

In other words, these are not videos of classroom lectures or any other UCLA-produced works. They are educational films and international cinema.

Their mission statement.... (2, Informative)

goffster (1104287) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035040)

"The mission of AIME (pronounced “aim”) is to promote fair and appropriate use of the media and equipment delivering information in a rapidly changing world."

Watch it .. Copy it .. Enjoy .. (1)

lorg (578246) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035230)

Something tells me that a UCLA student knows how to make a duplicate of a video ...

1. Go to lab.
2. Make copy of video to watch whenever you want. If you can watch it, you can copy it.
(3. profit? oh wait that would be wrong and illegal ... unless knowledge is its own reward or perhaps knowing to much is illegal to)

Slightly more work then just straight to home streaming but a minor hickup in the grand scheme of things.

college executives are notorious wimps (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035290)

For giving way to small amounts of pressure.

'standards' based solution? (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035316)

Why on earth did they opt for Video Furnace in the first place, which is an on demand hardware based live media solution? Yup, that's like having your own on-demand cable-tv setup where you control the video stream, or deny access until subscriptions and/or per-use payments are all in order. An open standards web based solution would do them just fine, only it would allow the less technically challenged people the capability of making a private copy for later reference (i.e. like taking notes). The current configuration requires custom client side 'player' software which is apparently where the copyright violations come into play. The media lab has licensing for the player software but you average Joe on the Internet does not. The Media Lab should look at several options:

1) Control access to the site via user ID and password and licence the client software accordingly. This is not my option, as this still denies students access that don't have the required OS platform.

2) Switch to an open standard for streaming or downloadable media which does not require any special player so that _all_ OS's and browsers can be used. There are many open solutions that won't cost the University a dime to deploy. All they need is software to create a media content web server, which they already must have in order to do what they are doing now.

In my day... (1)

jbarr (2233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035624)

I just don't get it. OK, so I went to college in the pre-Internet days, and times have obviously changed, but this really struck me:

"Many professors have commented that this will hurt students, because they now have to watch all videos at the IML, which isn't open on weekends, forcing students to try to fit assigned videos between classes."

Isn't part of the educational process (or life in general) getting people to be responsible with and accountable to their time? Or am I just part of an older generation?

How is "forcing students to fit assigned videos between classes" any different from "forcing students to read assigned books between classes" or "forcing students to fit research time between classes"?

Imagine books instead of video (3, Informative)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037086)

Teacher: "Good morning, lit class. Next we'll be reading Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. It's for sale at the bookstore. Go buy a copy and read the first 100 pages and we'll talk about it on Monday."

Student: "Buy?! I can't afford that."

Teacher: "Ok, well the library also has--"

Student: "Only one copy and Ralph here next to me already checked it out."

Teacher: "Ok, well, then, I'll just take my copy here over to the photocopy machine. Who all of you need a free copy?"

Student: "Me!"

Student: "Mee!"

Student: "Me too!"

Heller: "Brains!" [Kills teacher and eats brain.]

Student: "Why did you kill teacher?"

Heller: "Copyright infringement."

Student: "You're dead. Why do you care?"

Heller: "Need money buy brains."

That's a totally believable scenario. But change the book to a movie and suddenly people are surprised that someone's brain got eaten.

Re:Imagine books instead of video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31038282)

Two things:
1) I had a professor whose favorite text book went out of print, so he did *exactly* that. We still had to pay for the printing, though.
2) If the copy machine were, in fact, free, you couldn't stop people from doing this. Sounds kind of like infinitely reproducible digital media, right?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?