UCLA Decides To Put Course Videos Back Online; Countdown To Lawsuit Begins…
from the 3...-2...-1.... dept
Last month, we wrote about how the Association for Information Media and Equipment (AIME) had threatened UCLA with copyright violations for allowing professors to post videos online for students to view. This resulted in UCLA pulling down those videos — even though the university said it believed it had a very strong fair use case. Since pulling down the videos, the two sides have been talking. However, even without an agreement, UCLA has decided to put the videos back online for the next quarter. Given this, I’m guessing that it won’t be long before AIME files a lawsuit, so we might get an interesting case over fair use in educational settings…
Filed Under: copyright, education, fair use, ucla, videos
Companies: aime, ucla
Comments on “UCLA Decides To Put Course Videos Back Online; Countdown To Lawsuit Begins…”
The “Videos” in question, seem to be full copyrighted films, so I understand the concern, moreso than if it were videos of the lecture, as I first read the story.
I’m confused as to why they can’t do what ever class I had in college did, and just have organized screenings of the films for the class? Requiring students to buy 8 DVDs as the only alternative to streaming over the internet seems ludicrous.
Re: Re:
I haven’t taken the class, but I can easily think of situations where it would be difficult to organize “screenings”. What you’re suggesting essentially is a film studies class with a scheduled lab time.
Here’s where the problem is:
“The message that UCLA sent AIME and all its members is that they and literally every other university have every right to buy a single copy of a video and stream it to an unlimited number of students forever without permission or compensation to the creator,” said the association’s counsel, Arnold P. Lutzker…
An industry spokeshole and an industry who employs him making willfully false, intellectually dishonest statements like this is an obvious attempt to reframe the debate. It changes the argument from “streaming to students for educational purposes” to “YouTube University”. Fortunately, that kind of insane statement is more suited to a PR release than to a legal filing.
Well – maybe the future generations in college now will realize that copyright’s being used as a ‘control’ scam 98% of the time now.
I think UCLA has a very strong case for fair use. School libraries have pretty much always had a fair use exemption.
This is just an extortion attempt by yet another “Rights protection” racket… They will be the only beneficiary of any precedent setting settlement. Ultimately, if UCLA caves to this craven attempt to grab more money, this will set precedent for schools and universities across the nation to raise tuition and add yet another “media” fee to a death spiral of the cost of higher education.
Re: Re:
I don’t think settlements are precedent-setting.
Are they being posted on the internet for general public viewing? No they’re not. Students only and you will be giving an account and password so you can view them. The same as if you were sitting in their library. Just more greed from that bunch.
one copy per stream...
If they have a physical copy locked away per live stream, I don’t see that they can do much… if they have timed presentations, where it’s played at a certain time to any number of students, that could be fair too. I think that having one copy and then have multiple streams at different time points per that one copy is a bit over the top. It should probably be something in between… Though simply having 10 copies in a locked room, and limiting streams of a given movie to 10 at a time would do it, and be much stronger for fair use by UCLA. Even if those same terms haven’t won in the past.
Re: one copy per stream...
This is more like a digital equivalent of a lecture hall, not a library. Schools already show films to classes packed with people. If they don’t pay royalties for that, they shouldn’t pay for streaming. If they do pay royalties, then it’s already covered.
Perhpas a stronger argument than fair use is a state’s right under the 11th Amendment that bars a lawsuit absent a state’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
@1st poster
so to show examples of how special effects and scenes are done you can only use what small clips and hten you cant show how the whole is done to amke a truly unique setting
YUP once again proving copyright doesnt help education and innovation
I hope they lose and more USA people get more stupid until your the barbarians of the world
don't forget sovereign immunity
State schools enjoy sovereign immunity against damages claims (including for copyright infringement). So unlike private schools, UCLA need not fear big statutory damages awards. Makes it easier for them to stay in the fight and get a ruling on the fair use issues.
9. Not sure why the university would even bother because once it joins the issue, as would be the case with asserting a fair use defense, it will be deemed to have waived immunity.
Of course, there is always a possibility, however remote, that a claim could be brought under the California Constitution on the basis of the state’s equivalent to the 5th Amendment.
“UCLA Decides To Put Course Videos Back Online; Countdown To Lawsuit Begins…”
Update: a lawsuit already began before I even created this thread 🙂
UCLA rents the videos from a store such as Blockbuster, digitizes them and puts them up in their course management system for students to view. They should at least be required to purchase or pay a rights fee for the actual video. I feel that what they are doing is a little bit shady.
Here are the true facts of how UCLA makes these materials available:
*UCLA has purchased legal copies of the media. At the request of an instructor, UCLA digitized the media and makes it available, via a video stream, to students enrolled in that instructors’ course. The students must authenticate their identity via their unique student ID number. The authentication algorithm checks against the Registrar’s records for enrollment for that class for that term. If the student is not enrolled in the class, they are denied access. The system used also creates a “dummy” link to the stream to prevent a student from sending the link to a friend. If they don’t authenticate, they don’t gain access to the stream.
*
The lawsuit was settled in favor of UCLA.
*
The lawsuit was settled in favor of UCLA.
excuse me, not settled….the case was Dismissed in UCLA’s favor.
Fantastic idea! This blog information has the power to satisfy every individual visitor. This is really very good blog for me and other users.