But the difference here is that the defendant did not go and find the content, whereas if I, Riley Childs, go make my own site organizing Videos from Vevo and embedding them in mass I would be in violation of Vevo's specific ToS and the copyright law because I am knowingly providing a method for people to view videos outside of the provided license. Maybe I am reading the articles wrong, but Flava Works vs Gunter cannot be compared in this case because Gunter is a service provider who doesn't encourage infringement. But Riley's Vevo Aggregator would be intentionally retrieving copyrighted videos in mass, This is like how although Adobe Reader [or insert freeware of your choice] is free I cannot go and host downloads of it on my public website and repackage it into a custom installer.
Sent from my Windows Phone
--
Riley Childs
Senior
Charlotte United Christian Academy
Library Services Administrator
IT Services Administrator
(704) 537-0331x101
(704) 497-2086
rileychilds.net
@rowdychildren
I use Lync (select External Contact on any XMPP chat client)
________________________________
From: Laura McNamara<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: ý12/ý3/ý2014 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Streaming Copyrighted material
Might Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter be helpful? The case addressed embedded videos and contributory infringement. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1140687521579547092&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flava_Works_Inc._v._Gunter
"Did the Flava Works decision create a copyright loophole for online video?" http://www.tmtperspectives.com/2012/10/22/did-the-flava-works-decision-create-a-copyright-loophole-for-online-video/
"Flava Works v Gunter: Injunction Vacated" http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/flava-works-v-gunter-injunction-vacated/
___________________________________________
Laura McNamara, MSLS
Electronic Resources Librarian
Center for Teaching and Learning
and the Scott Memorial Library
Thomas Jefferson University
1020 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 503-5203
Fax: (215) 503-4793
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Streaming Copyrighted material
Aereo[1] makes clear that viewing streamed material is a performance .
«In 1976 Congress amended the Copyright Act in large part to reject the Court's holdings in *Fortnightly* and *Teleprompter.* See H.R.Rep. No.
94-1476, pp. 86-87 (1976) (hereinafter H.R. Rep.) (The 1976 amendments "completely overturned" this Court's narrow construction of the Act in
*Fortnightly* and *Teleprompter*). Congress enacted new language that erased the Court's line between broadcaster and viewer, in respect to "perform[ing]" a work. The amended statute clarifies that to "perform" an audiovisual work means "to show its images in any sequence or to 2506 <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=+Aereo+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=1&case=12966915270831588740&scilh=0#p2506>
*2506
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=+Aereo+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=1&case=12966915270831588740&scilh=0#p2506>make
the sounds accompanying it audible." § 101; see *ibid.* (defining "[a]udiovisual works" as "works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines..., together with accompanying sounds"). Under this new language, *both* the broadcaster *and* the viewer of a television program "perform," because they both show the program's images and make audible the program's sounds.
See H.R. Rep., at 63 ("[A] broadcasting network is performing when it transmits [a singer's performance of a song] ... and any individual is performing whenever he or she ... communicates the performance by turning on a receiving set").»
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=+Aereo+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=1&case=12966915270831588740&scilh=0
On Dec 3, 2014 10:47 AM, "Notess, Mark" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm sure none of us wants to get sued or fired. So caution is
> understandable, especially as individuals. As institutions, always
> erring on the side of caution is a recipe for steady erosion of fair
> use, public domain, and other rights. Libraries should be at the
> forefront of protecting those rights, and, where possible, expanding them.
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark Notess
> Head, User Experience and Digital Media Services Library Technologies
> Indiana University Bloomington Libraries
> +1.812.856.0494
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> On 12/2/14, 10:25 PM, "Riley Childs" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >First: Technically when you stream a video a portion of the video is
> >local, so it wouldn't necessarily be legal for the viewer either.
> >
> >Second: Regardless of legality streaming copyrighted content without
> >a license or payment is a morally grey area. And most AUP at
> >universities specifically exclude use of the network to provide
> >access to content if that content is not properly licensed.
> >
> >I always err on the side of caution with this sort of stuff.
> >Licensing is tricky regardless of application.
> >
> >And yes i have absolutely faced these questions from both an IT
> >Capacity and a librarian capacity.
> >//Riley
> >
> >Sent from my Windows Phone
> >
> >--
> >Riley Childs
> >Senior
> >Charlotte United Christian Academy
> >Library Services Administrator
> >IT Services Administrator
> >(704) 537-0331x101
> >(704) 497-2086
> >rileychilds.net
> >@rowdychildren
> >I use Lync (select External Contact on any XMPP chat client)
> >________________________________
> >From: Cornel Darden Jr.<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: ?12/?2/?2014 10:00 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: [CODE4LIB] Streaming Copyrighted material
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >Is streaming (viewing online) copyrighted material illegal for
> >individuals. According to the copyright.gov website this seems to be
> >completely legal for the viewer when there isn't a copy of the work
> >on the viewers computer. It only mentions hosting streams as being a
> >misdemeanor, even if there isn't any profit.
> >
> >This is becoming a huge issue as more content consumers become cord
> >cutters. Has any librarians faced these questions?
> >
> >I am planning on implementing Kodi in my library, but will only make
> >public domain material accessible. Kodi provides an excellent user
> >interface for organizing and viewing public domain material.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Cornel Darden Jr.
> >MSLIS
> >Library Department Chair
> >South Suburban College
> >7087052945
> >
> >"Our Mission is to Serve our Students and the Community through
> >lifelong learning."
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
>
The information contained in this transmission contains privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for emergent or urgent health care matters.
