Sunday, September 5, 2010

As of winter quarter 2010, teachers are no longer permitted to post videos on their course Web sites.

The Association for Information Media and Equipment, a trade organization, has accused UCLA of infringing on copyright laws.

On Nov. 30, 2009, Patricia O’Donnell, manager of Instructional Media Collections and Services, distributed a letter notifying professors that beginning winter quarter 2010, they were no longer allowed to post videos to their course Web sites using such video streaming systems as Video Furnace, which allowed teachers to manage and distribute videos online to their students.

“While Instructional Media and Collections Services exercised a good-faith belief that its uses were consistent with the exemptions for face-to-face teaching and fair use, (the Association for Information Media and Equipment)claims that the uses are not exempt and violate copyright,” the letter stated.

During the five years UCLA allowed professors to post videos online using Video Furnace, the university was under the impression that it was exempt from specific provisions under the Copyright Act. However, the Association for Information Media and Equipment claims that UCLA has infringed on copyright laws.

“UCLA disagrees with the litigation threat. ... We stand behind the service, and we are exploring options to resolve the litigation threats made by the trade organization,” said UCLA spokesman Phil Hampton.

Due to this ban on video posting, professors and students must resort to UCLA’s Instructional Media Lab, which has recently reduced its viewing hours in light of this year’s budget cuts. The lab is now also closed on the weekends.

“There has been a considerable upswing in the amount of students who come to the Instructional Media Lab,” said Daniel Kim, a fourth-year economics student who works at the Instructional Media Lab.

According to Kim, the reduction in lab hours has initiated complaints, especially from graduate students and visiting professors whose research depends on films.

“I feel guilty to assign movies especially when the Media Lab hours fall between 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. When do (students) have a gap of two hours to watch a movie in between class?” said Christiane Meyer, a molecular, cell and developmental biology professor.

Meyer, who normally assigned three movies for her MCD Bio 40 class called “AIDS and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” will now drop a movie from the course material in light of the recent limitations on video accessibility.

“I’m not blaming anyone, but it certainly will impact the class. It takes up valuable instruction time to show a movie in class and for one of my TAs to do a movie screening on a Friday evening. It’s more work for my TA and more work for me to arrange for a room and equipment,” Meyer said.

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.”

The ban has undoubtedly affected students financially as well. John Nguyen, a fourth-year political science student, had to buy eight DVDs as part of a requirement for his Politics, Theory and Film class.

“There are two ways to look at it. Most of these films are really good films that you want to have in your collection, but, at the same time, it’s very uneconomical,” he said.

According to Nguyen, who estimates his DVD purchases cost more than $100, the online streaming ban has also taken away from the course. Because one of the movies was only available on VHS, his professor, Joshua Dienstag, had to change the film.

Recognizing the financial burden that the price of eight DVDs would have on his students, Dienstag did not require a course reader.

“I think it’s too bad for the students, ... (but) with just one physical copy at the reserve for all my students, it’s not possible,” he said.

Although the university is uncertain as to how long this suspension of video Web access will last, it is working to reinstate such video posting.

“The university is trying to resolve this problem as soon as possible, because it recognizes that the burden falls mostly on students and instructors,” Hampton said.

Comments

  • Hephaestus wrote:

    The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution states ... "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

    How does this promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts? This is a university whose sole purpose is to promote science, the arts, and to educate.

    9:22 p.m. Feb. 2, 2010

    [flag as inappropriate]

  • Uhuluru wrote:

    "How does this promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"

    It doesn't. It promotes commerce. Copyright ensures that the owner has legal right of compensation for every copy published and sold. I'm not sure when royalty agreements came to be. You are a college student, look it up.

    UCLA is a commercial enterprise. When they make a single copy of an entire work available for replay, at will, by thousands of students, over and over, year after year, there are accounts and lawyers who get a warm fuzzy feeling like the one you get when an attractive student walks by.

    UCLA either backs down, negotiates an royalty agreement with the copyright owner or hires it's own warm fuzzy lawyers to argue that they are entitled to use their legally owned copy under the terms of the Fair Use clause of the copyright law.

    7:42 a.m. Feb. 5, 2010

    [flag as inappropriate]

  • wireloose wrote:

    Uhuluru, you are only partially correct. UCLA is not a commercial enterprise. There are special agreements created by copyright holders for educational use. They are more expensive than buying a regular copy, but not as expensive as purchasing a copy for retransmission like a broadcaster would do. If the school already has copies, they have them legitimately. The only real issue here is delivery to the students. The question is, can the university deliver that copy to students only in one lab by handing out the physical copy or playing it on a small localized cable network, or can the university make it available via a data connection only to students.

    These agreements are usually based on total head count (student population) of the college, and priced accordingly.

    Basically, the only thing really happening here is that the publishers want more money for something they already allow, and the only way they can see to get that is to prevent and stifle innovative and alternative ways to reach the same students, even though it's the same population and content already covered in said agreement.

    10:48 a.m. Feb. 5, 2010

    [flag as inappropriate]

  • NannieHolmes wrote:

    Various people in the world take the <a href="http://lowest-rate-loans.com/topics/business-loans">http://lowest-rate-loans.com</a> in different creditors, because that is comfortable.

    1:44 p.m. June 19, 2010

    [flag as inappropriate]

Add a comment

Please log in to post a comment.