From Bob Acland re "ethics" and Copyright law
I've been catching up with some of the questions that have been raised here recently. I'd like to respond to some recent comments.
Copyright law makes sure that sales of my Anatomy DVD series lead to a flow of royalty income, that I share with my University. This compensates me somewhat for the ten years I spent making the video series; and it compensates my University, for the ten years it spent supporting me while I did so. Copyright law also ensures a return to the Publisher, on the six-figure investment it made in developing the product. Without the incentives and safeguards that are based on Copyright law, the DVD Atlas of Human Anatomy would never have come into existence.
A member suggested that I must have ethics, and that these must include a willingness to approve the acquisition of this video footage for free. I feel the same way about this, as I would if a stranger stopped me on the street, and told me that I must have ethics, and that these must include my willingness to give him the price of a meal. When the person who made this suggestion begins to earn their own living, I'm sure there will be a change in his or her thoughts on what other peoples' ethics should be.
With regard to an earlier comment about video quality, the videos were shot and edited not in VHS format, but in the high quality analog video format SP Beta, which was the broadcast industry standard back then. The six volumes initially had to be released as VHS tapes, which entailed a serious loss of image quality compared to the original. When the conversion to DVD was made a few years later, the original SP Beta footage was used as the source. The DVDs look as good as the original footage, and markedly better than the VHS version. As someone has commented, the streaming version that many medical schools provide is of much lower quality than the DVDs.
Best wishes,
Bob Acland
Last edited by Bob Acland; 07-07-2008 at 11:54 PM.
|
