not be stored. We thus find the district court’s reliance on Denson in its decision below to be misplaced. B. Applicability of the Act to This Case Having determined that the district court erred in requiring a special nexus between a record of First Amendment activities and the agency’s system of records, we must turn to an examination of whether the agency violated the Act by making the videotape of the meeting with the analysts. The threshold issue in this regard is whether the videotape is a record of the exercise of First Amendment rights. We do not think the fact that the means of storing information in this case was a videotape makes it any less a record for purposes of the Act. See Save the Dolphins v. United States Department of Commerce, 404 F.Supp. 407, 410-11 (N.D.Cal.1975) (<HOLDING>). As long as the tape contains a means of
holding that a motion picture film is a record for purposes of the freedom of information act 5 usc  552 1976 recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act holding under orleans that a federally funded private medical research organization is not an agency for purposes of the freedom of information act holding ripe for review advisory guidelines for processing freedom of information act requests holding that  552 does not require that defendants be in the business of supplying information but only that they  profit by supplying the information