Re: Leaning the other way in Princeton v. MDS

On 5 Mar 96, Trotter Hardy <thardy[_at_]facstaff.wm.edu>
>
> Terry Caroll:
> >
> > I must confess that the argument, in Princeton University Press, and in
> > the case that Trotter cites, that "we're only providing a service"
> > continues to elude me. The service at issue is the reproduction of the
> > copyrighted work in copies, an act specifically listed as an infringing
> > act in 106(1). How does characterizing an infringing act as a "service"
> > make it non-infringing?
>
>
> Or to take another tack: could the plaintiffs sue the university
> (as opposed to MDS) on the grounds that the faculty/students may
> have the right to make their own fair use copies, but by
> authorizing MDS they are infringing the owners' exclusive right
> to authorize others to make copies?
>
> Trotter Hardy
> <thardy[_at_]facstaff.wm.edu>

"Authorizing" typically implicates issues of contributory infringement. When the professors in the Princeton case give the materials to MDS and tell them that there will be x number of students in the course and ask MDS to make copies for the students, are the professors liable for contributory infringement? Does this square with the idea that copying by the professors might be fair use?

    Bob Kreiss
    <kreiss[_at_]odo.law.udayton.edu>

• Robert A. Kreiss Phone: 513-229-2256 *
• Professor of Law Fax: 513-229-2469 *
• Director, Program in Law and Technology *
• University of Dayton School of Law *
• Dayton, OH 45469-1320 *

  ---