Re: MDS Redux

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Jonathan Franklin <jafrank[_at_]umich.edu> wrote:
>
> For those of you who disagreed with the 6th Circuit's original opinion,
> do you have a problem with a student being protected by fair use when
> photocopying (5%, 15%, 25%) of a protected work (assuming it is not
> the 'heart of the work')?

Not a problem this is an individual exercising his/her fair use right.

> Does the case turn on the 'noncommercial' nature of the student's
> copying vs. the 'commercial' nature of the copyshop's work?

Commercial aspect is a factor but again the student copying is personnal and individual. The copyshop is a third party producing multiple copies.

> Second, does it matter if the copyshop does the copying for free, on
> a cost recovery basis, or for a profit? For example, does a not-for-
> profit University that runs an internal copyshop more resemble a
> student or a for-profit copyshop? Why?

Again the distinction between an individual and a third party

   (the copy shop).
Profit, or more correctly effect on the market place, is only one

   factor in deciding if material may be copied. As I see it the rules are no different for a for-profit copy

   shop or a non-for-profit University copy shop.

> Which factor converts the copyshop from an economically efficient agent
> of the student to a commercial enterprise? Is it the exchange of money,
> charging for materials, charging for labor, or making of a profit?

The fact that the copying is being systematically pre-prescribed and the copy shop is becoming a publisher of materials it doesn't own.

George Abbott
<glabbott[_at_]hawk.syr.edu> Received on Sun Apr 21 1996 - 03:42:00 GMT