On 6/25/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> It surprises me to no end that so many academic types find it
> "inconvenient" to pay for rights to works.
You are begging the question by assuming that there are rights to be paid for. Sometimes there are, and sometimes there are not.
What suprises me to no end is that so many publishers insist on payment for rights that they don't have.
> The "fair use" principle has been stretched way beyond reason.
Actually, given the current trend in the courts, I would say it is in real danger of being unreasonably curtailed.
> If I, as a single individual, visit a college library on a research
> mission and find discussions on my topic in several books , I may
> certainly copy a few pages for my use as a convenience so that I do
> not have to check the books out (and carry them around!):
While I would certainly agree with you about this, judging from the current legislative activity in Congress and around NCCUSL, the publishers don't seem to.
> that is what "fair use" is.
No -- it's actually much more complicated than that, and extends to many other situations besides the rather narrow one you've suggested.
> I certainly do not have, however, the right to compile a workbook
> comprising hundreds of pages from these (copyrighted) works and then
> have them reproduced en masse for a course or the like, without
> asking for and receiving permission.
I'm afraid I must disagree with your "certainly" in this sentence -- even under the Michigan Documents and American Geophysical Union cases, it is entirely possible to envision a situation in which you *do* have the right to engage in exactly the type of copying you suggest. It depends entirely on the nature of the material, the availability of licensing mechanisms, the market for the material, and a lot of other factors.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:30 GMT