Re: Academics and coursepacks

Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> writes:
>
> If the professor is teaching a Shakespeare class, and he has copies of
> the original folios, from which he makes a new text containing his own
> emendations, there is no problem with copyright as the original
> material is in the public domain. If, however, he uses the new Oxford
> Shakespeare (ed. by Wells?) and simply photocopies (or asks the students
> to do so; or has Kinko's do so) a play or two for a class of 200, we
> have a serious problem, regardless of who does the copying. For the
> prof to refuse to ask permission is outright arrogant thievery. That's
> why the CCC was established: so those who need to can obtain clearance
> without suffering unnecessary delays and going through elaborate
> procedures.
>
> The analogy to national parks is all wet; these copyrighted works are
> hardly "natural" creations: They are the handiwork of men and women who
> deserve to be compensated for the use of their property.
>

In your example, I understand why Shakespeare might "deserve" to be compensated. But what exactly are we compensating the modern publisher for?

[Though it may sound like it, this is not a rhetorical question. There is no doubt that modern republishers of classic works are providing a useful service to society. But I don't think we can decide that photocopying one of Shakespeare's plays is "arrogant outright thievery" until we figure out exactly what is being stolen].

Mark A. Lemley
Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu
Note CHANGED office phone: 512/232-1342

Information on UT's Intellectual Property program: http://www.utexas.edu/law/acadaff/intelprop/

My publications list: http://www.law.utexas.edu/lemley/pubs.htm Received on Wed Jul 08 1998 - 12:40:31 GMT