Re: Academics and coursepacks

On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, James Rogers <jetan[_at_]ionet.net> wrote:
>
> On 7/8/98, James Rogers <jetan[_at_]ionet.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/07/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If [a] professor is teaching a Shakespeare class, and [...] he uses
> > > the new Oxford Shakespeare (ed. by Wells?) and simply photocopies a
> > > play or two for a class of 200, we have a serious problem [...]
> > > For the prof to refuse to ask permission is outright arrogant
> > > thievery.
> >
> > If I have bought a copy of your book of public-domain information,
> > surely I've adequately compensated you for the making of it, and can
> > therefore do with it as I choose. Certainly, when I buy furniture, or
> > clothing, or household appliances, the designer has been paid an hourly
> > wage or annual salary for her efforts, and the manufacturer has no
> > further right to tell me what I can or cannot do with his product based
> > on the "creativity" or even "sweat of the brow" inherent in that design.
> > Why should it be different for the designers or publishers of books of
> > public domain material?
> >
> > Obviously, the existence of photocopiers reduces the publishers'
> > potential market, but is this a good reason to grant them special rights
> > to control the use of public domain information? By those rules, we'd
> > have to extend copyright to all material products if we ever invented
> > matter-duplicators, which is absurd. Why not let the market decide the
> > availability of public domain material?
> >
> Under U.S. law , it is my opinion that there is probably no
> illegality involved in the Shakespeare example, unless one is
> considering some of the notes involved. I question whether simple
> typographical choices... in this case, more or less dictated by the
> format of the work... are sufficient to protect the Bard. I think that
> an instructor would have little to fear in this scenario. I understand
> where the publishers are 'coming from", but the bottom line is that they
> simply don't own the material.

 I agree that under current U.S.law the Shakespeare example would be a non-starter. But if H.R. 2652 (Collections of Information Anti-Piracy Act - "The Database Bill") passes, the scenario could lead to liability. If the professor copies more than one of Shakespeare's works from the book, the extraction could be considered substantial. By making 200 copies for his class he has in theory harmed the market for the collection. I think the result would come down to how the Court decides to interpret the copyright preemption in Sec 1205(1) and (3). 1205(3) states in part:

   "This chapter does not provide any greater protection to a work     of authorship contained in a collection of information, other than a     work that is itself a collection of information, than is available     to that work under any other chapter of this title."

Does this mean that H.R. 2652 excludes liability for extraction of "copyright-expired" (public domain works) works per se?

Laurel

   Laurel Jamtgaard
   Policy Analyst to:

     Association of Research Libraries 
     Special Libraries Association
       202.296.2296  FAX:202.872.0884   laurelj[_at_]arl.org