Re: Electronic Reserves

On 09 Nov 1998, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> This brings to mind one of the principal criticisms of the recent
> photocopying cases, American Geophysical Union v. Texaco and Princeton
> Univ. Press v. Michigan Document Services. Both cases appear to
> ASSUME that the defendants would have paid to use the material rather
> than forego using the material. There was no attempt to analyze what
> the harm would be from uses that would be foregone if everyone had to
> pay for the use. It is a difficult factual issue to resolve, to be
> sure; but shouldn't we at least try to answer that question in
> analyzing fair use?

Both these plantiffs and the entire academic research segment of the publishing industry witnessed a tremendous dropoff of unit sales following introduction of the Xerox 914 plain paper copier in 1959. The average print The average number of copies sold per book title dropped from 2394 in 1960 to less than 1000 in 1974. (Statistical Indicators of Scientific and Technical Communication 1960-1980. National Science Foundation. 1976) Journal circulation plummeted in similar fashio.

Based on cheap photocopying, libraries emphasized resource sharing after 1969, anticipating the endorsement of fair use in the 1976 legislation. Libraries that once had 6% of university spending now get less than 2% because administrators believe that's all they need -- no matter how desparately faculty senates plead otherwise. Meanwhile, administrative growth has found ways to dispose of the 4% taken from the libraries and instruction. (Digest of Education Statistics.)

The penury of libraries is not shared by their host organizations. We note that, like Texaco, many universities rack up excess revenue ten times or more what they spend on their libraries. They are simply trying to save money at the expense of ethics and the copyright industries.

Instructors turned to photocopy coursepacks as copyshops appeared on every campus. Publishers produce authorized collections of articles tailored to the requirements of (and edited by) instructors of large enrollment courses. The economics of photocopying makes such a collection viable in small quantities. As "fair use" it was simply unethical.

The consensus among publishers for academic markets is that these misuses of the photocopier generally hurt all sales and the interests of authors, researchers, and students in dissemination.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Wed Nov 11 1998 - 14:02:31 GMT