On Fri, 09 Jul 1999, John Logie <antrobus[_at_]ripco.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Jul 1999, Sam Byassee <sam_byassee[_at_]shmm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of whether this opinion is sound (and I believe a strong
> > argument can be made that it is not), it provides an example of a
> > prevalent effort in academia -- a leap to exploit supposed loopholes
> > or exceptions in the copyright laws through which to drive the truck
> > of unlimited-copying-for-classroom-use.
>
> Uhhhh... Mr. Byassee? That truck has already plowed right through
> that loophole. I quote from the 1976 revisions to the copyright act:
>
> The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
> reproduction in copies and phonorecords ... for purposes such
> as ... teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
> scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
> (U.S.C. 107 - 1976)
>
> The professors' effort to which you refer strikes me as an assertion
> and affirmation of exisiting rights under the 1976 Act.
I certainly agree that fair use is a defense to infringement liability and that the scope of what will be deemed to be fair use in an academic context is broader than in many other contexts. Section 107, however, does not provide that ALL academic use (i.e., teaching, scholarship and research) is fair, but only that the particular purpose of the use is one factor (out of 4) to be examined in determining whether an apparent infringement is excused under the Fair Use Doctrine.
If, for example, in teaching a history of philosophy survey course, suppose I don't like any single textbook and decide to use a course packet consisting entirely of sections on ancient Greek philosophers taken from one text, medieval philosophers from another, rationalists and empirisists from a third, Kant and German metaphysicians from a fourth and 20th Century thinkers studied from excerpts of their original works--all without obtaining permission. I believe a court would find this to be an infringement, not fair use.
My point was simply that the Florida Prepaid decision will tend to encourage an attitude that no fair use balancing is needed under any circumstances and that any copying of copyrighted materials in an academic context is OK. That will happen on an individual basis, regardless of whether it is formalized by some (poorly advised) state institutions seeking to avoid budgetary limitations. We'll just have to wait a few years to find out if this actually occurs or not.
Sam Byassee <sam_byassee[_at_]shmm.com>Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, LLP
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:35 GMT