  |
|
Updated 121703: Apparently, they are afraid of getting sued over the readers that lots of profs make up for classes, full of mostly copyright protected works, but sometimes with a few public domain works in the mix. Because of their fears, Ithaca is proposing that every work in a reader be cleared for copyright. Under fair use, portions of works might be allowed to be used for educational purposes as long as the work is not sold for profit, in a reader. Partly, this will affect professors who will have to make more time to clear the copyrights, or choose other works than they had planned, and partly students who will miss out on some works or pay increased fees. Or articles and book chapters will go to the library reserve, where people just copy them anyway, and is a waste of time for student, profs and the library. But it's really too bad that for fear of a lawsuit, they propose making it impossible in a practical way to rely on the fair use doctrine under the education portion of this part of copyright law. Call it the lose-lose policy.
I point out my personal reader costs this Fall: Biz of Media at the JSchool was free - they treated us to the copyright fees paying them directly (thanks guys!); New Product Development at Haas Biz School was $107, Technology Strategy at Haas was $102, and the Samuelson Clinic at the Law School was $58 (not a Pam Samuelson class). Those prices don't include tax, at close to 9%. You can see why the few articles in the public domain matter to students who otherwise pay steep prices for readers. (And that's not including 4 books, which were another $300 for the semester, for a total overall including other materials, of $800, which is high for students on a fixed budget. And when you calculate student loans, which many of my classmates have, at $20k, minus fees at $6.2k, $1.6 for books, that leaves $12k to live on for 8 months in the Bay Area, the most expensive area in the country -- yes, when I was in NY last month, I realized yet again that NY is actually cheaper than SF. Boy is that weird. NY is always supposed to be more expensive, but no longer.)
On the other hand, Pam Samuelson's reader for our SIMS class last year was $22.00, the cost of the copy job, because she will not use materials that require a copyright payment (those not in the public domain). I respect that in a professor, not just because of the reduced costs. It's a nod to the public domain, in deed, as well as in theory.
Update 121803: Add Google's new print service (beta) to Amazon's print search service, and why make a reader, when you can just link to the two pages (chapter) in a book online. That's the way the memex - I mean internet is supposed to work.
Original Post:
Apparently, they are afraid of getting sued over the readers that lots of profs make up for classes, full of mostly copyright protected works, but sometimes with a few public domain works in the mix. Because of their fears, Ithaca is proposing that every work in a reader be cleared for copyright. Under fair use, portions of works (example: a chapter from a book) are allowed to be used for educational purposes as long as the work is not sold for profit, in a reader. Partly, this will affect professors who will have to make more time to clear the copyrights, or choose other works than they had planned, and partly students who will miss out on some works or pay increased fees. Or articles and book chapters will go to the library reserve, where people just copy them anyway, and is a waste of time for student, profs and the library. But it's really too bad that for fear of a lawsuit, they propose making it impossible in a practical way to rely on the fair use doctrine under the education portion of this part of copyright law. Call it the lose-lose policy.
I point out my personal reader costs this Fall: Biz of Media at the JSchool was free - they treated us to the copyright fees paying them directly (thanks guys!); New Product Development at Haas Biz School was $107, Technology Strategy at Haas was $102, and the Samuelson Clinic at the Law School was $58 (not a Pam Samuelson class). Those prices don't include tax, at close to 9%. You can see why the few articles in the public domain matter to students who otherwise pay steep prices for readers. (And that's not including 4 books, which were another $300 for the semester, for a total overall including other materials, of $800, which is high for students on a fixed budget. And when you calculate student loans, which many of my classmates have, at $20k, minus fees at $6.2k, $1.6 for books, that leaves $12k to live on for 8 months in the Bay Area, the most expensive area in the country -- yes, when I was in NY last month, I realized yet again that NY is actually cheaper than SF. Boy is that weird. NY is always supposed to be more expensive, but no longer.)
On the other hand, Pam Samuelson's reader for our SIMS class last year was $22.00, the cost of the copy job, because she will not use materials that require a copyright payment (those not in the public domain). I respect that in a professor, not just because of the reduced costs. It's a nod to the public domain, in deed, as well as in theory.
Posted by Mary Hodder at December 17, 2003 06:05 PM"Under fair use, portions of works (example: a chapter from a book) are allowed to be used for educational purposes as long as the work is not sold for profit, in a reader."
This statement is wrong -- flagrantly, irresponsibly, blatantly wrong. No court has held that copying an entire chapter from a book is fair use, and I doubt one ever would. You certainly don't cite anything -- other than your own uninformed opinion -- to the contrary. The fact that the copying is for an educational purpose does not make it fair use. See Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Your post may mislead people into thinking that they are engaging in fair use in copying substantial portions of others' works for coursepacks. This is irresponsible and dangerous. By doing so, you are encouraging people to engage in copyright infringement, for which they risk massive liability.
For a full discussion of this issue, see
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary/cases/c758FSupp1522.html
Posted by: JennyB on December 17, 2003 09:09 PMIf an educator copies a couple of pages of something very long, for a student, and there is no sale, no profit, my understanding is, this is fair use. In the context of a reader, my understanding is the debate is whether the copy service in selling the copy for say $.07, is making money even though the text is not for charge otherwise, for a reader.
I'm looking at a reader for one of my classes this semester that has a 2 page chapter in it, and that was all that was copied out of the 300 page book. So maybe a "chapter" is a bad example; maybe I should have said "2 pages". How many pages is okay? I think it has more to do with the character of the work, judging the work itself verses the part to be copied and what that excerpt means to the full work, how much you use, and what effect it would have on the overall market for the work. Had the professor who assigned the two page chapter asked us to buy the book, for two pages, I imagine no one would buy it.
However, I take your point, that the word "chapter" is misleading. Rather, I'll update the post so that it doesn't reflect that in the top post.
Posted by: mary hodder on December 17, 2003 09:49 PMYour "understanding" and what you "think" is not relevant. What is relevant is the case law. And though you prattle on for several paragraphs about your "understanding" of the law of fair use, you don't cite a single case. Of course you don't, because no case supports your "understanding." People who write books are entitled to compensation when people copy significant portions, for educational or other portions. You have made abundantly clear in your blog your disdain for copyright, and now you have made clear your ignorance of copyright as well.
Posted by: JennyB on December 17, 2003 10:04 PMAnonyminity is grand, ain't it?
How appropriate is it to cite case law when one does not know the case law?
Posted by: BobbyC on December 18, 2003 05:37 AMWhat we as attorneys and judges "understand" and "think" the law means is, essentially, what the law means. As long as you can make a coherent argument, with some support from precedent, that your position flows from the purposes and prior applications of (in this case, copyright) law, your understanding becomes how the law is applied in your case.
From my practice in copyright clearances, it is abundantly clear that rational sized portions of a book (and there's where our "understanding" becomes the law: in figuring out what is and isn't a rationally sized portion) can be copied, without clearance and without payment of fees, for use in a classroom. Readers, because they are sold, muddy the issue a touch.
It distresses me when institutions play it safe and seek clearances where none are necessary. Because our understanding of the law makes the law, when it becomes practice to credit samples in songs, gain clearances to share a piece of a larger book in a classrom, license music on mixed tapes, it becomes necessary to do so to avoid liability, even where no liability existed before. That's a sad erosion of the marketplace of ideas.
Posted by: elizabeth m. on December 18, 2003 08:28 AMHow could higher education in resource restricted environments be anything but "fair use"? If anything promotes progress, it is college students reading papers.
Let's look at the four factors... non-commercial copying that doesn't much hurt the market for the work... it is substantial copying and the copying is non-transformative by nature.
I say students take this in their own hands and the copyright holders can sue us just like the RIAA... if you want to make sure that no one reads your work, that's a great way to do it.
It amazes me how quick to lay down the law some lawyerly types are... even in such a fuzzy area as fair use and copyright. It's nice to know that some lawyerly types realized this is far from a settled area of the law and that the University's reactions are totally ridiculous.
Posted by: joe on December 18, 2003 10:43 AM