FYI, this is an interesting development in IP and fair use.
****
April 16, 2008
Publishers Sue Georgia State on Digital Reading Matter
By KATIE HAFNER
Three prominent academic publishers are suing Georgia State
University, contending that the school is violating copyright
laws by providing course reading material to students in digital
format without seeking permission from the publishers or paying
licensing fees.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in United States District Court in
Atlanta, the publishers — Cambridge University Press, Oxford
University Press and Sage Publications — sued four university
officials, asserting ’systematic, widespread and unauthorized
copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works’
by Georgia State, which the university distributes through its
Web site.
The lawsuit, which may be the first of its kind, raises questions
about digital rights, which are confronting many media companies,
but also about core issues like the future of the business model
for academic publishers.
Indeed, as the printed word is put in digital form, holding onto
rights seems to many like climbing up the slippery sides of a
glass. The case centers on so-called course packs, compilations
of reading materials from various books and journals. The lawsuit
contends that in many cases, professors are providing students
with multiple chapters of a given work, in violation of the ‘fair
use’ provision of copyright law. The publishers are seeking an
order that the defendants secure permissions and pay licensing
fees to the copyright owners.
Officials at Georgia State, in Atlanta, declined to comment on
the lawsuit. ‘We have been informed that a lawsuit is being
filed,’ a spokeswoman, DeAnna Hines, said. ‘However, we have not
received it, and therefore we won’t be able to comment, pending
potential litigation.’
Over the years, electronic course packs have become increasingly
common, supplanting their physical counterparts. They consist of
reading material taken from a variety of printed sources, which
is then scanned, compiled and posted on a university’s Web site.
By some estimates, electronic course packs now constitute half of
all syllabus reading at American colleges and universities.
‘Digitally delivered course content is probably more widespread
than we’d like to think,’ said Patricia S. Schroeder, president
of the Association of American Publishers, which supports the
lawsuit.
R. Bruce Rich, a partner in the law firm of Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, which is representing the plaintiffs, said that in spite
of repeated attempts to work with Georgia State, ‘they indicated
that they had no interest in having a discussion.’
Mr. Rich said that in a letter his firm received last summer,
Georgia State officials ‘indicated their view that all of their
practices are covered under the fair use doctrine.’
He said that over the last year or so, half a dozen or so other
universities had been contacted about copyright violations. Those
institutions, he said, showed more willingness to work with the
copyright holders and establish stricter university policies
around licensing the material.
Legal precedents exist for cases involving course packs from
photocopied material, but experts say the lawsuit against Georgia
State is the first to be filed over electronic course packs.
In 1991, Basic Books and others won a suit again Kinko’s, which
was selling course packs it had photocopied.
And in 1992, Princeton University Press and others sued Michigan
Document Services, a photocopying service, which was producing
course packs for University of Michigan students without
permission from the copyright holders. The business was
eventually found to be in copyright infringement.
‘Georgia State’s activity seems identical with Michigan Document
Services’ activity,’ said Susan P. Crawford, a visiting professor
at Yale Law School.
But she pointed out that unlike Kinko’s and Michigan Document
Services, Georgia State was not making money from the electronic
course packs.
Yet, she added: ‘It’s difficult to argue that this is a truly
noncommercial use. Georgia State may be a nonprofit institution,
but its students pay a lot of money for course materials, and
would presumably pay money for the materials being provided to
them by the university.’
Frank Smith, editorial director for academic books at Cambridge
University Press, said that for electronic use in a course,
Cambridge typically charges 17 cents a page for each student, and
generally grants permission for use of as much as 20 percent of a
book.
‘Publishers have created a market for course materials that is
very similar to the market for luxury goods,’ Professor Crawford
said. ‘There is only one version available, and at a very high
price.’
The dispute recalls problems the music industry had in protecting
the format of an album on a CD. ‘What publishers don’t understand
is they could disaggregate,’ Professor Crawford said. ‘They could
electronically rip apart their books and sell them chapter by
chapter, and everyone would be happier.’
The publishing industry’s reluctance to do so , she said, stemmed
from ‘a fear that they would cannibalize the market for the
printed object, and they’re reluctant to let go of that model.’
Other experts wonder if such a lawsuit might be premature,
emphasizing that in many ways it is too early to settle on a
business model for the distribution of digital materials.
‘In academic publishing, we need to find the digital services
people really want,’ said Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet
Archive, a nonprofit digital library based in San Francisco. ‘I
wonder if this will turn out to be an ‘attack the innovator’ suit
like the peer-to-peer suits for the music industry. Sometimes a
bit of slack can help us all discover a winning formula.’
lacuny
Steve in the Library
Lisa Finder
Monica Berger
Beth Evans
Stephen Francoeur
Sunny Yoon
Lisa Ellis
Anne Leonard
