"My initial reaction is, honestly, what a crushing defeat for the
publishers," said Brandon C. Butler, the director of public-policy
initiatives for the Association of Research Libraries. Given how few
claims the publishers won, "there's a 95 percent success rate for the
GSU fair-use policy." The ruling suggests that Georgia State is "getting
it almost entirely right" with its current copyright policy, he said. (Cron Article)
So should we look at the the GSU policy and take the good parts?
Factor 4:
Ms. Sims said that the judge took the educational purpose of each use seriously and did not focus just on market considerations. "That was one of the contentions here—that if you can pay for it, you should be," she said. "And that's clearly not what the court is saying." (Cron Article)
This is good, because firms can just create a market for everything and loop around fair use altogether if this were the main factor being considered.
On Sunday, James Grimmelmann, a professor of law at New York Law School, posted a detailed analysis on his blog, The Laboratorium. "The operational bottom line for universities is that it's likely to be fair use to assign less than 10 percent of a book, to assign larger portions of a book that is not available for digital licensing, or to assign larger portions of a book that is available for digital licensing but doesn't make significant revenues through licensing," Mr. Grimmelmann wrote.
On the third factor, the amount copied, the court repudiated the Classroom Guidelines, calling them “not compatible with the language and intent of § 107.” It noted that the numerical limits in the Guidelines are so stringent that not one of the excerpts at issue in the case would fit within them. It was particularly uninterested in the Guidelines’ position that copying not “be repeated with respect to the same item by the same teacher from term to term,” which the court described as “an impractical, unnecessary limitation.” (Laboritorium post)
This is such encouraging news. The no-repeat concept is poor in spirit and bone, and seems to have as it's intent to make coming up with a new replacement for lessons and material so problematic for teachers as to wear them down from trying.
So should we look at the the GSU policy and take the good parts?
Factor 4:
Ms. Sims said that the judge took the educational purpose of each use seriously and did not focus just on market considerations. "That was one of the contentions here—that if you can pay for it, you should be," she said. "And that's clearly not what the court is saying." (Cron Article)
This is good, because firms can just create a market for everything and loop around fair use altogether if this were the main factor being considered.
On Sunday, James Grimmelmann, a professor of law at New York Law School, posted a detailed analysis on his blog, The Laboratorium. "The operational bottom line for universities is that it's likely to be fair use to assign less than 10 percent of a book, to assign larger portions of a book that is not available for digital licensing, or to assign larger portions of a book that is available for digital licensing but doesn't make significant revenues through licensing," Mr. Grimmelmann wrote.
On the third factor, the amount copied, the court repudiated the Classroom Guidelines, calling them “not compatible with the language and intent of § 107.” It noted that the numerical limits in the Guidelines are so stringent that not one of the excerpts at issue in the case would fit within them. It was particularly uninterested in the Guidelines’ position that copying not “be repeated with respect to the same item by the same teacher from term to term,” which the court described as “an impractical, unnecessary limitation.” (Laboritorium post)
This is such encouraging news. The no-repeat concept is poor in spirit and bone, and seems to have as it's intent to make coming up with a new replacement for lessons and material so problematic for teachers as to wear them down from trying.
No comments:
Post a Comment