From: Adam Hodgkin <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:39:45 +0200

Joe:

It seems to me that there is some selective memory at work here. At
the time they brought the action, the publishers were very confident.
They overwhelmingly lost this case, which they were ill-advised to
launch. Their press release now has bluster about going to appeal. I
wonder if they will really do that, and I wonder if the folks at OUP
and CUP who thought it was a good idea to sue Georgia State will fall
on their swords? A bit of contrition from the legal and strategic
advisers on the publisher side would not come amiss.

When publishers start suing their honest customers, someone in the
control room needs to raise a red flag.

Adam

Sent from my iPad

On 20 Aug 2012, at 00:49, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:52:44 -0700
>
> Kevin,
>
> No quarrel with the legal facts, but this lawsuit was brought
> reluctantly.  Publishers don't want to sue libraries or colleges.
> Once a decision was made that a suit was necessary, then shopping for
> the right defending was a matter of procedure.
>
> Of course, with the court decisions, the publishers have even more
> reason to be reluctant.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:23:29 +0000
>>
>> Sandy is absolutely correct that none of the 74 claims of infringement
>> that were still at issue after the trial were dismissed; all were decided.
>> Five instances of infringement were found, while 69 instances were held
>> to be fair use.  Then last week the Judge ruled that those five instances
>> did not justified the sweeping injunction she had been asked for by the
>> publishers.  She also held that the publishers had presented so many weak
>> or careless claims of infringement, which raised the cost of the lawsuit,
>> that they should have to pay the defendants' costs and attorneys' fees.
>>
>> The AAP statement is also a significant mischaracterization.  It refers,
>> as did earlier statements, to legal errors in the Judge's rulings that
>> remain unspecified and the seem to really be mere dissatisfaction with the
>> outcome.  The statement says that the judge excuses unauthorized copying
>> instead of recognizing that, as fair use, the vast majority of this
>> copying was authorized by the law itself.  And it is manifestly false to
>> say that the suit was brought reluctantly when the AAP spent several years
>> shopping for a defendant, sending threats to almost a dozen universities
>> before settling on the defendant against whom, presumably, they thought
>> they had the best chance.
>>
>> Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
>> Director of Copyright and Scholarly Communications
>> Duke University
>> Perkins Library
>> Durham, NC 27708
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/12 11:59 AM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:35:43 -0500
>>>
>>> What the judge did in this latest ruling is mischaracterized as
>>> dismissing the five remaining claims. She simply did not feel that
>>> those five claims sufficed to justify the kind of corrective action
>>> that the plaintiffs had requested.
>>>
>>> For a statement from the plaintiffs, see
>>> http://www.publishers.org/press/76/.
>>>
>>> Sandy Thatcher