From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:54:49 +0000

I think there's a genuine disconnect between the CCC, publishers and
libraries on understanding of fair use. If you look at the items on
the CCCwebsite that have "charges" associated with them, I think you
will see that what libraries believe to be fair use, CCC does not. For
instance, why would you have all the backfile years of publisher's
journals with use fees associated with them: for example, for simple
interlibrary loan for an article 15 years old, if libraries use the 5
in the most recent 5 years rule? Would any academic library
voluntarily pay a copyright use fee for ILL for an article published
in 1990 if it were a one up use, i.e. one time article out of one
journal? I sort of doubt it, yet the CCC website makes no distinction
for an article in the most recent 5 yearsof a journal and one
published 15 years ago.

Also, why is there a fee for electronic reserves with no accompanying
explanation of when that fee is actually "due" according to what law?
I think there is some wishful thinking on  the CCC's and publishers'
side of the issue of copyright payments.  Am I misunderstanding what
the CCC use fees are for? Is it really copyright in the case of
reserves or something else? One article I looked at, if it were
destined for reserves (a 1990 article, 6 pages long) would according
to CCC cost $685.00 for large intro sections of classes of lets say
400 students. What is that???

Chuck
________________________________________

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]