From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:27:43 -0400

Adam,

My comment was narrow and specific.  Kevin Smith doubted that the
publishers were reluctant to sue and I disagreed with him.  I made no
comment on any other aspect of the suit.

Joe Esposito


On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:26 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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]