From: Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:12:34 -0400

Courtesy of Gary Price,  INFOdocket.com:

1. SAGE and Oxford U. Press (Identical Statement Released by Both Companies)

From the Statement:

"We are pleased that the District Court ruling recognized that Georgia
State University's flawed 2009 copyright policy resulted in
infringement of our works. We will work on an injunction that will
reduce the chances that GSU will infringe works posted to its eReserve
system in the future.

We are also pleased that the Court rejected the idea that public
universities can shield themselves from allegations of copyright
infringement, thus ensuring that respect for copyright is required of
both public and private universities and colleges.

This case focused on GSU's takings from books used in graduate or
upper-level undergraduate courses. The court did not consider the
pattern and practice of GSU's infringement.

Despite our disagreement with aspects of the decision, it marks a
significant first step toward addressing the need for clarity around
issues of copyright in the context of higher education. We appreciate
the court's acknowledgement that current practices around fair use
vary widely and can use some practical guidelines. No monetary damages
have been sought in the case by the publishers; our aim is to
establish such practical guidelines. The decision was based on issues
that arose in an interim environment, when publishers were still
transitioning their materials online so as to ensure availability in
multiple digital formats. As more and more of this material becomes
digitally available, complying with existing copyright laws will
become even easier than it is today.

Full Text

http://www.sagepub.com/press/2012/may/SAGE_InRegardsGeorgiaStateCopyrightDecision.sp
http://global.oup.com/news-items/current/OUP_GSU?cc=us


2. AAP

"At the same time, we are disappointed with aspects of the Court's
decision. Most importantly, the Court failed to examine the copying
activities at GSU in their full context. Many faculty members have
provided students with electronic anthologies of copyrighted course
materials which are not different in kind from copyrighted print
materials. In addition, the Court's analysis of fair use principles
was legally incorrect in some places and its application of those
principles mistaken. As a result, instances of infringing activity
were incorrectly held to constitute fair use. Publishers recognize
that certain academic uses of copyrighted materials are fair use that
should not require permission but we believe the Court misapplied that
doctrine in certain situations"

Full Text

http://publishers.org/press/66/