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