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