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]