Tim May wrote:
On Sunday, November 25, 2001, at 06:51 PM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Tim May wrote:
There were signs up about not violating copyright law, but these professor packs were in clear violation.
Really? Sounds to me like they fall under "Fair Use." That provision specifically exempts copying for research or education.
I strongly doubt this. "Fair use" is not about setting up alternate publishing schemes, but is about quoting relevant sections, collecting material for research purposes, etc.
If it were as broad as you claim, why would _any_ school buy textbooks for its students when it could make a photocopy for a fraction of the cost? Schools could simply digitize textbooks once and then distribute them on CD-ROM.
I'm not a copyright expert, but I strongly doubt what you say above.
AFAIK the US case law is the "Texaco principle" (maybe that is what a previous poster meant...) which allows you to make copies for personal educational or research purposes, but not as part of a profession or business. IIRC scientists at Texaco made copies of a chemistry journal and the company lost a case when the publishers sued them. I think it is the case that the student is allowed, under "fair use" to make one copy of a small part of a journal for their own education and research. It is possible that the teacher is allowed to make copies & give them to the students (though not to sell them). But it is almost certainly not allowed for a company to make such a packet as part of its business. (The law seems to imply that education is not a business or profession, which I have no problem with, though I guess many cypherpunks might). As ever, AINAL & if I was I wouldn't be an American one. (Though I was working for Texaco at the time of the court case & I now work in a (British) university where we have to deal with similar copyright law as it exists here) Ken Brown