Klarinet Archive - Posting 000314.txt from 2005/08

From: Adam Michlin <amichlin@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] more about google print - Dan Leeson are you out there?
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:22:35 -0400

Richard,

The key word is "lend".

If a teacher wants to lend a student their edition of K622... more power to
them!

If a student to borrow a copy from the library... more power to them!

If a student (or teacher) wants to copy an out of copyright edition....
well, legally there's nothing wrong (pedagogically.. eh).

As soon as the copyrighted edition is duplicated, monetary loss can be
argued (there are *many* grey areas, many libraries, for example, will
allow the duplication of copyrighted material for private use if you can
show that there is no way to purchase said material). It is not worth
debating whether it is a valid argument or not since that decision
ultimately falls to the court system and very much depends on the
individual circumstances of the case. The other thing to know is that (the
general) you typically can't argue "Well, yeah I violated Dan's copyright
but I did it for his own good". Dan decides what is in his best interests,
not you.

This problem is the bane of my existence right now because there are lot of
companies with important historical audio recordings and music which has
been acquired through acquisition and then, much to my horror, lost by the
company! They own the copyright, but they don't even have a copy. And yet,
I still must get their permission to reproduce the recording or music.
This, in it of itself, I understand, but try getting the attention of a
company like Nonesuch (really Warner Bros.) or CBS for a preservation
project of material they don't even know they lost or ever owned. This is
why copyrights are do not last indefinitely, despite Disney's attempts to
legislate otherwise.

Sigh.

Still not a lawyer, but knee deep in way too many copyright problems,

-Adam

At 10:49 AM 8/16/2005, Richard Wang wrote:
>However, about your photocopying music example...I'm not sure monetary
>loss is a valid argument against fair use. By the same argument, it would
>be illegal to lend CD's, books, movies, etc... to friends because this
>might arguably lessen the publisher's sales. In fact, this argument is
>made even weaker by the fact that none of these activities (whether
>borrowing CD's, using a library, or using Google Print) actually cause the
>publisher to lose any money; on the contrary, such activities tend to lead
>to an increase in sales (which many publishers fail to grasp) because
>people will test out a product and want to buy it for themselves to own
>(who honestly is going to read an entire book using Google Print? Just
>because it's technically feasible does not mean anyone will seriously
>attempt it, and it is still certainly no substitute for a real book).
>
>Personally, I think publishers would be foolish to withdraw their books
>from services such as Google Print because it really wouldn't help sales
>or prevent so-called piracy. After all, by the same token, why do
>publishers allow books to be lended out by libraries? It would certainly
>reduce sales even more as the entire book is present in its original form
>and easily available to almost anyone. Google Print, by this comparison,
>is much much more limited than any typical library, so I fail to see why
>this would warrant any copyright controversies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org