Wednesday, April 10, 1996
Judgment may lead to lower prices for some class bookletsBy John
Digrado
Daily Bruin Staff
In an upset victory over several major publishers, a federal
appeals court overturned a decision which may have major
implications for UCLA students and faculty who use course
readers.
Michigan Document Services, an independent print shop, copied
and sold anthologies of excerpts assigned by professors without the
publisher’s permission. The service was sued by publishers late
last year for allegedly infringing on their copyrights.
However, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals judges ruled that the copy
shop did not commit any kind of copyright infringement according to
the federal Copyright Act’s "fair use" policy.
"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies … for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research, is not an
infringement of copyright," the judges wrote in the majority
opinion.
6th Circuit judges cited the clause in their decision, stating
that "We agree with the defendants that their use is a ‘fair use’
as defined in the Copyright Act of 1976."
Michigan Document Services lauded the decision, saying that
their business had not violated any portion of the copyright law,
and had instead upheld what they called the true meaning of the
law.
"It is our position in this case that the kind of use being made
by professors is that same use that Congress intended," said Jim
Smith, the company’s president. "The publishers conceded that the
students would be able to do this kind of copying themselves. If
professors and students have the right to do it, we have the right
to do it on their behalf if they can get it done cheaper and more
efficiently.
"The question did not become whether the copies could be made
but who made them. All we are doing is providing a mechanical
service," Smith said.
At UCLA, where similar course readers are produced and
distributed by the students’ association, the decision represents a
major development in copyright law. But, UCLA book suppliers said
the ruling would not change their practices.
Currently, all works are copied with the permission and license
of the publisher, said Doug Bowman, textbook coordinator for the
association.
"Whenever copyright is required, we request it and we pay,"
conceded students’ association academic support director Jacques
Freydont. "We believe that copyright is important and … that’s
not changed."
Despite the appellate court’s agreement with the Michigan
Document Services’ claim of broadening educational horizons, some
analysts felt that the case may be overturned in a subsequent
ruling.
"The fact that you’re doing it for educational purposes doesn’t,
for me, change the analysis," said UCLA law Professor Eugene
Volokh. "Of course education is a great thing, but if a university
decides that it needs to buy papers and pens for educational
purposes, it can’t go to the store and take them. (It’s) a great
purpose, but it doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for what you
use."
Claiming that the decision goes far beyond mere copyright
issues, Smith said that by not allowing professors to assign
certain portions of works in course readers, publishers indirectly
control what is taught in the classroom.
"By saying no (to these requests), they get to pick and choose
based on their own economic or other agendas. They can serve as a
censor to higher education by just saying no, and in fact, they
frequently do say no," Smith claimed.
However, Volokh said that copyright laws give the publisher the
right to control who and how their work is used, and that the
Michigan Document Services’ action may indeed be a violation of the
law.
"Copyright gives authors the right to, by and large, control
copying of their work," he said. "In some situations, such as
parody or criticism, you don’t want authorial control because you
want to be able to criticize other people’s work. In other cases
where it would be difficult to get permission," the law makes an
exception.
But Volokh claimed that the decision lessens the incentive for
people to publish new works. "The easier it is for people to copy,
the less the incentive."
Other professors disagreed, saying that academic authors Â
whose work makes up a portion of the questionable material Â
do not publish as a means of income.
"We don’t make money for this research," said UCLA law Professor
Stuart Biegel. "Look at academics across the country … we’re on
salary and may do some consulting on the side for income. The bulk
of this research would be made anyway even if money is not paid out
because that’s what were here to do.
"When we do write journal articles, we don’t get any money …
our goal is to get people to read them," he said.
Biegel said that the ruling, despite its pending appeal by the
publishers, represents the continued questioning of copyright law
with the progress of technology. With the advent of the World Wide
Web and other aspects of the Internet, the dissemination and copy
of copyrighted information has been made easier than ever.
"Hopefully, after all these issues are sorted out, a reasonable
middle ground will be reached," Biegel wrote in an article printed
in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.
"Fair use and the free flow of information can be maximized …
for certain categories of authors whose primary incomes come from
other sources, while more restrictions may be placed on … the use
of material by freelance authors," he said.