http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/04/19/berkman-luncheon-series-digital-learning/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society Podcast Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:57:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/04/19/berkman-luncheon-series-digital-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Info/Law » Google, Fair Use, and Settlement Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:48:17 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/audioberkman/2006/04/19/berkman-luncheon-series-digital-#comment-10 [...] Again, exactly right. And I have an example (discussed in the Berkman Center’s Digital Learning white paper that should be coming out this week!). Back in the early 1980s, the publishers sued NYU over photocopying for classroom use. Remember, the fair use provision of the copyright statute specifically names “multiple copies for classroom use” as an example of a fair use. Yet NYU settled, and as part of the deal accepted an internal copyright policy that sets extremely stringent limits on the ability to copy content for classroom use. After that, the other colleges and universities toppled like dominoes, so an estimated 80% of schools now impose these policies requiring somewhat arbitary numerical word limits, rules about frequency and “spontaneity” of copying, and more. Without any act by a judge or Congress, the general practice is just about what the publishers would want. (There are also indications that the publishers are now considering the same strategy to limit digital distribution of educational content like e-reserves.) [...] [...] Again, exactly right. And I have an example (discussed in the Berkman Center’s Digital Learning white paper that should be coming out this week!). Back in the early 1980s, the publishers sued NYU over photocopying for classroom use. Remember, the fair use provision of the copyright statute specifically names “multiple copies for classroom use” as an example of a fair use. Yet NYU settled, and as part of the deal accepted an internal copyright policy that sets extremely stringent limits on the ability to copy content for classroom use. After that, the other colleges and universities toppled like dominoes, so an estimated 80% of schools now impose these policies requiring somewhat arbitary numerical word limits, rules about frequency and “spontaneity” of copying, and more. Without any act by a judge or Congress, the general practice is just about what the publishers would want. (There are also indications that the publishers are now considering the same strategy to limit digital distribution of educational content like e-reserves.) [...]

]]>