At 09:28 PM 10/6/97 -0500,George Bauer wrote:
>Do I misunderstand from the paragraph below  ...   Is it all right to copy
>works because the school can't afford it, and if the teacher didn't copy it,
>the student couldn't get the benefit of it???  The statement that "material
>handed out if a very limited portion of the work is your assumption but does
>not fit with the facts.

        The Copyright Law allows copying within parameters of "fair use" for
personal research and educational purposes.  "Fair Use" is not defined in
the law and has not yet been clearly defined by case law. It is clear from
both the law and the cases to date that copying an entire, in print, work
violates the law.  This would apply to copying workbooks and distributing
them to students under any circumstnaces.  Copying portions of a
copyrighted work for free distribution to students is generally considered
to be well within "fair use."  Selling such copies without paying a fee is
being litigated and I believe the final appeal has not been heard. Courts
have held both positions. One of the key unresolved issues is how large a
portion can be copied before the argument that a sale (or purchase) has not
been avoided can be sustained.  The law does require injury -- i.e. loss of
a sale -- before injury can be claimed. There is also dispute about the
status of out-of-print material since by definition the publisher cannot be
denied a sale of something that is not for sale.
        This seems confusing because it is.  Key elements in the law are vague and
there have been different opinions as to what contitutes fair use.

>
>Does "some people go overboard" mean "some teachers do violate the copyright
>law by copying materials?"

        Yes.  The copyright law is hard to enforce and may be unenforceable as
written, which is not good if you are an author or publisher seeking to
protect your rights and revenues.  Part of the problem is the vagueness of
"fair use," but a large part of the problem is that many people are not
concerned about respecting copyrights when it is inconvenient to do so.
>
>Is the opinion about software a legal one or just somebody's impression???
>
Software is less ambiguous because in nearly every instance only the full
program works, so there is no need to concern oneself with "portions" and
"fair use" of only part of the program.  This has not made software
copyrights any less prone to violation, however. The wording on the
packages is also designed to comply with the law's requirements.

   >Perhaps we need some legal opinion here rather than individual speculation
>and wishful thinking...  And justification for the copying...

        I doubt that there is "A" single legal opinion on the issue based on my
reading and discussions with copyright attorneys.

>


William H. Mulligan, Jr. [[log in to unmask]]
Associate Professor of History
Director
Forrest C. Pogue Public History Institute
Murray State University
Murray, KY 42071-0009
Phone:(502) 762-6571
Fax:  (502) 762-6587
Home Phone:(502) 753-9033