RE: Negotiations Stall in Tasini v New York Times (fwd)

["LENARES,DEBORAH A." <LENAREDA@apci.com>]

If vendors remove these articles from the databases we subscribe to, can
we not take this opportunity to demand a price decrease(!) because content
has been decreased?  hmmm.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kerry A Keck [mailto:keckker@rice.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:33 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: FW: Negotiations Stall in Tasini v New York Times (fwd)


I've followed the events since the Tasinia announcement with great
interest, and felt this group might find the following statement a source
of useful perspective.
______________________________________________
Kerry Keck - Asst. University Librarian, Collections
Fondren Library - MS44           Phone:  713-348-2926
Rice University                  Fax:    713-348-5258
6100 S. Main                     Email:  keckker@rice.edu
Houston, TX  77005-1892          http://sparta.rice.edu/~keckker


------ Forwarded Message
From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:28:07 -0400
To: Multiple recipients of list <ninch-announce@ninch.org>
Subject: Negotiations Stall in Tasini v New York Times

NINCH ANNOUNCEMENT
News on Networking Cultural Heritage Resources
from across the Community
June 26, 2001

           Next Step Negotiations Stall in Tasini v New York Times
 --Illustrates Importance of New Distribution Models in Digital
Environment--
                            http://www.nwu.org/

I'm forwarding this statement from National Writers Union president,
Jonathan Tasini, as I believe it illustrates the critical importance for
all in such relationships, as Justice Ruth Ginsburg put it, to "draw on
numerous models for distributing copyrighted works and remunerating
authors for their distribution."

David Green
===========

From: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
To: "Jonathan Tasini" <jt@pipeline.com>
Subject: Supreme Court Decision--Writers Respond to Threats on Articles
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:38:00 -0400
Organization: National Writers Union

This statement was released today from Jonathan Tasini, president of the
National Writers Union and lead plaintiff in Tasini v. The New York Times.

We are dismayed that the response from some publishers to the Supreme
Court's ruling has been to quickly reject the olive branch we have
extended. We have urged leaders of the media industry to sit down and
negotiate a fair resolution, which would build on the comprehensive system
the National Writers Union has already set up for compensating free-lance
writers for electronic reuses of their work.

Instead, The New York Times and Time Inc., to cite two examples, have
quickly declared that they will delete freelance articles from archives;
they were joined in predicting such a move by the Newspaper Association of
America. We are surprised that publishers would take such a drastic step
for several reasons. First, such a step is a direct snub of the United
States Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Ginsburg
wrote, "the parties (Authors and Publishers) may enter into an agreement
allowing continued electronic reproduction of the Authors works; they, and
if necessary the courts and congress, may draw on numerous models for
distributing copyrighted works and remunerating authors for their
distribution."

Second, indeed, we have consistently offered the existing licensing
system, the Publication Rights Clearinghouse, as the type of solution to
which the Court's majority referred. The PRC is open to all writers and is
endorsed by organizations representing tens of thousands of writers. It
has already negotiated working licensing arrangements, most recently with
Contentville.com, a commercial website owned by Steven Brill.

Third, deleting the articles today will not wash away the significant
liabilities facing publishers from years of infringement. Only sensible
negotiations can lead to a resolution that is fair to all parties.

Finally, if the publishers carry through with their threat, they will only
alienate broad segments of the public. For example, the American Library
Association and Association of Research Libraries have already stated
publicly that there are constructive ways to address the issue, ".and the
Supreme Court in its decision today recognized that there are such
options. The lower court has a wide range of discretion to structure a
remedy in this matter that will protect the rights of all involved."

We urge rationale publishers, for the sake of their shareholders and
readers, to come to their own conclusions.

[end of statement]