RE: Supreme Court Ruling--Copyright--New York Times v. Tasini

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

>  My first obligation is to library users and if, as appears likely,
> they will have less content <...> why are these leading library
> organizations supporting a position that ill-serves our users?

Maybe because, in their considered judgment, it was the most morally and
legally defensible position.  I think Napster demonstrated that it's
possible to benefit users by illegal means.  Should ALA and ARL support any
position that would seem to benefit users, even if the position can't be
defended legally?

-------------
Rick Anderson
Electronic Resources/Serials Coordinator
The University Libraries
University of Nevada, Reno      "Let us beware most of all and
1664 No. Virginia St.            criticize most effectively those
Reno, NV  89557                  with whom we yearn to agree."
PH  (775) 784-6500 x273                 -- Debra Nails
FX  (775) 784-1328
rickand@unr.edu