Re: IP industry control of use

["Sally Morris" <sec-gen@alpsp.org>]

I think Chuck's allegation about the anti-fair use activities of
publishers is nonsense.  A very large number of publishers are actively
incorporating in their licences the right to do all the things permitted
by fair dealing/fair use, whether or not they are unambigous in current
law, and often more besides - see, for example, the PA/JISC and John Cox
model licences for electronic journals.  This is a far more practical
solution than allowing anyone (whether they have authorised access or not)
to 'hack' a published product in order to carry out an allegedly fair use
act.

Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-gen@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org
Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at
www.learned-publishing.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: IP industry control of use


> We've had to return many products the past year or so because "shrink
> wrap" exluded the possiblity of library use,and when we talked with the
> companies, they refused to permit standard educational use of their
> property. They clearly were NOT selling their products under standard
> copyright law and did not want library use in any way shape or form. They
> refused to permit "library checkout" of CD's or videos. They refused to
> consider other library uses, and in effect refused to permit what I
> believe would normally be considered fair use of their products. How many
> examples do you need? I'm sure others on the list have had the same
> experiences. We had companies refuse to sell us their products, we've had
> companies demand return when they realized their product had ended up in a
> library, demand return when they realized the library wanted to be able to
> circulate their product, etc. etc.
>
> In my experience content owners have demanded to control very narrowly the
> use of their material, even when those uses are patently not going to harm
> economic return to the IP owner. They don't want types of use they have
> not considered or pre-approved. This isn't hyperbole, this is factual,
> exact experience with a range of companies products, from videos to CD's.
> from educational software to educational content and from training videos
> to documentary videos. They might as well have 'not for sale to libraries'
> stamped on their sales brochures and invoices. What was apparent when we
> talked with them, was some had never considered their video would ever be
> acquired by a library! Often the restrictions couldn't be identified until
> we open the packaging. No notice on the invoice, literature, etc.
>
> Publishers as well as entertainment industry representatives are working
> to create an environment where preservation, use of alternative display or
> listening devices,lending, migration,normal institutional use, long term
> survival of any particular format or medium, etc. will not be possible
> technically or legally without the property owner's express permission. I
> believe that no permission=no survival. Common and accepted practices
> regarding individual and institutional use of intellectual property are
> being turned into a per use/per device toll road and when the road is
> "closed" there is no detour. We deseparately need orphan content laws to
> provide for the survival of digital and other forms of content the
> original owners have abandoned by not maintaining its availability. We
> also need to be able to overide content owners unreasonable limitations on
> use of IP when those limitations are clearly legal. What a strange way to
> negate copyright laws. You bought it--it isn't yours because i've hidden a
> license inside.
>
> The IP industry has not shirked at wild and overblown scare tactics and
> statements. There is no reason they shouldn't get a bit of their own
> tactics back. While they overstate their case regularly to congress and to
> the media, they attack anyone who decries the impact of what they are
> doing as being a "scaremonger". Sheesh.
>
> If anything the library and user community has been too quiescent in the
> face of the aggressive behavior of the IP industry and its well placed
> lobbyists. A really "cute" argument that they've repeated: "we have to eat
> too". I guess that means we have to feel really really sorry for the poor
> underfed content industry.
>
> Chuck Hamaker