[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shrinkwrap contract on books (fwd)
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Shrinkwrap contract on books (fwd)
- From: David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 17:10:03 EST
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
The flow and development of ideas is greatly enchanced by the availability of the expression of these ideas to members of all classes of society. Therefore, we have libraries, permitting students and the general public to read material whose expression might otherwise be too expensive for them to access. The Maryland Bar Association has apparently made it legally impossible, at least in Maryland, for anyone without the money to buy a personal copy to access the expression of its ideas. Joe is, however, right that this is not about copyright. Under US copyright law alone this restriction would not be possible. It's about the UCITA. Besides the obvious need for the repeal of the UCITA, the necessary legal change is for the provision in the copyright law that it does not take precedence over specific contracts, to be changed to read exactly the opposite, that contracts imposing further restrictions on published material are against public policy and not enforceable. My personal opinion, and I hope not just mine. Dr. David Goodman Princeton University Library and Palmer school of Library and Information Science dgoodman@princeton.edu ___ On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 espositoj@att.net wrote: > With regard to "the right to read" and the shrink-wrap foolishness, it may > be useful to recall how little--repeat: how little--copyright law can do. > > It cannot in any way, shape, or form restrict the flow of ideas. > > It can, in certain circumstances (whose parameters are not always > perfectly clear), restrict the copying of the tangible expression of > ideas. When the topic is nonfiction, the real issue is having someone go > to the trouble and expense of recasting ideas into a different tangible > form. (With literature, where the argument can be made that the tangible > expression and the ideas themselves are one and the same, the situation is > more vexed.) The debate about this aspect of copyright is about > economics, not a free society. > > Joe Esposito > Dr. David Goodman Princeton University Library and Palmer school of Library and Information Science dgoodman@princeton.edu
- Prev by Date: Re: Shrinkwrap contract on books (fwd)
- Next by Date: Re: Shrinkwrap contract on books (fwd)
- Prev by thread: Re: Shrinkwrap contract on books (fwd)
- Next by thread: Re: Shrinkwrap contract on books (fwd)
- Index(es):