RE: copyright question

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

JStor is not locking them up. Anyone else is also free to digitize the
material not under copyright. We are better, not worse off for what they
have done. Before they did their conversions, there were print copies
freely available in those libraries that had them to those who had access
to the libraries. Now they have digitized it, there are the same print
copies equally available. There are also electronic versions available, to
those who can afford it.  Of course it would be better to have it all
freely available. But that does not make what they now do wrong, improper,
or meriting an "Alas and alack..."
 
Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of jcg
Sent:	Thu 5/6/2004 7:04 PM
To:	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; Shinjoung Yeo
Subject:  Re: copyright question

Lawrence Lessig's recent book, _Free Culture_, may have the perfect answer
for the question below (pp. 280-1):

""Lexis and Westlaw have had electronic versions of case reports available
to subscribers to their service. Although a Supreme Court opinion is not
copyrighted, and anyone is free to go to the library and read it, Lexis
and Westlaw are also free to charge users for the privilege of gaining
access to the Supreme Court opinion through their respective services."

In a similar way, JSTOR is locking up electronically a number of articles
that are now in the public domain in paper format.

Alas and alack...

Jean-Claude Guédon