[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Cost of coursepacks: Harvard Crimson article

A great article in terms of raising some important issues! But it does a
very poor job of getting into much copyright analysis and goes from paying
the full price demanded to "illegal" copyring without looking at anything
in between. Unfortunately the story sees things in the simple binary terms
of either payment in full, or engaging in "illegal" copying and fails to
even mention how some of the copying might be justified as a fair use. I
think much of the confusion comes from the unfortunate historical fact
that the course-pack cases that we've heard so much about and have
internalized as rigid rules (Kinkos and Michigan Document Service) dealt
with private/for-profit entities. What if the course packs were prepared
by a non-profit entity not charging a premium but only the actual costs of
copying? What if the students had access to the original (or a copy of the
orginal on reserve)  and made their own single copy for
study/scholarship/research purposes?  (a fair use?). And even more to the
point is the question of what happens when the university already has an
electronic license for the material, in which case the students already
have access to the article and could readily print out their own copy for
personal use.  Isn't that use already paid for in the cost of the license?
So what the students are really paying a copy shop for is the
"convenience" of not having to individually print out their own copies.
But if that's the case, why should royalties be paid yet again?

If the students can walk into the library, pull the print journal and make
a single photocopy of an article for personal use then why shouldn't doing
something collectively to ease the wear and tear on the copy machines and
provide for convenience carry the same result.  So much is said about the
need for technological neutrality (at least that's what the right-holders
seem to always argue when they want yet another expansionary measure) but
it doesn't seem to apply at all on the users end of the equation.

My sense is that in all of these course-pack cases, there is a lot of
double payment going on and that universities need to re-evaluate their
practices in these matters. We know from Kinkos and Michigan that
proprietary copy shops aren't the answer.

Samuel Trosow
University of Western Ontario

Ann Okerson wrote:
Of possible wide interest.
_______________________________

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505822.html
Attack of the Wallet Killers By THE CRIMSON STAFF
THE CRIMSON STAFF
Students battling the ever-increasing financial burden that is a Harvard
education have found a new adversary this term: the $500 coursepack. While
that sets in, it must be emphasized that this is not some premise for a
Harvard-themed Twilight Zone episode or a cheesy horror movie � la Attack
of the Killer Tomatoes. The $464.50 compendium of readings and articles
for Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy Robert Putnam's
Government 90qa, Community in America class is very real and currently
available on the shelves of the Harvard Coop bookstore.

Most disturbingly, the problem of overpriced coursepacks is widespread.
Harvard's Digital Printing Services lists nine classes with offerings of
more than $100 each, while at least a half dozen other packs from the Coop
exceed this threshold as well; the readings price tag for Women Gender and
Sexuality 1003, Theories of Sexuality, for example, is more than $300.
Professors need to do a better job of factoring in coursepack costs when
they select readings for their courses. Otherwise, students are faced with
the unattractive dilemma of skipping expensive but worthwhile classes, or
illegally reproducing coursepacks in defiance of copyright law. Neither is
acceptable.

Amazingly, simple ignorance on the part of professors can be blamed for
some of the prices. Many simply submit lists of readings to the Coop or
Digital Print Services, which, in turn, deal with acquiring the
appropriate copyrights, and pay little regard to the bill to be passed on
to students. According to an undergraduate this semester, one professor
claimed to be "shocked" and surprised by the high price of a coursepack in
response to a complaint about the matter. But this reaction occurred after
the term had already started when nothing could be done.

Such ignorance should not be an excuse at a university that prides itself
in meeting the full demonstrated financial need of each student. The
Financial Aid Office does not generally factor in differences in course
material costs when it determines its grant packages, and instead relies
on standard estimates. Thus, professors who assemble coursepacks outside
of the normal price range could very well be placing undue burdens on some
students, or even negatively affecting their class selection.

Because of this, some have taken the problem into their own hands by
reproducing coursepacks at local copy shops without regard for copyright
law. According to student accounts, in one course an undergraduate
photocopied a coursepack on reserve at Lamont library for every other
member of the class, and not a single one was sold through the usual
copyright-abiding means. In another account, Coop employees openly
suggested that undergraduates illegally reproduce the Government 90qa
coursepack to avo mid its nearly $500 cost.

Eschewing copyrights, however, is not the appropriate way to reduce
expenses. Our readings do not generally come from millionaire bestselling
authors, but from academics who work very hard and often receive very
little compensation. We should not shortchange a profession that many
among our student body will likely join in the future.

Instead professors need to exercise care when assembling coursepacks. Cost
cannot be neglected, especially since so much academic material is
available at no cost to all Harvard students online through resources such
as JSTOR and Lexis-Nexis. The possibility that a course absolutely must
offer large numbers of expensive readings that cannot be found (or
substituted for) elsewhere seems remote.

Another obvious solution is to reduce the volume of reading. It is
unreasonable to expect undergraduates to give appropriate care to
coursepacks such as that for Government 90qa and Women Gender and
Sexuality 1003, which span multiple volumes and thousands of pages. And
practical experience also suggests that students simply will not read it
all. Thus, making them pay for it is silly.

Whether coursepack costs become manageable is in the hands of professors.
We can only shudder at the possibility of being asked to shell out a
thousand dollars for a five thousand page monstrosity some day, and the
armies of petty copyright thieves such an action will create.

###