Re: E-reserves lawsuit in NYTimes (Georgia State University)

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

An intriguing idea, but this takes all risk away from the user 
and promotes irresponsible behavior, which is one of the standard 
criticisms of insurance schemes for social benefits under the 
rubric of "moral hazard," cleverly exploited over the past thirty 
years by Republican policymakers and advisers like economist 
Martin Feldstein (chair of President Reagan's Council of Economic 
Advisors) that resulted in what Yale political scientist Jacob 
Hacker has called the "Great Risk Shift" (see his Oxford book of 
the same name: http://www.greatriskshift.com).

Another way of looking at this, also based on economic logic (see 
Mancur Olson's "The Logic of Collective Action" published by 
Harvard in 1965), is the idea of "free riding," as suggested in a 
posting earlier by Joe Esposito. See my comments along these 
lines here: http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/17/gsu

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press

****

Karl Bridges wrote:

>My postings to liblicense never seem to go, but along the lines 
>of this...
>
>The real purpose of copyright is so that producers get paid. 
>They want legal protections so they can realize a profit from 
>their investment.  So, in effect, copyright can be seen as a 
>form of state sponsored insurance.  The government is providing 
>a guarantee that the publisher will have a right of exclusivity 
>to market (and profit) from their publication AND can pursue 
>compensation in the event of infringement.
>
>Now, one wonders why the state needs to be involved?  In normal 
>practice, say I purchase an expensive car, it is my obligation 
>as an owner to insure the vehicle so that I can be compensated 
>for any loss -- at which point the normal practice is for the 
>paying insurance company to go after the other individual (or 
>his insurance company) for compensation.
>
>Why could not printed materials be covered under the same 
>principle? The publisher could purchase an insurance policy to 
>indemnify them against loss and when there is a problem they get 
>an insurance settlement.
>
>Obviously, that simply replaces the publishing industry with the 
>insurance industry as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, but, at least 
>insurance companies have some experience estimating the value of 
>property and the loss of monetary value from accidents, etc -- 
>which is all relevant to the case at hand. And, more to the 
>point, it would allow it to be clearer what is actually 
>available for use.  If the policy had lapsed that would be a 
>clear statement that the publisher didn't care what the use of 
>the material was.
>
>This would seem to be a better system than now where publishers 
>are placing the burden for compliance on the user.  What they 
>really are doing now is pushing the cost onto the consumer.  As 
>a user I have to assume a cost -- checking for copyright, 
>getting permissions, etc etc -- which are,arguably, really the 
>costs of the producer related to protecting their product.  I
>
>
>Quoting Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>:
>
>>The situation differs in GSU's reliance on an unusual policy 
>>statement. See the reference to the Regents Guide in paragraph 
>>28 of the complaint.
>>
>>>According to the lawsuit, the alleged infringement is 
>>>occurring on e-reserves, course management, and other GSU 
>>>systems.  This morning's DigitalKoans posting provides more 
>>>details including a link to the lawsuit text and to the AAP 
>>>press release. Four GSU administrators were named in the suit.
>>>
>>>http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/GeorgiaStateLawsuitRelease.htm