[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Future of the "subscription model?"
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Future of the "subscription model?"
- From: Sandy Thatcher <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:31:49 EST
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
But Band does speak for the ARL and its member institutions, which is one reason I asked the question. Sandy Thatcher At 8:01 PM -0500 11/9/11, Rick Anderson wrote: > >Does this mean libraries will push the envelope further on using >>"fair use" to justify more copying than in the past? > >I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned, the >proper interpretation of fair use is not affected by the size of >my budget. A use doesn't become more or less fair based on my >ability to pay for subscriptions. > >>Jonathan Band, adviser to the ARL on legal issues, believes that >>"transformative use" can justify copying of ANYTHING except >>current textbooks, on the theory that everything else (journal >>articles, monographs, etc.) is written for a specific audience >>of peers and not intended for classroom use, thus "re-purposed" >>when copied for classroom use. See what he has to say on this >>subject in the briefing paper he provided to ARL in the >>HathiTrust suit. Band argues: "the scholarly works of nonfiction >>that . . . probably constitute the majority of the works within >>the Proposed Use, now serve a different purpose from when >>written. > >Jonathan Band doesn't speak for me, so I won't presume to speak for him. > >Rick Anderson >Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections >J. Willard Marriott Library >University of Utah >email@example.com