[Paleopsych] CHE Colloquy Live: Fair Use and Academic Publishing

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Fri Jul 16 15:55:32 UTC 2004

Colloquy Live: Fair Use and Academic Publishing
The Chronicle of Higher Education

[I made a comment, mentioning my article, "Copyright, Congress, Due 
Diligence, and Coase." Thanks to Karen for putting it on her site. May 
it's ideas spread!]

    Wednesday, July 14, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
    Indiana University Press's withdrawal of a scholarly book is just the
    latest example of copyright claims trumping scholarship. Just what use
    are "fair use" provisions in copyright law if presses lack the
    wherewithal to challenge such claims? What steps can be taken by
    scholars to protect fair use?

              The newest postings appear at the top of the page.

    Wendy Seltzer:
        Thanks again! See you all online.

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        That's a wrap for today's Colloquy Live, Once again, I want to
    thank Wendy Seltzer for her expertise and enthusiasm in discussing
    these tricky and contentious issues.

    Question from Mary, academic publishing company:
        Wendy, thank you for your introduction citing the fair use section
    of the U.S. Copyright Act. Is there any other concrete information
    that publishers can use to determine what determines fair use?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        Aside from the Copyright Act ([48]17 U.S.C. 101 et. seq.), the
    cases themselves are the best guidance. Stanford has [49]a good
    collection of cases and other materials. EFF has a [50]Fair Use FAQ,
    and our [51]Chilling Effects project has a [52]Fair Use module with
    its own [53]FAQ.

    For more literature on copyright, fair use, and the battles
    surrounding copyright expansion, I'd recommend a few recent books:

    Lawrence Lessig, [54]The Future of Ideas and [55]Free Culture;
    Jessica Litman, [56]Digital Copyright; and
    Siva Vaidhyanathan, [57]Copyrights and Copywrongs and
    [58]The Anarchist in the Library.

    Thanks again for joining here. I'm sorry I couldn't get to all the
    questions in an hour, but I'd be glad to talk further by email,
    [59]wendy at eff.org and on [60]EFF's DeepLinks weblog.

    Question from Richard Byrne:
        Many of the most high profile disputes over copyright and fair use
    have centered on conflicts between scholars and copyright holders.
    From experience or anecdote -- because it clearly is not written in
    the law or numbered among the "four prongs" -- do courts take motive
    for asserting fair use or rejecting permission into account in such
    Wendy Seltzer:
        Courts have recognized that some of the most important fair uses
    will be those -- like scathing parody or criticism -- for which the
    copyright holder would never grant permission. Because those uses
    would never be met in the market, yet benefit the public, the courts
    take extra care to preserve them as fair use.

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        Still working on a few more questions. Stay tuned a bit longer!

    Comment from Kenny Crews, Indiana University (IUPUI):
        I have to be careful to emphasize that while I am part of Indiana
    University, I have had absolutely nothing to do with the case in
    question. I am faculty in the law school in Indianapolis, and I direct
    a copyright office ([61]www.copyright.iupui.edu). I am NOT legal
    counsel to the university or press.

    Some quick and general points. To clarify the matter of copyright
    duration, as of Jan 1, 2003, unpublished works from the past were
    given the duration term applied to current works. For most works, such
    as the ones likely at issue here, that is "life plus 70 years." The
    rules are even more complicated, because the old and unpublished works
    may be "works made for hire," or "anonymous," in which event the rules
    get messy. The point: Copyright lives on a long time. Another critical
    issue for universities to consider is "sovereign immunity." State
    colleges and universities may well have the benefit of immunity in
    federal courts (where copyright claims must be filed) according to a
    series of cases from the Supreme Court. We should always weight that
    possibility in the balance.

    Question from Peter Hirtle, Cornell University:
        Part of the problem with fair use is that you don't really know if
    your use is fair until a judge tells you. Yet there have been
    relatively few cases that address scholarly use of material. Is it
    time for a test lawsuit that could provide some guidance? Or
    alternatively, could professional associations specify their own "best
    practices" for working with copyrighted works, and hope that the
    courts will later endorese them?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        There have been attempts, by NINCH, among others, to create fair
    use guidelines, but since judges can't give advisory opinions (they
    can only decide specific contested cases), it's hard to know whether
    the guidelines reflect what a court would decide. Test cases would
    help -- real disputes that presses were willing to litigate would at
    least provide some firm guideposts one way or the other.

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        We're at 2 PM, but Wendy Seltzer will stay on for a few more
    minutes to answer some back-logged questions. Thanks once again for
    all the response!

    Question from Richard Altschuler, scholarly publisher, Gordian Knot
    Books and other imprints:
        You just answered a question in which you said the market factor
    might be the most important of the four factors in determining fair
    use. If that is the case, then why wouldn't it be fair use for a
    scholarly anthology to include a reprint of an entire article from a
    journal under use fair use law, since there is no way anyone would
    purchase the anthology to read the article when they could read the
    article in the journal for free? In other words, the journal that
    originally published the article (presumed to be the copyright holder)
    would not suffer any possibility of economic loss by the inclusion of
    the article in a commercial anthology. Correct? If so, why are
    permissions required to reprint articles from academic journals,
    usually for a fee to boot?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        Because the courts have recently (since American Geophysical,
    particularly) found a "market for licensing copies" relevant, not just
    the market for the work in complete original form. Elsewhere, I've
    complained about the circularity of this reasoning.

    Question from Steve McDonald, Rhode Island School of Design:
        In terms of risk analysis, the "good faith fair use defense" (17
    U.S.C. 504(c)(2)) provides a potent defense for nonprofit educational
    institutions and libraries that simply make an honest mistake when
    trying to interpret the vast gray area of fair use -- no statutory
    damages can be awarded. In fact, the mere existence of that defense
    probably makes it considerably less likely that they would even be
    defendants in the first place. Shouldn't we be taking that into
    account when we make decisions about whether and how to proceed?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        Yes, thanks for calling attention to this point, although I'm not
    aware of much caselaw interpreting the subsection. ( See
    [62]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html#504.c_2_i )

    Comment from Linda Goff, CSU, Sacramento:
        As an academic librarian, I've been teaching about proper citation
    styles, plagiarism, copyright and fair use for over 30 years and I
    must tell you that many (most?) students think all these rules and
    nuances about the proper use of information are stupid and that we've
    made them up just to complicate their lives. That said, I've just
    found a wonderful new online tutorial at UCLA called "Bruin Success
    with Less Stress" that is a great way to teach students and faculty
    the basics. I recommend it to everyone:
    [63]http://www.library.ucla.edu/bruinsuccess/ I congratulate the
    project team at UCLA, led by Pauline Swartz. I'd like to meet her.

    Linda J. Goff, California State University, Sacramento.

    Question from Jack Bernard, University of Michigan:
        Wendy: I think one of the reasons we see presses balking is that
    the amount of work (fact gathering, legal analysis, and guesswork)
    that it takes to make a fair use assessment is considerable. Many
    academic presses do not have the resources to support such work. In an
    increasingly contentious climate and with increasingly tight budgets
    it is not surprising that presses want authors to assume more
    responsibility for getting permission or "proving" that the law
    permits the use the want. The transaction costs around fair use
    analyses can be quite high. With all this in mind, do you have
    thoughts about how presses might streamline their analysis without
    burdening ill-prepared academics?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        In the short term, it's often cheaper for a press to ask an author
    to get permission or to cut a quote rather than risk the fair use
    test. In the long term, though, those practices raise costs by
    reducing the number of examples of fair use to which courts can look
    when evaluating "industry practice." I heard one publisher complain
    about being asked for permission for a 10-word quotation, and my
    colleague Cory Doctorow was furious about being asked for signed
    consent to reprint [64]a work he had explicitly dedicated to the
    public domain. Instead of demanding proof every time, in the same way
    that many publishers have internal guidelines for the maximum
    permissible use, publishers should also set floors below which they
    won't ask for permission -- perhaps a paragraph quotation, to start.
    If we can establish some clear practices and precedents, we can reduce
    the costs of future fair use analyses.

    Question from Llloyd Davidson, Northwestern Univ.:
        Robert Greenwald's new film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on
    Journalism, will probably attempt to escape copyright infringement
    lawsuits against his use of significant excerpts from Fox's news
    programs by claiming that critical and satirical use of such material
    is protected. Whether you have seen the movie or not, do you think
    that such a significant use of material could ever have a chance of
    being protected from copyright infringement suits based on such a
    Wendy Seltzer:
        While I haven't seen the film, I'd argue strongly in its favor as
    protected fair use -- whatever political angle it takes. I'd similarly
    defend a critic of Michael Moore's who wanted to use excerpts from
    Fahrenheit 9/11. So long as the excerpts are used in the process of
    criticism, and not merely gratuitously, they serve a purpose different
    from that of the original work and don't substitute for the original's
    commercial market. In today's multimedia environment, you can't
    effectively criticize newsmakers without using materials in which they
    may claim copyright. We need to ensure our critics have access to the
    same tools and technologies that their targets have.

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        We're closing in on 10 minutes left in our Colloquy Live. Thanks
    to everyone for all the good questions and comments.

    Question from Sandora, small liberal arts college:
        If ten years ago people had challenged the decisions making it so
    hard to produce course reader packets, would it have made any
    difference today? Would it have ever been possible to establish enough
    legal precedence for fair use to be interpreted in the way its plain
    language intended? It seems too late now.
    Wendy Seltzer:
        You're referring to cases like Princeton Univ. Press v. Michigan
    Document Services, where the court held that the copy-shop's
    production and sale of coursepacks infringed copyright of some of the
    books it excerpted. Those decisions, and the American Geophysical v.
    Texaco case that found the "market for licensing copies" to be a
    relevant market for fair use analysis, rather than looking at the
    market for the books or magazines themselves. It's sadly true that the
    questionable reasoning of these cases has become conventional wisdom
    even in courts where they're not binding precedent. Arguments about
    "markets for licenses" tend to become circular fast, because any use
    _could_ be sold and licensed. Instead, it's important to keep arguing
    that fair use is not just "market failure," as Wendy Gordon once
    wrote, but an important public policy that some uses of copyrighted
    works _should_ be available without pay or permission. "Fair use as
    First Amendment policy" arguments are stronger in the case of more
    transformative works (commentary, criticism, and quotations in
    original scholarship are better than coursepacks), and we should press
    our arguments harder in those circumstances.

    Comment from Frank Forman, U.S. Department of Education:
        I wrote a piece a couple of years ago (which has nothing to do
    with my official work) making an economist's case for making it easy
    for low value works to enter the public domain. The argument is a
    little complicated and novel to non-economists, as it goes into
    "transaction costs" and the like. I can only advertise it here: It's
    "Copyright, Congress, Due Diligence, and Coase" and can be found at
    [65]http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Internet/FrankForman.html . I hope you
    find the ideas of some merit and steal them.

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        There are 20 minutes left in today's Colloquy Live on Fair Use and
    Academic Publishing. We have time for more questions and comments, so
    please keep them coming.

    Question from Marshall, Large Private Institution:
        A researcher wants to conduct an experiment testing the
    effectiveness of spoofing technologies that the recording industry
    uses to dilute the universe of copyrighted music that is available for
    illegal copying on the Internet. The experiment requires that the
    researcher deploy a device that will roam the Internet and make copies
    of music files. The copies will be used only for research purposes,
    destroyed when the data has been collected, and there is no other way
    for the researcher to collect such data. Fair use?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        Fascinating question, and I think indeterminate but likely fair on
    the four factors. The use is non-commercial and transformative (for a
    different purpose than listening to music) (plus); the works are
    creative (minus); the entire works are used, but that's no more than
    necessary for the purpose (slight minus); there's no effect on the
    market because these aren't substituting for music purchases and the
    record companies and music publishers would never sell licenses for
    such research (strong plus). On balance, I'd say the strong showings
    on transformative use and lack of market effect tip toward fair use.

    The researcher will also want to watch out for potential
    anticircumvention problems if the research encounters technological
    protection measures.

    Question from Bruce L. Rockwood, Prof. of Legal Studies, Bloomsburg
        I teach and write about law and literature, as well as business
    law. The paperback editions of Shakespeare I use include essays on his
    "sources" -- essentially borrowings or more from previous plays used
    without paying a royalty. In the Sixties we called this the "folk
    process," and in teaching we call it "putting together teaching
    materials." I am inclined to think copyright law is going in the wrong
    direction if such forms of creativity are going to be the object of
    legal action or publishing censorship. Further, I think it facilitates
    ideological censorship. For example, I would like to use Sinclair
    Lewis, It Can't Happen Here, but the publisher informed me they had no
    plans to bring it in to print any time soon. No doubt it would offend
    Ashcroft. My position is simple: if the copyright holder isn't keeping
    a book in print, anyone should be able to reprint it for teaching and
    research (or pamphleteering, for that matter). Appreciate your
    comments. Thank you.
    Wendy Seltzer:

    Thanks. Your examples show copyright being used in ways that clearly
    don't "promote the progress of science and useful arts" as the
    Constitution describes it. As copyright term increase, it takes ever
    longer for us to be able to build upon past culture as Shakespeare and
    even Jazz musicians could.

    Specifically regarding out-of-print works, Rep. Zoe Lofgren has
    introduced the [66]Public Domain Enhancement Act, following a proposal
    from Lawrence Lessig, to permit copyrighted works to enter the public
    domain after 50 years if their copyright holders did not pay a nominal
    fee to renew the copyrights. You can [67]urge your representatives to
    co-sponsor the Eldred Act with [68]this letter.

    For more examples of copyright's divergence from promotion of culture,
    see Siva Vaidhyanathan's [69]Copyrights and Copywrongs and Lawrence
    Lessig's [70]The Future of Ideas.

    Question from Daniel Marshall, TCI Coll. of Technology:
        How many copies of a videotape is it Fair Use for an academic
    library to make for its own use? What if a faculty member owns the
    Wendy Seltzer:
        Outside of fair use, there are additional copyright exceptions for
    libraries and archives, particularly for materials no longer
    commercially available. Even libraries can't make copies that
    substitute for market purchases, though, so if the tape belongs to a
    faculty member, the library won't have a strong defense for making a
    copy rather than buying its own. (Under the first sale doctrine,
    however, the faculty member remains free to give his tape to the

    Question from Joe, Coastline Com. College:
        Can you give some clarification as to what and how much
    copyrighted material can be used in a classroom? For example: 2 to 4
    pages at most per class from various sources.
    Wendy Seltzer:
        As I mentioned, there are no bright-line rules, and attempts to
    create fair use guidelines have generally stalled. The statute
    specifically says that copying for "teaching (including multiple
    copies for classroom use)" may be fair, and more than four pages is
    probably still fair.

    The most important factor in the evaluation is often the fourth,
    effect on the market. Making copies of entire short stories out of an
    anthology or articles out of a magazine might be okay for classroom
    use, while making copies of an entire textbook meant to be sold to
    students wouldn't be. (The caselaw has also distinguished between
    schools making copies and copy shops profiting from selling copies to

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        We have roughly 35 minutes left to go in today's Colloquy Live.
    We've received some terrific questions thus far -- and we'd love to
    get more.

    Question from Rodney Petersen, EDUCAUSE:
        It occurs to me that the need to assert "fair use" is often
    necessary because authors and institutions of higher education have
    not done a very good job managing copyrights in the first place,
    especially the allocation of rights between authors and publishers.
    The "Principles for Balancing Stakeholder Interests in Scholarship
    Friendly Copyright Practices"
    nciples.php) are aimed at "optimizing access to scholarly
    communications in all formats". Rather than simply relying on "fair
    use", wouldn't all of the stakeholders (authors, publishers,
    universities, librarians, and the public) be better off if we followed
    the principles recommended by this international working conference on
    copyright and universities?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        I agree that academics may be better served by wide dissemination
    of their works than by the "exclusive rights" copyright permits them
    to assert. It would be terrific if more institutions made their works
    more widely available, including under more reader-friendly copyright
    licenses like those offered by [72]Creative Commons. I don't think
    that would eliminate the need for fair use, but it could provide
    greater certainty for authors wanting to quote or otherwise re-use in
    many instances.

    Question from Christine L. Sundt, University of Oregon:
        The article cited mentions 'infringing copies' but why not
    'fair-use copies'? Fair use is meant to be used as a defense and it
    must be used in order to survive as a right and privilege. This right
    is clearly stated in the law as a balance against privileges granted
    to the author. Fair use does not require permission or a license.
    Isn't obtaining permission to use (quote or interpret) anything and
    everything unpublished signaling the death of scholarship? When does
    the denial of permission to quote become censorship?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        Yes! If we move from a fair use culture to a permission culture,
    we lose important freedoms to criticize and reinterpret. We don't want
    to live in a society where every biography is an "authorized"
    biography, where every movie review is approved by the producer. Our
    culture would be far poorer for it, and that's what fair use is
    supposed to help shield us against.

    As the Supreme Court said in 1994, holding that 2 Live Crew's parody
    of Roy Orbisons "Pretty Woman" was fair use:
    "[T]he unlikelihood that creators of imaginative works will license
    critical reviews or lampoons of their own productions removes such
    uses from the very notion of a potential licensing market. 'People ask
    . . . for criticism, but they only want praise.' S. Maugham, Of Human
    Bondage 241 (Penguin ed. 1992).... The fact that a parody may impair
    the market for derivative uses by the very effectiveness of its
    critical commentary is no more relevant under copyright than the like
    threat to the original market."

    Question from Rich Byrne. Chronicle of Higher Ed:
        I know that one of the ideas that you've been kicking around to
    enable academic and small presses to defend themselves when they
    assert fair use provisions is pooling of financial/legal resources
    along the lines of insurance. Can you explain how that might work?
    Wendy Seltzer:
        "Cost" and "risk" are the most common reasons I hear why authors
    and publishers don't rely on the fair use defense. Even when it's very
    likely that a short quotation would be "fair," publishers are afraid
    to litigate and afraid of the potential damages if they lost. The
    economics of publishing makes presses and universities unduly risk
    averse. Too often, then, our fair use rights are lost not in court,
    but because no one even takes them to court. In other areas of life,
    we insure against expensive but improbable risks. It strikes me that
    publishers who share a common interest in expanding the reach of fair
    use could similarly pool resources to insure against infringement
    lawsuits where fair use was at issue. Instead of relying on commercial
    insurers, whose primary goal is limiting financial exposure, an
    academic collective could put greater weight on academic freedom and
    scholarly commentary. Together, they could generate the resources to
    pay legal counsel and litigate suits through to establish more legal
    precedents favoring fair use.

    Question from Richard Altschuler, scholarly book publisher, Gordian
    Knot Books and other imprints:
        After reading the Chronicle's article about the "fair use" issue,
    I wonder, "What would be the penalty if a court found against Indiana
    Press and Ms. Curtis?" After all, the contested issue is a legitimate
    one, especially because the amount of disputed text is less than one
    percent of the entire book. As for the cost of IUP to litigate the
    issue, why don't they just have the Press editor and/or book editor
    present the defense case? The defense argument is so clear cut and
    easy to present, that it seems the Press would incur little or no cost
    to litigate the issue. Of course, if the penalty would be substantial
    in case of a loss, then that would be worth the Press and editor
    considering, from a cost-benefit viewpoint. By the way, would the
    lawsuit be civil or criminal, or even both? Thank you.
    Wendy Seltzer:
        I'd like to see more presses making that analysis, rather than
    ducking and running at the mere thought of a lawsuit. A victory for
    fair use could be a substantial benefit to Indiana, Clarke scholars,
    and the wider academic community.

    Statutory damages for copyright infringement run from $750 -$30,000
    per copyrighted work (statutory damages are awarded without proof of
    actual harm to the copyright holder, so long as the copyright holder
    has registered the copyright and proved infringement). Damages can be
    lowered to $200 for innocent infringement or raised to $150,000 for
    willful infringement.

    In clear cases, courts can also award costs and attorneys' fees to the
    _prevailing_ party -- either the copyright claimant or the fair use
    defendant. In the recent case by Mattel against artist Tom Forsythe,
    who put Barbie into enchiladas and margarita glasses, the court
    ordered Mattel to pay Forsythe nearly $2 million in fees and costs
    because it ruled his work was clear fair use.

    Copyright infringement suits are almost always civil, between two
    private parties. The justice department can prosecute those who
    infringe for commercial purposes or financial gain, but those are
    usually "piracy" cases involving wholesale reproduction, not

    Question from Siva Vaidhyanathan, NYU:
        Didn't the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act place all
    unpublished material created before January 1, 1978 into the public
    domain if it was not published by Jan. 1 2003?

    Therefore, is not all the material in question in the public domain
    Wendy Seltzer:
        You're right that the Bono Act gave term limits to copyrights in
    unpublished pre-1978 works, but unfortunately for the public domain,
    it gave those works until the later of 2003 or the end of the terms
    they would have gotten if created post-Bono. So Rebcecca Clarke's
    estate gets life+70 years -- until 2049 -- in all unpublished works.

    [You can see copyright serving its incentive function, because of
    course, Clarke was posthumously induced to write by that term
    extension... NOT.]

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        Two of the first questions that we have received deal specifically
    with the story that I wrote last week, [73]"Silent Treatment" -- about
    Indiana University Press's withdrawal of a book on Anglo-American
    composer Rebecca Clarke after a claim of copyright infringement by the
    holder of copyright to Clarke's unpublished writings.

    Wendy Seltzer:
        Thanks for inviting me to join you.

    First let me give a few notes about fair use, an important part of the
    public-private balance of copyright. It is now codified at Section 107
    of the U.S. Copyright Act as a limitation on the exclusive rights of
    copyright holders. Fair uses are fair without the permission of the
    copyright holder, even against that permission.

    The law sets out a four-factor test:
    1) the purpose and character of the use (non-commercial or commercial;
    transformative or mere duplication)
    2) the nature of the copyrighted work (fiction or nonfiction,
    published or unpublished)
    3) the amount used in proportion to the whole
    4) the effect on the market for the work
    (See [74]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html )

    More factors in your favor makes a finding of fair use more likely,
    but the law gives us no bright lines or percentages. That's part of
    the reason why Lawrence Lessig has been saying that "fair use is
    merely the right to hire a lawyer."

    I should also note that the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other
    public interest organizations do try to make it easier to hire a pro
    bono lawyer in fair use cases. We think it's critically important to
    preserve fair use as an actual, not merely hypothetical defense.

    Richard Byrne (Moderator):
        Good afternoon. Welcome to this week's Colloquy Live. My name is
    Richard Byrne. I am the editor of the Chronicle's research and
    publication section. Our chat today concerns Fair Use and Academic

    Copyright laws protect the rights of authors, but at times they also
    have bedeviled scholars' research efforts. The "fair use" provisions
    of copyright law should provide scope for scholars to do their work
    and stay on the right side of the law, but changes to copyright law
    and strong challenges to fair use have made both scholars and academic
    presses skittish about asserting fair use.

    Our guest today, Wendy Seltzer, is a staff attorney at the Electronic
    Frontier Foundation and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet
    and Society at Harvard University. She will be answering questions
    today about the uses that fair use can be put to in an academic
    setting, and she will also discuss a few ideas that she has been
    kicking around about how scholars and academic presses might assert
    fair use provisions of copyright law in a more active fashion.

    Thank you, Wendy, for agreeing to appear on our chat today. Welcome.


   47. http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2004/07/copyright/chat_manual.php3
   48. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
   49. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
   50. http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.html
   51. http://www.chillingeffects.org/
   52. http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/
   53. http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/faq
   54. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375726446/bibliotrackcom
   55. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594200068/bibliotrackcom
   56. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573928895/bibliotrackcom
   57. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814788076/bibliotrackcom
   58. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465089844/bibliotrackcom
   59. mailto:wendy at eff.org
   60. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/
   61. http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/
   62. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html#504.c_2_i
   63. http://www.library.ucla.edu/bruinsuccess/
   64. http://www.craphound.com/ebooksneitherenorbooks.txt
   65. http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Internet/FrankForman.html
   66. http://eldred.cc/
   67. http://eldred.cc/howyoucanhelp/
   68. http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2853
   69. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814788076/bibliotrackcom
   70. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375726446/bibliotrackcom
   71. http://www.surf.nl/copyright/keyissues/scholarlycommunication/principles.php
   72. http://creativecommons.org/
   73. http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i45/45a01401.htm
   74. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

More information about the paleopsych mailing list