IN MARCH 2006, Cornell University received a letter of complaint from the Association of American Publishers (AAP) “concerning alleged copyright violations.”* The letter, preliminary to a lawsuit, made it clear to the president and the provost of the university that a joint meeting might produce remedies to divert litigation. For many years, Cornell had copyright guidelines posted and an active electronic reserves service. Cornell also had no less than three university policies that addressed copyright infringement issues, including Responsible Use of Electronic Communications, Code of Academic Integrity and Code of Conduct. In spite of this evidence of the administration’s support for the protection of
Rosemary Chase
WHEN ACCEPTING documents for printing over the network, how responsible are you for your customers’ copyright infringements? As the “button pusher” you are responsible for what you duplicate. In view of the prevalence of network printing, it would benefit in-plants to know their liability. Since 2004, no less that six U.S. copy shops have been accused of unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted materials. The Price of Noncompliance • Two years ago in Austin, Texas, Abel’s Copies, Speedway Copying and NetPaks (one of the first cases to involve digital transmission of course materials) settled out of court with six major academic publishers. The
