Copyright laws elicit unfair reader prices

Imagine yourself in a world where copyright laws are taken way
too far. A world in which you can’t play your CD for a
friend. A world in which the childhood game of copycat can land you
in jail. A world in which graffiti is protected as intellectual
property. A world in which a puny college course reader costs
almost $100.

Imagine yourself in a world where this imagination comes true
because copyright laws have gotten out of hand, making students pay
more than they should for course readers. The “fair
use” clause in copyright law is supposed to protect education
and research from copyright infringement. But because of the
courts’ interpretation of the law, this isn’t
happening.

And also, graffiti really is protected under copyright law.
(Although the graffiti artist could still be sued for vandalism,
the art belongs to the artist.)

So if you’re trying to attend college and buy books on a
meager budget ““ as many people at a public university such as
our own are ““ or if you’re trying to photocopy
graffiti, you’re in for a rude awakening.

Course readers can range from as little as $10 to as much as
$100, which can put quite a strain on the wallets of starving
students. And as for graffiti, it is very difficult to get it and a
copier glass to meet.

So why do course readers end up costing so much? Are they that
expensive to produce? Is it some huge conspiracy of teachers
lobbying to gouge their students for the sheer fun of it? (Note
that this theory is also often applied to homework.)

No. Course readers cost so much mainly because royalties have to
be paid to those who own the copyrights.

How much is this exactly? It usually ranges from 50 cents to
$2.50 per copyrighted piece. And does that account for the entire
price of the reader?

Course Reader Materials in Westwood would not answer any
questions regarding the pricing of their readers. In other words,
we may never know how the distribution of the money taken from
students pans out between copyright holders, copy shops and
professors.

While copy shops aren’t charities, I’m pretty sure
copyright law contributes heavily to the steep price of course
readers.

But that’s not what’s wrong with copyright laws.
There’s nothing illegal about overcharging students.

Copyright laws are wrong because the courts have made it illegal
to charge students a fair price for some of these educational
materials.

Now a little about how copyright law works. As with any good
law, copyright law has exceptions. The most important exception for
educational situations like ours comes from the “fair
use” section of copyright law, which states that “fair
use” of copyrighted material is not an infringement of a
copyright.

The problem arises because Congress thought it would be clever
to leave the guidelines for “fair use” as blurry as a
drunk man’s vision.

This leaves the guidelines to be interpreted by the court
system, which everyone knows is nearly infallible.

The courts generally agree that “fair use”
doesn’t count if a professor is copying to make a profit, or
if those copies will adversely affect the commercial success of the
copyrighted work.

This is why a professor can’t copy educational textbooks
without stepping into some hot water. It is also why a professor
can’t copy a book and sell it to his students. This makes
sense.

What doesn’t make sense is why course readers don’t
fall under “fair use.”

Even though a professor could theoretically copy each article in
a course reader individually, hand each one out in class, and
charge his students for the copy job, that professor can’t
put it all together into a handy-dandy course reader without having
to worry about copyright laws.

Are you crazy, courts of law? What’s the difference, Mr.
Judge? As long as a professor isn’t trying to turn a profit
with some sort of cottage-industry bootleg publishing company, the
production of course readers should fall under “fair
use.”

Copyrights are meant to protect the rightful profits and
integrity of intellectual works. In education, the goal is not
profit, but education. So it’s reasonable to expect that
reasonable forms of copying should be allowed, like course
readers.

Next thing you know, they’ll have us paying royalties to
the inventors of new words.

Next thing you know, we’ll be imagining a world in which
we have to pay exorbitant prices just to view the graffiti we pass
on the streets.

Schenck is a first-year pre-communication studies student.
E-mail him at [email protected]. Send general comments to
[email protected].