The brief supports the publishers’ position that the district court erred in holding that the fair use doctrine allows the university to copy and distribute to students via an online reserve system substantial excerpts from the publishers’ books without a license.
In short, TAA and the AG argue that the district court:
1) Gave too much weight to the educational nature of GSU’s use of the works, allowing this factor to overshadow other important factors
2) Underestimated the potential harm to the value of and market for the subject works (and the authors who write them)
3) Improperly classified the works at issue as fact-intensive and merely informational rather than as expressive, and therefore entitled to less protection
4) Improperly took into account financial benefits to users of the e-Reserve system
The Georgia District Court had found that 94 of 99 extracts at issue qualified as a fair use, many comprising as much as 10 percent of the works from which they were extracted. It is the contention of TAA and the AG that if allowed to stand, the district court decision imperils scholarly publishing, and particularly puts at risk those especially esoteric and sophisticated works that contribute most to advancements in science and literature but which because of their small markets live on the margins of financial viability.
View the full amicus brief at http://www.taaonline.net/