Mr Orlans takes Lori Curtis to task for being too rigidly interpretive of the
copyright law. It needs to be noted by all concerned on this issue, from all
sides, that existing copyright law is not explicit about what is required and
what is permitted (and I hope never is). Vulnerability will therefore be
interpreted differently by different viewers and institutions. Context of use
plays a big part in interpretation, whether by requestors, librarians,
infringers, infringement-complainers, or courts.
It also needs to be noted that the library community is working very hard to
keep copyright and fair use as open and useful as it presently is, not to
mention trying to open it up further when possible. To do so most of us
recognize we're in the Caeser's wife situation, and cannot afford to leave
openings for accusations of carelessness in copyright law implementation.
(This of course doesn't mean libraries aren't recklessly accused of ignoring the
law anyway, as in current pro-UCITA arguments.) And even within that context,
many of us believe that the appropriate thing to do is to press the envelope and
not give in to publishers' hoped-for restrictions.
The point overall is that there is no crisp set of definitions; Ms Curtis is
right. Mr. Orlans is right. And you are right and I am right and everything is
not quite all right, and within some fuzzily-defined limits at best. --pg
--
Peter S. Graham Syracuse University Library psgraham@syr.edu
Syracuse, NY 13244-2010 315/443-5530 fax 315/443-2060 NW4.7 w1/01