Physical Equals Digital in Publishing Too
Wednesday, April 16th, 2008 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
It's a question I ask time and time again: Should a copyright owner's rights be taken from them simply because their works are converted to digital form?
The answer should be obvious on its face — no. Whether a work is on paper or a download service, creativity, labor and money went into its production, and the US Constitution ensured that the creator/s behind it would have rights over its use.
That brings us to a suit against Georgia State University by academic publishers — Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Sage Publications and supported by the Association of American Publishers — asserting that GSU is producing digital course packs of copyrighted academic works without the permission of the rightsholders. GSU declined to address the issue with The New York Times, and plaintiffs' attorney Bruce Rich said the suit came only because GSU “indicated that they had no interest in having a discussion.”
That's too bad, because I'm sure litigation could have been avoided. Digital course packs are convenient and increasingly pervasive. I've taken a few business courses in the last year or so from a major university and every course involved online material found on an electronic "blackboard." But I could only access the papers for my classes, and it was clearly marked that the copies were licensed and I was not to further distribute them.
If Cambridge, Oxford and other publishers are to continue to produce works worthy of being taught at institutions of higher learning such as GSU, they must have the ability to use their rights as copyright owners to create a market for their works.
Susan Crawford, a free culture advocate and visiting professor at Yale, is quoted in the NYT article as essentially saying GSU has a weak case, which is a refreshingly honest assessment. She goes on, however, to say that publishers have created a market for luxury goods, where there is "only one version available, and at a very high price." I'm not sure what luxury market she's talking about. In cars, you have Lexus, Acura, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Jaguar, Ferrari, Porsche, Bugatti, Lamborgini, Ala Romeo, Audi, Maybach, Maserati, Tesla, the list goes on. In fact, there are far more makes of luxury vehicles than standard makes. This model follows in other luxury markets as well, from watches to designer clothing. Why? Because a luxury make focuses on a far smaller market, and there are no barriers to entry.
That's true of academic publishing as well. An academic publisher targets a smaller audience than a trade paperback fiction publisher, but it's offering a more elite product and will charge more. There Professor Crawford is correct. But her notion that by offering a luxury product, they have some how created a market where there is "only one version available" is absurd. It is a highly competitive market, and prices are set at a level that covers fixed costs and allows a return. If a publisher prices above the market, universities will switch to another publisher.
In other words, the academic publishing market is a healthy one. It can continue to be healthy when universities recognize the rights of authors and publishers and treats digital copies equal to physical ones. That is the way to ensure continued competition.
