In the Chronicle of Higher Education:
This case is heading for appeal. The following quote expresses one the publishers’ key arguments:
In their brief, filed on Monday, the publishers argue that, if the lower court’s ruling stands, it will have implications that go far beyond Georgia State’s practices. The publishers play up the idea that e-reserves amount to course packs or anthologies of reading material. Judge Evans’s decision “invites universities nationwide to accelerate the migration of course-pack creation from paper to electronic format” and to sidestep legal permission to use copyrighted content, the brief states.
And this from the intrepid Association of Research Libraries:
…Brandon Butler, director of public-policy initiatives for the Association of Research Libraries, took issue with the argument that e-reserves put publishers at great risk.
“I’m baffled that the publishers continue to claim that course reserves pose some kind of existential threat to their business,” he told The Chronicle via e-mail. “It was established at trial that GSU’s practices are in the mainstream, so libraries are basically already doing what the publishers claim will put them out of business, and yet Oxford University Press reported $1-billion in sales last year, $180-million in profits. Is that what a publisher on the verge of collapse looks like?”
Let’s hope the principal of “Fair Use” continues to prevail.