Comments on Quick Takes: Publishers Sue Georgia State Over Digital Coursepacks, Guilty Plea in Export Case, McCain on Student Loans, Ghostwriting Seen in Journal Articles, Kentucky Governor Objects to Appointment

• Imaginary (biased?) connections
• Posted by Scott on April 16, 2008 at 6:50am EDT

• “. . . leading some observers to speculate that McCain had included the idea at the behest of Pennsylvania’s all-powerful guarantee agency, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Authority.”

  Is there really a smoking gun here, or are we just proposing that one exists? While we can be sure that politicians rarely propose legislation that is without influence from a variety of special interests, the reporter’s intimation that McCain had a hidden agenda tied to the PHEA appears on its face to lack merit, except as an attempt to justify the reporter’s inclination to make a connection via “some observers.” Even if there is an element of validity to the point being made, this journalistic trick too often represents a thinly veiled attempt by a reporter to put forth personal speculation that has no basis in fact.

  In order to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality, I would ask the editors of Inside Higher Education to avoid references to “some observers” without naming them; or at a minimum, to be equally diligent in pointing out the potential political basis for “some observers” opinions. There is a huge credibility gap between the thoughtful perspectives of an impartial analyst and the shrill catcalls of political opponents.

• BIAS
• Posted by R.F. on April 16, 2008 at 9:25am EDT

• Scott is correct. To the casual reader it appears that the reporter(s) added their own bias to the story. It used to be that a reporter reported and left their own opinions, characterizations, etc out of the column. To do otherwise changes the blurb from a news story to an opinion piece.

  The words "all powerful" are relative, nebulous, and seem to indicate an agenda on the part of the reporters. Please refrain and allow the reader to form their own opinion... which is supposed to be the point of a piece like this.

• Digital distribution rights?
• Posted by Jonathan Dresner on April 16, 2008 at 2:25pm EDT

• I'm going to be watching the Georgia State digital distribution case: if the rights in question are not carefully described, it could become impossible to link to copyrighted material without paying royalties, and could be a serious setback in the value of online materials in teaching.

• Posted by Jim Reische on April 16, 2008 at 3:45pm EDT

• Would it be gauche of me to point out that two of the plaintiffs in the Georgia State suit are also two of the biggest and wealthiest academic presses in the world? Shhh. Don't tell.

  Presses and libraries (and their respective host institutions) don't have to be on a collision course, so it's regrettable whenever they come to blows. In my opinion, the plaintiffs always bear a much larger share of the responsibility for the failure to find common ground. Lawsuits should be a last resort, not a tactic.

  The problem is that we always come back to the $64k question on digital rights: if a university library purchases a digital copy of a publication, do they have the right (not according to the publisher, but under the Copyright Act and the U.S. Constitution) to circulate that publication to more than one user at a time? In the old days, libraries were constrained by the reality of their owning only a fixed number of copies. But now suddenly the digital medium gives them the ability to distribute a virtually infinite number of impressions. So can they parcel out those impressions as they see fit? What exactly did they buy for their money: a single copy of the work, or that same work in an infinitely reproducible format?

  The fact is, whatever answer you choose with, it's going to make someone unhappy, and there are good reasons to want both presses and libraries to flourish. So instead of these ridiculous winner-take-all lawsuits, maybe we could try to be a little more collaborative, following the lead of some of the more forward-thinking press-library collaborations (Penn State, etc.).

  After all, this whole RIAA-type lawsuit approach is _so_ 1990s...