It is no longer required for professor's to get copyright permission for
course packets.  I do remember the days when we had to do this (early
1990s), and it was such a huge burden, that apparently the publishers backed
off, because professors were simply not making up course packets any more.
I know that the library gets copyright permission before putting things up
on electronic reserve, but they do not pay the authors or original
publishers for this.

Again, the current laws state that one copy per person for educational
purposes is legal.

>But more to the point, according the majority opinion, was that the author
>was LOSING the royalty, because students who bought the packet were not
>buying the book or paying for the article or whatever.

Authors of professional journal articles do not get royalties on their
published articles, anyway (only on books), so that is a moot point.  The
distinction is between each end-user going to the library and making their
own personal photocopy (which is perfectly legal) versus one person making a
bunch of copies and selling one copy to each end-user for the cost of the
paper and photocopying only.  Kinko's, Notes 'N Quotes, CopyCorner, and
other photocopying services in this community do not charge any more for
photocopying course packets than they do for copying my typed version of a
recipe.  It is 4.5 cents per page, regardless.  Thus, they make no more
profit on the sale of academic photocopies than they do on any other.  They
even toss in spiral binding, colored paper covers, and dividers for free if
requested.  Of course it doesn't cost them 4.5 cents per page to make the
copies, but they don't make any more profit on this than any other kind of
photocopying, is the point.  Professional journal publishers know that
professors are not going to make students buy a single edition of the
journal in order to read one copy.  In many cases, single editions of a
journal are not available for purchase, or are only available for one year
after publication.  Likewise, publishers of books know that a professor is
not going to make the students buy an entire book in order to read one
chapter.  And if they are going to charge $5 copyright fees for one chapter,
that the professor will simply drop their selection from the course packet.
So, as far as I am aware, they have relented.

>If the author gives permission -- as well he or she might, out of graciousnes
>and a desire to be read -- then obviously its a different story, but you
>gotta ask.

Again, in most professional academic publications, a book author typically
signs away all copyright laws to the publisher, so the author's wishes, or
desired to give or not give permission, are irrelevant.  The publisher can
sell permission for reprint purposes (for a profit) to another publication
without even telling the author it has done so.  The author gets a tiny
percentage as royalty when this happens, and often the first time they know
it has happened is when they see the line on their royalty statement.  For
instance, the publisher of Dancing Skeletons has sold reprint rights to
several collected readers for individual chapters out of the book.  Those
are published in for-profit publications, so the publishers must pay a fee,
and I get a small portion of that fee.  And wasn't it Kathleen Huggins who
sold an abridged version of one of her breastfeeding books to one of the
formula companies for inclusion in their gift bags?  She had no control, and
indeed, no prior knowledge of their decision to do so, and was very upset.

Kathy Dettwyler

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html