This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: prohibitive in many instances, thereby 10 Docket no. 20, University of Texas System at pars. 2(a) and (b).
See e.g., Docket no. 44, Albert Carnesale o/b/o Association of American Univerisities, et. al.; See
also, Docket no. 8 American Association of Community Colleges at p. 5 quoting Testimony of Laura N.
Gasaway of January 27, 1999 (“More fundamentally, the power to license is… ultimately, the power to
deny access to information, too great a shroud to place over distance education.” ); Docket no. 31,
Association of American Universities, et. al. at p. 4; Testimony of John Flores, (DC transcript at p. 15).
See e.g., Stewart v. Abend, 494 U.S. 207, 229 (1990) (“a copyright owner has the capacity
arbitrarily to refuse to license one who seeks to exploit the work”); Testimony of Victor S. Perlman,
American Society of Media Photographers (DC transcript at p. 222); Docket no. 11, American Society of
Media Photographers at p. 6.
DC transcript p. 47; Docket no. 4, Association of American Publishers at p. 3.
11 14 See e.g., Testimony of Kathleen Burke, University of Maryland (DC transcript at p. 84). Docket no.
10, University of Montana at p. 19; Docket no. 19, North Virginia Community College at par. 4(a);
Docket no. 21, North Carolina State University at p. 5; Docket no. 43, University Continuing Education
Association at p. 2. 4 discriminating against their off-site students.15 For the reasons stated below, these costs will continue to come down. It is significant to note that those who
maintain that these costs necessitate further copyright exemptions have failed to
articulate a rationale as to why these costs should be shifted from the
beneficiaries of the technology permitting distance education to the creators of the
very works they desire to use.
There is an ongoing process of informing both the academic and content
provider communities as to the o...
View Full Document
- Spring '11