Within the academic arena librarians, professors, and researchers alike, are often unaware of the rights they have to use or reproduce many copyrighted sources. Throughout time, technological advances, starting with the photocopier, have been blamed for the confusion over fair use and other legal copyright practices within the academic setting. This is because Copyright Law, though seemingly technologically neutral, does not account for advances in technology that are made between modifications of the law, which cannot change as often as people would like. Another culprit seems to be publications that, in an attempt to elucidate fair use in an understandable language, often convey the rights of academic persons to educational resources by listing what they cannot do, instead of what they can. This kind of language and approach has led many to shy away from the use of certain resources that could very well influence the effectiveness of their work, for fear that they will be sued. With the vastly increasing number of ways a computer and other technologies can be used, now, more than ever, it is crucial that students and educators become aware of their rights to the intellectual property that is so readily available to them. Though some laws have been set in place to protect the rights of publishers, printers, and authors in this respect, many of these issues must still be understood through the application of fair use principles. For this reason, my essay focuses on issues of fair use in the academic setting and the ways academic experiences can be negatively affected my common misinterpretations of it. I intend to show how such confusion over issues of fair use is disruptive and detrimental to scholarly pursuits, and argue for the incorporation of fair use education for all members of an academic setting.

A major precursor to the "Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Media Literacy Education," this investigation was used as the basis for the Center for Social Media at American University and the Media Education Lab at Temple University's understanding of the copyright confusion circulating within educational settings and there release of the "Code" to try and alleviate some of this confusion.  Unlike other sources I plan to use, which approach the issue of copyright confusion and the importance of diminishing it from a relatively theoretical standpoint, this investigation presents the issue on the basis of evidence collected in dozens of interviews conducted with both teachers and makers of media literacy curriculums. 

This investigations not only explains the types of confusion these educators have over copyright law, but also where that confusion seems to stem from.  It also explains the unnecessary ways that teachers have learned to cope with their anxieties over this confusion, which is normally to quietly defy copyright laws in the classroom and "take risks in the name of education" or to "hyper-comply" with the copyright law; in both these instances the teacher is restricted by one risk or another, and this exemplifies the importance of proper education about the issues of copyright law and the scope of fair use.  Teachers should not have to "take risks" when it comes to delivering important information within the classroom. 

For the sake of my thesis I believe it is important to understand the root-causes of copyright confusion, because it is not enough to simply explain that this confusion exists.  This investigation will help to validate my own argument for the importance of properly understanding copyright law, because the number of interviews performed and amount of information collected proves that this is a problem existing across a broad spectrum of academic settings.

In this text, Rice outlines the contractual and technological regulations that have been placed on the access of digital information.  His argument is that information is the "common fiber of science, arts, hostory, culture, and even self," and that the press to privatize control over acces to digital information "diminishes the luster of the late-twentieth-and early-twenty-first-century opening of the information society." 

Specifically Rice focuses on the implications of the privatization of control over things such cultural knowledge, including folklore, legends, and information on heritage, in cases where this information would not be legally accessible to members of the represented culture.  Rice argues that the importance of the information era is the access one has to learn about the things most intimately related to him as a person.

I find this essay useful because, though it targets the wrongfulness of privatized control from a deeply personal level, the underlying question of whether all information should be accessible to everyone is also present, because within the academic arena researchers develop relationships with information that may have no relevance to their cultural backgrounds but remains as personal to them as if it did.  This essay also asks its reader to think about the kind of information he would not want to be withheld from him.  Though the essay doesn't specifically get at the issue of confusion over copyright and fair use issues within an academic setting, it does provide an awareness of what information may be being withheld from researchers, and forces those researchers to consider the usefulness of this kind of information to there personal projects.  This kind of awareness goes hand in hand with the understanding of fair use and copyright that my thesis argues for because it emphasizes the importance of having an active and correct knowledge of fair use and copyright issues that affect university settings, in order to get the most out of ones education.

This text supports my thesis in many of the same ways that other of my texts do.  However, my main interest in this text is what Crews argues is a "Trend toward Restrictions."  This concept explains the way in which, because many universities cannot confidently interpret fair use guidelines, especially with reference to the availability of software for students, many of them have taken to revising software policies that do little more than completely restrict the making of copies and threaten liability.  University software policies condemn "illegal copying" or "unauthorized copying" often with warnings that read soemthing like "Unauthorized copying of of commercial software is a form of theft."  However, what these policies do not do is highlight the needs of the users, or explain what copying is legal or within fair use; and from this many academic community members go without crucial educational tools for fear of being sued.

Crews argues that by not developing a clearer system of outlining policies, universities ultimately ignore the preservation of their users' rights, instead forfeiting them altogether.  This notion supports my own argument as well, because it exemplifies the necessity of university educators (including librarians) to help researchers understand what they can do.  Researchers have the right to fully access their university services to their fullest extent.  It is the university's job then to make itself as accessible as possible.  Educating students about fair use and copyright is a crucial part of this accessibility.

A general explanation of the issues and history surrounding copyright law and library services, this text also summarizes pending issues of copyright and the importance of having them dealt with.  Many of the resources already circulating as guides for the legal use of copyrighted works for librarians and other educators are geared specifically toward face-to-face educational experiences, such as classroom settings.  Even instances in which rules for online or other electronic reproductions of copyrighted works are outlined, there still seems to be a great deal of confusion about where distance education fits into these guidelines.  For this reason the DMCA has suggested that the Copyright Office amend the the Copyright Act to more clearly define what constitutes a "classroom."

Other issues that are still pending include the question of whether producers of databases, which arrange lists of facts in an alphabetical or other standard form, should get added protection against laws which require "compilations" to be original both in the sense that they are not copied and that they possess some "quantum of creativity."  Warwick, here, points out the importance of researchers and educators to be aware of their rights, so that we are able to continue to ensure that facts will never become protected under copyright laws.  This notion helps further my argument about the importance of educators and researchers understanding their rights as well.  The essay also will help me to contextualize the major issues of copyright law as they refer to library services, which I believe will help elucidate where much of the current confusion about copyright law within the academic arena stems from.  The issue of database protection also brings up interesting questions about the necessity of the Copyright Office to develop laws or guidelines for all aspects of educational services or if many of these aspects should be left to interpretations of fair use.

During the revision process that lead to the Copyright Act of 1976, the photocopier had become the biggest technological threat of the time.  The addition of photocopying services to many libraries made publishers afraid that, instead of renewing many of their periodical subscriptions, libraries would begin servicing their users by interlibrary loans exclusively.  To help mediate this situation between publishers, authors, printers, educators, and librarians the Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), was given the job of developing a set of guidelines for the minimum amount that one could copy without becoming liable for suit for copyright infringement.

This report is important because the guidelines still pertain to today.  Photocopiers still play a hugely important role in library services.  They are used to make PDF files out of texts, which are then put into online educational sites, such as blackboard. They can also be scanned and turned into Word documents, which can be edited and reorganized.  The multitude of things one can do with photocopies now is a seperate legal issue.  However, the first step in doing any of these things is knowing what you are and are not allowed to reproduce in the first place.