In a recent court case, a copy shop owner was accused of violating copyright law when,

in the preparation of course packs, which are materials photocopied from books and journals

and packaged as readings for particular university courses, so that's what course packs are,

this owner was accused of violating copyright law when in making those course packs,

he copied materials without getting permission from or paying sufficient fees to the publisher.

So this is basically just describing the lawsuit,

this is what the owner was sued for doing.

As the owner of five small copy shops serving several educational institutions in the area,

he argued, as have others in the photocopy business,

that the current process for obtaining permissions is time-consuming, cumbersome,

and expensive, so that is an argument of the copy shop owner defending himself from this lawsuit.

He also maintained, so he also said that course packs, which are ubiquitous,

or in other words, extremely common in higher education,

allow professors to assign important readings in books and journals

too costly for students to be expected to purchase individually, so this is another argument.

We're basically allowing students to access stuff that they wouldn't be able to afford.

While the use of copyrighted material for teaching purposes

is typically protected by certain provisions of copyright law,

this case was unique in that the copying of course packs was done by a copy shop and at a profit.

So this is something interesting about the case.

It is an example of copying for profit, so it doesn't get the protection

that you might otherwise get if you're just copying stuff for teaching.

Now for my low-res summary, I'm going to think of the first sentence here as basically

introducing the topic, which is this lawsuit.

And then in the middle, we actually get the argument of the copy shop owner.

And then in the final part, the author is basically drawing a distinction between

what's going on in this case and other uses that are not for profit.

Here we do have something that is for profit,

and so this is something that sets apart this case from other examples of copying.

Now right now, I don't detect any author opinion about the lawsuit,

like who should win or who should lose or who should have won, who should have lost.

So I am expecting to get that in the next paragraph or somewhere later in the passage.

Let's see if that's what we get.

Copyright law outlines several factors involved in determining whether the use

of copyrighted material is protected, including, and so we're about to get stuff that is relevant

for whether it's legal to use copyrighted material.

So one factor is whether it is for commercial or non-profit purposes,

and in this case, it looks like it was commercial.

Another factor is the nature of the copyrighted work.

In addition, we have the length and importance of the excerpt

used in relation to the entire work, so how much of it are you copying?

And then finally, we're also told the effect of the use of the copyrighted work

on the work's potential market value.

That's another factor.

And I guess the idea behind that is if the stuff you're copying

decreases the value, the market value of the original work,

that probably is not that great for the original work,

so it would count against you if you're trying to say you're copying is legal.

Now in bringing the lawsuit, the publishers held that other copy shop owners would cease

paying permission fees, causing the potential value of the copyrighted works

of scholarship to diminish.

So that is an argument of the publishers against the copy shop owner.

But nonetheless, the court decided that this reasoning did not demonstrate

that course packs would have a sufficiently adverse or harmful effect

on the current or potential market of the copyrighted works

or on the value of the copyrighted works themselves.

So the court rejected the publisher's argument

that the copying in this case would decrease market value.

The court instead ruled that since the copies were for educational purposes,

and so I guess that connects back to the nature of the copyrighted work,

it's for educational purposes,

the fact that the copy shop owner had profited from making the course packs

did not prevent him from receiving protection under the law.

Interesting.

So even though it is for profit, he is making money from this,

the court here is basically saying this use is similar to the use described up here,

copyrighted material for teaching purposes.

Because of that educational use, the profit issue doesn't make it illegal.

According to the court, the owner had not exploited copyrighted material

because his fee was not based on the content of the works he copied.

He charged by the page regardless of whether the content was copyrighted.

And so here the court is saying there isn't this exploitation of copyrighted material

because the charge is just based on pages.

It's not like the copyright owner cares about the actual content

and is charging based on what's inside.

It's just charging based on page.

And that factor there, it might have something to do with the effect on the market value.

It's actually not totally clear to me which factor up here

connects back to this final point about charging by the page.

So maybe the author will clear that up.

I'm not totally sure.

Now for my low res summary of this paragraph,

in the beginning we get legal factors determining whether copywriting

or use of copyrighted material is allowed.

So I'll just think of this part as, let's say, legal factors.

And then we get the the publisher's argument right over here in this sentence.

So pub argument.

And then everything down here is the the court's position.

They seem to be on the side of the copy shop owner saying this is legal.

Now let's see if we get the author's opinion at the end.

That's what I'm thinking we'll get.

But we'll see.

In the court's view, the business of producing and selling course packs

is more properly seen as the exploitation of professional copying technologies

and a result of the inability of academic parties

to reproduce printed materials efficiently.

So this is still the court's view.

The court's saying this is not exploiting copyrighted material.

It's basically just using copying technology.

And it's actually something that may even be helpful to academic parties.

Right now, if different professors want to provide materials to their classes,

it's inefficient, at least in the time when this was written,

when they didn't have the internet

or when people mainly read books and physical papers.

You can't really expect these professors to do all their own copying

or the students to do all their own copying.

So it's more efficient if a copy shop owner does something like this.

The final sentence says the court held,

so in other words the court ruled,

that copyright laws do not prohibit professors and students

who may make copies for themselves

from using the photo reproduction services of a third party

in order to obtain those copies at a lesser cost.

So this right here is, again, the court's view.

I'll just be a little bit more specific.

This is the court's ruling.

The copy shop owner won.

What they were doing was not illegal.

let's think about the passage style here.

You could think of this like a single position kind of passage.

It's essentially just summarizing what happened in the court case

and then telling us how the court ruled.

Now we do get the arguments within the court case,

the arguments of the copy shop owner as well as the publisher.

So maybe you could think of that as a debate.

But if you did, you'd still want to recognize

that we get the court's ruling

and the arguments are presented in the context

of what the court thinks about it.

So overall, I think the thrust of the passage

is down here, the court's view.

That's also where the main point is going to come from.

The main point should be how the court ruled here.

What did the court think about the situation?

That's what the author wants us to take away from this,

not just the arguments of each individual side,

but how did it end up?

What did the court conclude?

So with that, let's go ahead and take a look at the questions.

Number four says the info in the passage provides the most support for which of the following statements about copyright law

So this is an implied question about copyright law. What is suggested about copyright law?

It's a little bit tough to anticipate because the whole passage is about copyright law

I mean, maybe the correct answer is going to come from where we go into these factors in copyright law

But I don't have a strong anticipation for where the right answer is probably going to come from

We'll just have to jump in. Answer choice A says copyright law can be one of the most complex areas of any legal system

They just didn't say anything suggesting a comparison of complexity one kind of law versus another kind of law that wasn't supported

The next answer B says courts have been inconsistent in their interpretations of certain provisions of copyright law

We didn't get conflicting interpretations of language in law

I don't remember anything about one court or some courts interpret this provision like this other courts

Interpret it in a different way

So that's why I'm moving on from answer choice B. Now to be clear that the passage does mention how using

Copyrighted material can be legal depending on educational purposes. I think that's mentioned over here

Yeah for teaching purposes

But that's not an example of different courts having different

Interpretations of a provision the next answer C says the number of the kinds of materials granted protection under copyright law is

This just isn't brought up are fewer and fewer things getting protection. I don't know

I mean if anything you would think more and more stuff gets protection because of technology

But in any case, I just don't remember this point

Which says new practices can compel the courts to refine how copyright law is applied now

This is a very generally stated

But I think they're writing it that way to throw people off if we stop to think about what this might be referring to

I think D actually makes sense. Remember in the first paragraph. They mentioned that what happened here was unique

This is like a special case where copying of course packs is done by a copy shop for profit

So I think you could consider this a new practice even even using copying

Technology might be considered a new practice at least when it comes to making course packs

And what ended up happening here was the court did have to confront this issue. What was what they were doing legal?

How should copyright law apply to the copy shop owner?

So I think it is arguably fair to say what happened here led the court to refine how copyright law is applied now

Maybe you have an issue with compel, but I mean, let's hold off on that compel

I think can be interpreted as puts pressure on and that's a fair

Interpretation of what's happening here the the court looked at this they had to decide the case and so they decided in in an interesting

Way or they decided in a way that was previously not already part of copyright law now

Let's compare D to answer choice e says copyright law is primarily concerned with making published materials available for educational use

There are cases where you're allowed to copy things for educational use

But I have no basis to say that this is like the main thing that this area of law is concerned with there was no

Comparison between other kinds of uses or other kinds of purposes of copyright law

So that's why I'm getting rid of answer choice e D is the best answer here doesn't matter if you have issues with the word

There's pressure on the court to do something you could even read compel as just the idea of leading the court to do something

That's fair, and there's no support for any other answer here

So that's why D is correct also by the way sometimes people have a problem with the word new

But I think that's it's reasonable that in the context of this case if if something is unique that means it's new

It's never been done before so that's why the word new doesn't make D wrong