PT123.S1.P1.Q2 > Explanation

Hide analysis

In a recent court case, a copy-shop owner was accused of violating copyright law when, in the preparation of "course packs"—materials photocopied from books and journals and packaged as readings for particular university courses—he copied materials without obtaining permission from or paying sufficient fees to the publishers. …

Intro topic · Copyright violation case

Copy shop printed course packs without permission from the publishers of the source material

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. He also maintained that course packs, which are ubiquitous in higher education, allow professors to assign important readings in books and journals too costly for students to be expected to purchase individually. …

Copy shop's position · Obtaining permission is impractical, costly for both shop and students

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.

Draw distinction · Between this case and other educational copy-printing

Inference: if this case is unique, then most course packs are not printed by a copy shop and are not sold at a profit

Copyright law outlines several factors involved in determining whether the use of copyrighted material is protected, including: whether it is for commercial or nonprofit purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the length and importance of the excerpt used in relation to the entire work; and the effect of its use on the work's potential market value. …

Provide background · On copyright protection

Expect the author to show why these factors are important to this case

In bringing suit, 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. …

Publishers' position · Slippery slope

If this copy shop doesn't have to pay for copyright, other copy shops will follow suit, and scholarly writing will be devalued

Nonetheless, the court decided that this reasoning did not demonstrate that course packs would have a sufficiently adverse effect on the current or potential market of the copyrighted works or on the value of the copyrighted works themselves. The court instead ruled that since the copies were 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. 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.

Court's position · Copy shop didn't violate copyright

Reasons: (1) The scholarly writing market won't be devalued by copied course packs; (2) Educational material gets special treatment under copyright law; (3) Copy shop's fee structure was permissible

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, not the exploitation of these copyrighted materials themselves. The court held that copyright laws do not prohibit professors and students, who may make copies for themselves, from using the photoreproduction services of a third party in order to obtain those same copies at lesser cost.

Support court's position · Special treatment for education extends to copy shops that service schools

Passage Style

Single position

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the author lists several of the factors used to determine whether copyrighted material is protected by law primarily to

demonstrate why the copy-shop owner was exempt from copyright law in this case

The articulation of the factors doesn’t show why the copy-shop owner wasn’t violating the law. Rather, the court’s analysis of the facts of the case based on those factors is what shows why the court believes the owner wasn’t violating the law. That analysis happens later in the paragraph. Also, it’s not clear that the owner is “exempt” from copyright law. Rather, copyright law still applies, but he was found not to be in violation of the law.

explain the charges the publishers brought against the copy-shop owner

The list of factors doesn’t explain the charges brought. It explains how the court will evaluate the charges brought, but that doesn’t constitute an explanation of the charges themselves.

illustrate a major flaw in the publishers' reasoning

The list of factors doesn’t show a flaw in the publisher’s reasoning.

defend the right to use copyrighted materials for educational purposes

The list of factors doesn’t involve a defense of the right to use copyrighted materials. The author doesn’t express an opinion about this right.

provide the legal context for the arguments presented in the case

This best captures the purpose as explained above. The list of factors is how courts decide whether there was a violation of copyright law. This helps us understand the publishers’ and copy-shop owners’ arguments.

89%

PrepTest 123 - Section 1 - Passage 1 - Question 2

Passage explanation

Question explanation

Ask a tutor

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action