Date: 27 Oct 2012
Setting Aside the Course Reader: The Legal, Economic, and Pedagogical Reasons
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In this article we examine the changing status of the course reader as an instructional technology in higher education. We assess the advantages of simply providing students bibliographic entries for assigned readings instead of readers, and we evaluate this alternative in regards to intellectual property and fair use issues focusing on Cambridge University Press v. Becker (2012). A study of 110 course readers showed that 45 % of the readings are freely available either through the university library or open access sources. Finally, we review a number of pedagogical benefits to having students work directly with scholarship within a dynamically hyperlinked environment.
A bad deal: AUCC/Access Copyright Model license agreement. (2012). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Association of University Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=1079
Aufderheide, P., & Jaszi, P. (2011). Reclaiming fair use: How to put balance back into copyright. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corporation, 758 F. Supp. 1522 (S.D. New York 1991).
Cambridge University Press v. Becker, Civil Action: 1:08-cv-01425-ODE (N.D. Georgia 2012).
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13 (2004).
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2002). Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eisenberg, M. B. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(2), 39–47.
Emmett, A., Stratton, J., Peterson, A. T., Church-Duran, J., & Haricombe, L. (2011). Toward open access: It takes a village. Journal of Library Administration, 51, 557–579.CrossRef
Fisher, W. W., III. (1988). Reconstructing fair use doctrine. Harvard Law Review, 101, 1659–1795.CrossRef
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50, 906–914.CrossRef
Gillen, A., Robe, J., & Garrett, D. (2011). Net tuition and net price trends in the United States: 2000–2009. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
Grimmelmann, J. (2012, May 13). Inside the Georgia State opinion [Blog post]. The Laboratorium. Retrieved from http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/05/13/inside_the_georgia_state_opinion
Kolar, R. L., Sabatini, D. A., & Fink, L. D. (2002). Laptops in the classroom: Do they make a difference? Journal of Engineering Education, 91, 397–401.CrossRef
Lee, F. (2011). An empirical analysis of costs, labor and copyright issues in course reader preparation: A case study of SIPX Spring 2011 Print on Demand deployment. Stanford, CA: MediaX.
Leval, P. N. (1989). Toward a fair use standard. Harvard Law Review, 103, 1105–1136.CrossRef
Lewin, T. (2012, June 6). Biden and college presidents talk about paying the bills. New York Times, p. A12.
Liebowitz, S. J. (1985). Copying and indirect appropriability: Photocopying of journals. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 945–957.CrossRef
Monahan, P. (2012, May 29). York will not enter into Access Copyright Agreement. yFile. Retrieved from http://yfile.news.yorku.ca/2012/05/29/york-will-not-enter-access-copyright-licence/
O’Keeffe, J., Willinsky, J., & Maggio, L. (2011). Public access and use of health research: An exploratory study of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy using interviews and surveys of health personnel. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e97.CrossRef
Parry, M., & Howard J. (2011, May 29). 2 universities under the legal gun: Publishers take on Georgia State U., while video producers sue UCLA. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/2-Universities-Under-the-Legal/127688/
Priem, J., Piwowar, H., Hemminger, B. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. New Orleans, LA: Metrics: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research.
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996).
Raff, D. (2011). The immaterial text: Digital technology, the Google Book settlement, and the distribution of print culture in the United States. Entrepriseset Histoire, 64, 146–166.CrossRef
Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Tamburri, R. (2012, April 25). University sector opts for “long-term certainty” with copyright pact. University Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/university-sector-opts-for-long-term-certainty-with-copyright-pact.aspx
Willinsky, J. (2009). The stratified economics of open access. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39, 53–70.
Willinsky, J., & Provencale, J. (2012). The intellectual and institutional properties of learning: Historical reflections on patronage, autonomy, and transaction. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
- Setting Aside the Course Reader: The Legal, Economic, and Pedagogical Reasons
Innovative Higher Education
Volume 38, Issue 5 , pp 341-354
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Course reader
- Intellectual property
- Fair use