USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Serial
Language:
English
Creator:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Publisher:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E11-00252
usfldc handle - e11.252
System ID:
SFS0024511:00252


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 10issue 4series Year mods:caption 20022002Month January1Day 1212mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-01-12



PAGE 1

1 of 12 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 4January 12, 2002ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2002, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .Technology is Changing What's "Fair Use" in Teachin g—Again Linda Howe-Steiger University of California, Berkeley Brian C. Donohue University of California, BerkeleyCitation: Howe-Steiger, L. & Donohue, B.C. (2002, J anuary 12). Technology is changing what's "fair use" in teaching—again, Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (4). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n4.html.Abstract The Doctrine of Fair Use was established by the cou rts to exempt certain activities such as teaching and research from the l egal requirements of the copyright law. Before the 1976 Revision of the Copyright Act, only two cases were brought against teachers for copyrig ht infringements. In both cases the teachers lost because their extensiv e copying was found to impact the copyright owner's market for legally pub lished copies. Although the 1976 Act explicitly recognizes the exi stence of potentially Fair Uses, the act makes application of the princip le highly situational. Classroom Guidelines attached to the Act make appli cation even more murky and constrained. After 1976 photocopy technol ogy and the advent of the coursepack began a trend towards circumscrib ing situations in

PAGE 2

2 of 12which Fair Use may be applied. Potential impact on a new, lucrative market for sale of rights to copy portions of books and journals appears to dominate contemporary case law. Desktop publishi ng and Internet and web-based teaching, the authors believe, will furth er erode traditional applications of Fair Use for educational purposes. They argue that instructors and researchers should assume that ther e is no Fair Use on the Internet. Guidelines are provided for faculty and o thers considering dissemination of potentially copyrighted materials to students via digital technologies. Ask any teacher in the United Stated whether or not it's "fair" to make free use of copyrighted materials in the classroom and his or h er answer will most likely be, "Of course it is." Ask that same teacher why it is so o bviously "fair" and you will probably get a blank look. Teachers just "know" that educati on has important social benefit and that they as teachers are exempt from usual legal o bligations surrounding use of copyrighted materials. Or are they?IntroductionHistorical Perspective The Doctrine of Fair Use was conceived by the courts. It exempts certain categories of activity in some instances fr om the legal obligation to obtain permission from the author of a work before copying performing, or displaying that work. Potentially exempt activities include teachin g, research, scholarship, reporting, commentary, and even parody. The justification for the Fair Use exemption derives from the court's view that sometimes free and open disco urse about ideas can be more of a stimulant to creation of new knowledge and new crea tive works than protection of the author's ability to reap financial reward from his work.. Traditionally the use of excerpts from copyrighted materials for classroom teaching h as been conceived as a Fair Use. In 1976 the U.S. Congress formally adopted the Doctrin e of Fair Use into its revision of the Copyright Act.That was twenty-five years ago. Since then technolo gies for reproducing, copying and displaying copyrighted materials have changed drama tically, and the locus for teaching activities has expanded beyond the classroom to inc lude the airwaves (as in educational TV) and now the Internet. These changes have affect ed authors', teachers', and publishers' perspectives about is "fair" and what i s not "fair." Today as the educational community moves rapidly towards web-based education and a growing emphasis on distance learning, we believe it is important to ta ke a another look at Fair Use and its relationship to evolving instructional technologies if only to protect schools, teachers, and course developers from unexpected legal challen ges. First, however, to understand Fair Use and its appl ication to education, one must give up any idea that "fair use" was ever really about equi ty. It's not. Like copyright itself, the doctrine derives ultimately from Western concepts o f individualism and principles of marketbased capitalism. The identification of wha t is "fair" or "not fair" is deeply entwined with the nature and ownership of the techn ologies used to reproduce or distribute the works in question as well as to who stands to gain or loose from a particular type of use.

PAGE 3

3 of 12Constitutional PerspectiveThe basis for copyright is established by Article 1 Section 8.h of the United States Constitution, which states: "The Congress shall hav e power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited tim es to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and di scoveries." Copyright (along with patent, trade secret, and trademark) is the tool th at implements the Constitutional purpose.Copyright is a legally enforceable intellec tual property right that protects a financial incentive designed to encourage individua ls to take the risk of creating new works or improving on previous ones. The productivi ty and innovation that lie at the heart of US economic success seems to provide clear testimony for the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution..Educational Case PrecedentsBefore the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, the reco rd of cases involving Fair Use of copyrighted material in the classroom is sparse. Wh at exists draws on the general principle that copying for classroom use without ob taining permission from the author was not an infringement of copyright as long as the re was no impact on the sale of published books or sheet music. There were only two cases concerning classroom copying by instructors before 1976. Both addressed the question of what portion of a copyrighted work could be freely copied and distrib uted to students under the Doctrine of Fair Use.The earliest of these, Macmillan Co. v. King 223 Fe d. 862 (D.C. Mass. 1914), was brought against a Harvard tutor who produced for hi s students very detailed outlines and summaries of an economics textbook published by Mac millan. Macmillan argued this was an infringement of copyright and negatively imp acted their market. Although most students did purchase the classroom text, some did not, apparently relying solely on their tutor's materials. The court ruled against the tuto r. In the next case, Withol v. Crow 309 F.2d. 778th Ci r. 1962, fifty years later, the court similarly ruled against a music teacher, who, short by forty-eight copies of a musical score for his students, decided to make copies rath er than purchase additional scores from the publisher. These two cases represent essen tially all of the case law defining the application of Fair Use to teaching activities unti l the 1976 Copyright Revision Act. Clearly it did seem at that point that if a teacher stayed safely below some upper limit of copying an entire work, then the teacher would not risk a complaint that her activity was not Fair Use.The 1976 Copyright Law RevisionAfter 1976, however, Fair Use became more complicat ed for teachers. Even as the Congressional revision generally identified copying for educational purposes a potentially Fair Use, it laid a foundation for conf usion by setting forth criteria to use in the determination of whether or not a specific inst ance of copying was actually a Fair Use. The analysis of Fair Use thus became highly si tuational. Two sections of the Act are directly relevant for this discussion.

PAGE 4

4 of 12Section 107 specifically states that making multipl e copies of copyrighted materials for use in a classroom is not in itself an infringement of copyright. It then defines four factors that are to be used to analyze any specific situation—and so enters uncertainty: In determining whether the use made of a work in an y particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include : the purpose and character of the use, including whe ther such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education p urposes; 1. the nature of the copyrighted work; 2. the amount and substantiality of the portion used i n relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 3. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 4. In interpreting this section, the courts thus far h ave generally viewed the forth factor, potential market impact, as the most important fact or, given that the commercial and financial monopoly is at the heart of the concept o f copyright. However, the use of the word "includes" rather than "are" in this section o pens the door to a suggestion that there could be other factors, perhaps more important, inf luencing the interpretation of a particular situation.The second relevant portion of the Act is Section 1 10, paragraphs 1 and 2. This section establishes that Fair Use may apply to performance or display of copyrighted works during "face-to-face teaching activities" that are "a regular part of the systematic instructional activities of a government body or a nonprofit educational institution." The language here seems to focus on making a careful di stinction between what might be construed as Fair Use for educational purposes and some other use that might be construed as either "entertainment" or a commercial ly motivated performance or display. The limitation of non-infringing performances to on ly those used in "face-to-face teaching activities" and the introduction of the va gue concept that the non-infringing performance must be "integrated into a systematic c ourse of instruction" further increase the complexity of applying this doctrine in the con temporary educational environment where digital instructional technologies allow teac hers to download audio, video, graphics, text, photography, and radio and TV-like "webcasts" and "display" them to students inside or outside the traditional classroo m via a class website.The Classroom GuidelinesIncorporated by reference into the Act is a set of "Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions." This docu ment provides detailed examples of how to implement an appropriate balance of private intellectual property rights of copyright owners (usually the large commercial publ ishers) and the public benefit that may result from unrestricted educational uses of co pyrighted materials by teachers and students. The guidelines were developed by a divers e group of copyright stakeholders. Congress's purpose in incorporating them into the A ct, according to the Congressional Record, was to demonstrate wide consensus on the ap plication of "Fair Use" to educational practice.We suggest that the Congress may have been deluding itself. In fact, the Congressional

PAGE 5

5 of 12Record also reveals there was some real disagreemen t between those stakeholders interested in maintaining copyright free from any s ignificant educational entitlements (that is, publishers and authors) and the academic community which views Fair Use for education purposes as an historic privilege. Educat ors on the committee also argued that teachers should be excused from obtaining permissio ns because the very process of obtaining and paying royalties to use materials wou ld be an onerous duty and an inhibitor of academic freedom.Indeed, the guidelines are very conservative and ar e increasingly difficult to apply in practice. Part of the reason they sound so silly to day is that in being so specific they have simply not kept pace with changes in copying techno logies (photocopying and computers). The guidelines set a very constrained s tandard for what may be construed as a "Fair Use" in an educational setting and may appe ar to contradict a more expansive interpretation of the language in the statute itsel f. For example, the guidelines define "brevity" as not more than 250 words of poetry, or 2500 words or less from a complete article, short story or essay, or 1000 words or 10 percent (whichever is less) from any prose work.. Copies of these brief excepts are noninfringing only if they are also "spontaneous" (i.e., according to the guidelines, a last-minute inspiration of the teacher) and one-time. According to authors of the guideline s, the basis for an exemption for such spontaneous one-time use of copyrighted works was simply to allow teachers enough time to obtain permission for the next class room use (a process that in the mid-1970s took from four to eight weeks). Lost is t he court's concept in the original doctrine of Fair Use that there was general social benefit in open discourse which itself was an encouragement of new ideas and innovation. F inally, the guidelines make clear that any post-class distributions of teaching mater ials to an interested but non-registered student could never be construed as Fair Use. (The guidelines may be viewed on-line at www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnes/copyrep.html, Appendix I.) Why did the academic community sign-on to the guide lines if they were not practical? One answer may involve the technology for classroom copying in 1976. The mimeograph machine was cheap but it was also messy and irritating. The danger of teachers seriously impacting revenues from the sale of books and periodicals by making copies on the departmental mimeograph machines prob ably seemed fairly remote even to the teachers themselves. Indeed, in practice man y teachers may have felt the constraints of the guidelines tight but livable giv en the situation. Anyway, it was standard teaching practice at that time, particular ly in colleges and universities, was to send the students to the library reserved reading r oom. Still, there were those who were wary. The American Association of University Professors and the Association of Law Schools joine d in arguing that the guidelines failed to take into account the reality of how teac hers actually used materials for teaching purposes (122 Cong. Rec., H 10, 880-81). They argue d, more to the point, To protect themselves, many Universities today still dissemina te the 1976 guidelines to their faculties, probably with tongue deeply embedded in cheek..Emergence of Photocopy TechnologyShortly after 1976 came the photocopy revolution. W ith it libraries and instructors had a means to quickly, easily, and cheaply reproduce qua ntities of materials for research and teaching. Instead of gathering books and journals o nto the shelves of the reserved book

PAGE 6

6 of 12room where students lined up to read assignments fr om the one or two available copies, libraries and instructors could just hit the "numbe r of copies" button on a big machine and in minutes have copies for even the largest cla ss. The old departmental mimeograph machine went to salvage and a typical student excus e for not doing the reading disappeared. Instructors also felt themselves freer to pick and choose reading material for their students without being bound by selection s in someone else's textbook.. Commercial copy centers sprang up around campuses, reserve reading rooms dimmed their lights, and the "coursepack" was born.Meanwhile publishers and authors saw the photocopy machine as creating a whole new market for the sale of rights to reprint portions o f books and articles from journals. Two cases established the rules for determining Fair Us e in this new technical environment. The first was Basic Books v. Kinko's 758 F. Supp. 1 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). In this case the publisher, Basic Books, challenged Kinko's fail ure to obtain permission from the copyright holders (usually the publishers) when rep roducing coursepacks. Although Kinko's argued that permission was not needed becau se the coursepacks were for classroom use and hence were exempt under Fair Use, the court agreed with Basic Books. Kinko's had unfortunately attracted the atte ntion of the publishing world by advertising its ability to produce quick turn aroun d of copies because it did not have to take the time to obtain permission from publishers.An analysis of the Kinko's case emphasizes the comm ercial nature of copyright law and demonstrates how the Doctrine of Fair Use may be mo dified when a new technology creates opportunities for business. The court held that Kinko's failure to obtain permission had negatively impacted the market in pe rmission or licensing fees. Kinko's had "extinguished" a financial reward to the copyri ght holder (the publisher), which was precisely the reward that copyright was designed to protect. Today most copy shops rigorously refuse to reproduce coursepacks unless p ermission to reprint has been granted in writing. Any permission fees charged by the copy right owner are then passed on to the students. The key to understanding the Kinko's case is to see that the court did not really address the Doctrine of Fair Use as it applies to a ctions by instructors and students. Instead, with typical narrowness, the court focused the discussion entirely on the two businesses in the middle of that educational relati onship. Since the copy shop had a commercial interest in the coursepack, the copy sho p could not view its own reproduction as "Fair Use," despite the end use of its product for classroom teaching purposes.The principle laid down in Basic Books v. Kinko's w as repeated, clarified, and perhaps strengthened in a second case on the same issue: Pr inceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services 99F.3d. 1381 (6th Cir. 1996). In this case, Michigan Document was one among several copy shops operating near campus. Its owner deliberately set out to test the ruling in the 1991 Basic Books case. Michi gan Document therefore, not only did not obtain permission to reproduce materials for co ursepacks, but also advertised this action, passed the savings incurred on to students, and used this reduction in price to undercut competitors. It is not surprising Michigan Document drew the attention of the publishers, and a negative ruling from the court.Again, however, the key to understanding the court' s ruling is the commercial exploitation of copyright. In brief, the court aske d: who is making money from the copying and who is losing money? The court reaffirm ed that if the copier (Michigan Document) makes money from the copying, then the co pying could not be construed to

PAGE 7

7 of 12be Fair Use, even though the reproduction had an ul timate educational purpose. The court amplified that the Fair Use exemption is not a blanket exemption and that when litigants have commercial interests, the burden of proof that a copying situation is "fair" lies with the copier—in this case the copy shop. Si nce ultimately the copy shop is in the business of commerce, that is in making money not i n teaching, the Doctrine of Fair Use does not apply. The court also again noted the exis tence of a lucrative new market in permissions created by photocopy technology. Teache rs who believe they can "get around" the commercial aspect of the copyshop decis ions by making their own copies in the library or on their own office copy machines mi ght do well to take another look at the story of the Harvard tutor back in 1914.The court has never actually tested the legitimacy of the coursepack itself, just of its reproduction by a commercial business. Essentially the coursepack is a unique collection of materials assembled by an instructor for a parti cular class that may be delivered one or more times. Components of the "pack" are quite l ong—whole chapters, articles, essays, or stories—far exceeding the so called safe harbor standards presented in the classroom guidelines. Under the 1976 Act such a col lection itself is a copyrightable work, referred to as a "collective work..."Digital Publishing and the InternetThe digital technology for both desk-top publishing and distance learning, including webcasting, class web-sites, elearning, and in-cl ass real-time Internet access, is here now here. With it has come a quantum leap in the mu rkiness of applying the Doctrine of Fair Use for education. Not only does the approach suggested by the 1976 Act seem outdated, but also Congress's recent effort to upda te copyright for the computer age—the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act—deliberately sidesteps many of the toughest issues for educators by declaring them simply "unse ttled." (See the "Report on Copyright and Distance Digital Education," May 1999, US Copyr ight Office available at Error! Bookmark not defined..)The first "unsettled"—if not "unsettling"—issue con cerns the definition "copy" on the Internet. When an on-line instructor assigns a stud ent something to read something and the student "retrieves" that something from a digit al file on a server connected to the Internet into her desktop computer, is that a copy? According to the Copyright Act, to be a "copy" the reproduced work needs only to be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. In Advanced Computer Services v. MAI Systems Corp., 845 F. Suppl. 356 (E.D. Va. 1994), the court ruled "the representation created in the RAM ‘is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration'." In other words, "Yes," the student is reading a "copy." But is this copy a legally reproduced copy or a copyright infringement? Although the focus of Advanced Computer Services wa s software, the principle laid down by that decision would seem to be applicable t o any work, including articles and Power Point presentations, or video clips, viewed o r read via the Internet. If that is so, it raises the spectre of every single viewing of copyr ighted materials over the Internet involving either a potential copyright infringement or a royalty payment. Will everything be pay-per-view? This interpretation seems overly r estrictive, undercutting the balancing of interests that copyright law attempts to achieve between public and private benefits. While authors do need protection of their ability t o reap benefits both in dollars and

PAGE 8

8 of 12reputation, the ultimate goal of copyright—the enco uragement and advancement of knowledge and creativity—would not be served by ske wing everything in the direction of the author's monopoly of copyright.Indeed, the court in Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services. Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) took a more reasonable approach when it characterized what happens when a user brow ses through materials on the Internet as "the functional equivalent reading"—not copying. Judge Whyte viewed this such reproduction of a file on the computer screen as simply a necessity for humans to perceive the information—rather like stand-up readi ng in a book store or borrowing a journal from the library. We hope, in the end, that Judge Whyte's reasonable view will prevail. Anti-copying technology certainly exists t o disable a reader's ability to print, attach, or email an article over the Internet—activ ities that may be closer to a traditional understanding of copying. However, such distinction s are by no means without uncertainty in the evolving legal environment.How, then, will the Fair Use Doctrine be applied to education and teaching in this environment? Unfortunately, current trends appear t o be towards protecting commercial interests rather than protecting the public's acces s to knowledge or learning. We note that the instructor and the learner in any on-line situation are often separated by one or many commercial interests—for example an Internet s ervice providers (ISPs) or an e-business providing course management or coursewar e to an instructor. One would do well to recall the Kinkos and the Michigan Document decisions. In addition, technology may help resolve the compla int made in the minority report on the classroom guidelines that the task of obtaining permission to use copyrighted materials is onerous and time consuming. This, at a ny rate, is one possible implication to be derived from the decision in American Geophysica l Union v. Texaco, 802 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). In this case the court ruled again st a Texaco researcher who, for his own convenience, regularly made photocopies of arti cles from journals which he kept in his office for future reference. Though such copyin g is common practice among both researchers and teachers, whether working in commer cial or noncommercial context, the court accepted the copyright owner's argument that permissions were easy to get because of new Internet-based Copyright Clearinghouse techn ology and then went on to reason that since the ultimate purpose of the researcher's activity was profit for his employer (Texaco) that the private monopoly interest of the authors should prevail. Somewhere the larger issue that led to the establis hment of the Doctrine of Fair Use in the first place seems to have gotten lost in excite ment over how easy the new technology can make the payments for copying rights flow. We a s a society need to stop a moment and review what earlier courts had to say about the importance of support for the individual teacher or researcher who is exploring i deas and creating knowledge for the next generation and the general benefit of society.Conclusion There's No Fair Use on the InternetThe current use of Internet technology to support t eaching brings new commercial players into the communications continuum, separati ng teacher and student in the

PAGE 9

9 of 12so-called distance learning environment. Will this situation permanently eliminate the Fair Use exception for digital teaching? In all of the cases cited above (and there are no cases on the "other" side)—whether it is a commerci al copy shop making coursepacks, an instructor copying sheet music for students, or an engineer copying articles for his research files—when there are royalties to be colle cted and any potential commercial interest in the vicinity that might be viewed as ei ther funneling off or diluting a potential profit for the copyright owner, then Fair Use copyi ng may not apply. Even the possibility of diluting some future profit may be deemed suffic ient to establish an market impact. In short, it is easy to conclude that there is no F air Use on the Internet because the Internet per se has become a commercial, for-profit business. To those who would say that information on the Internet is in most cases f ree and not commercially motivated, we reply that the goal of Internet companies and th ose who support their development is ultimately to make money—if they don't, they'll go out of business. The collapse of the dot com bubble makes that truth almost self-evident Therefore, to help educators who are creating courses on the Internet (which are the mselves copyrighted works), we have constructed some guidelines: Know what's copyrighted and who holds that copyrigh t. Before 1978 every copyrighted work had to carry a copyright notice. I f it didn't, it wasn't copyrighted. So look. After 1978 the explicit copyright notice w as no longer required for establishing legal ownership. Any fixed expression is copyrighted under common law from the moment of its creation, whether or not it is formally published or registered with the Copyright Office. This includes student work, institutional reports, neighborhood newsletters, and office memos If something published since 1978 does not explicitly state that it is in the public domain and may be used and copied freely, it should be considered copyrigh ted material. 1. Don't assume something is in the "public domain" ju st because it's a government document. Everything published by a government agen cy or funded with public dollars is NOT necessarily in the public domain. Se ek out a copyright notice or other notice regarding rights to reprint or post on the Internet. If you cannot find one, ask the author or publisher. Many non-profit o rganizations simply want you to send them some notification that you are using t heir materials for bragging purposes. Asking for copyright permission does not necessarily mean you will have to pay a fee. 2. Take personal responsibility for obtaining permissi on before using any copyrighted work. Should a suit be brought for copy right infringement, you personally will be liable. Don't assume that the Fa ir Use exemption will apply because your use has some educational purpose.. 3. Never post copyrighted material (see rules 1-3) on the Internet assuming that you are exempt from obtaining permission by the Fair Us e Doctrine because you are posting to a class web site or because you are an i nstructor or researcher making educational materials to anyone who's interested. T here may be a commercial interest somewhere you will tread on. Explicitly se ek and receive permission from the copyright owner. An alternative is to provide s tudents with references for the library or the bookstore or point them towards the author's own on-line version or to a legitimate digital library managed by someone else who is presumably posting only legal copies. 4. Do not distribute copyrighted course materials that you formerly distributed via coursepacks over the web (even if you formerly obta ined permission for the 5.

PAGE 10

10 of 12 coursepack copy) unless you restrict access to mate rials to just the registered students in your class (i.e. a password protected c lass site) or have received specific permission from the copyright owner to mak e copies available on the web.Always give full, standard bibliographic citation o n the digital copy itself, including a statement that permission to reprint fo r use by your on-line students has been granted. 6. Allow yourself plenty of time to identify copyright holders and receive their permission to publish via the Internet. Despite the availability of an evolving digital clearinghouse technology, common sense sugg ests that everything will not be in the database and you are ultimately responsib le. 7.About the AuthorsLinda Howe-Steiger Ph.D., AICP Institute of Transportation StudiesTechnology Transfer ProgramUniversity of California Berkeley1355 S. 46th Street, Building 452Richmond, CA 94804Tel: 510-231-5678Fax: 510-231-9591Email: lkhs@uclink.berkeley.eduLinda Howe-Steiger is Director of the Technology Tr ansfer Program for the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of Califor nia Berkeley. She holds a BA in English from Bryn Mawr College, an MA from the Univ ersity of Chicago, a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, and Master of City and Regional Planning (MCRP) from Rutgers University. She has taught graduate and und ergraduate courses at Rutgers is developing a series of on-line tutorials for transp ortation professions as part of the California Learn-Net project. She is a member of th e American Institute of Certified Planners.Brian C. Donohue J.D., M.B.A. Business Contracts AdministratorUniversity of California Berkeley6701 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 218Berkeley, CA 94720Tel: 510-642-3128Fax: 510-642-8604Email:donohue@uclink4.berkeley.eduBrian C. Donohue holds a BA from Fordham University an MBA in Information Technology from George Washington University, and a JD (Juris Doctorate). He received a Certificate of Advanced Trail Advocacy f rom Hastings College of Law and has taught "Intellectual Property Law and the Inter net" for the University of California Berkeley Extension for six years. As Berkeley's Bus iness Contracts Administrator he has executed on behalf of the Regents of the University over 100 Internet agreements.

PAGE 11

11 of 12 Copyright 2002 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@unh.edu .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov hmwkhelp@scott.net Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Education Commission of the States William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton apembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State University—Stanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven scriven@aol.com Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial Board

PAGE 12

12 of 12 Associate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico roberto@servidor.unam.mx Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.angulo@uca.es Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx kentr@data.net.mx Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica simon@openlink.com.br Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20029999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00252
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 4 (January 12, 2002).
260
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c January 12, 2002
505
Technology is changing what's "fair use" in teaching again / Linda Howe-Steiger [and] Brian C. Donohue.
650
Education
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.252