Steal This Article?

Universities walk a difficult line in trying to minimize textbook costs while still respecting intellectual property. Three academic publishing companies are currently suing Georgia State University for its approach to this problem, arguing that the University’s online course packs violate copyright laws. Georgia State’s program is cost-effective for students, but it does not account for the importance of intellectual property, and schools need to find a way to satisfy the needs of both parties. Universities should make an effort to shoulder the burden of copyright costs that hike up the price of textbooks. In doing so, however, they must creatively lower costs while remaining within the confines of the law.

Although copyright law leads to hundred-dollar course packs that are costly to universities and students, intellectual property law ensures the ongoing production of the journals and scholarly work that are necessary to our studies. Scholarly journals could not survive without these copyright costs, and academia would suffer a loss without the existence of these journals, which provide a source for current and relevant work. Georgia State University is certainly not the first school to digitize course packs at the expense of copyright, but regardless of how many schools are already doing this, these universities need to obey “fair use” policies.

Given that respect for intellectual property is so expensive to students, universities should find a way to cover these costs institutionally rather than individually. Online programs such as JSTOR offer subscriptions to scholarly journals that all students can access. However, these programs are extremely expensive and not all Universities can afford such resources. However, there are less expensive digital access options, some of which charge the University based on the number of times accessed.

A second way of lowering the cost of access to scholarly work might be through the type of free-access program that Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) passed in February, which places a professor’s work online for free, unless the professor chooses to opt out. The professors retain the copyright and anyone, Harvard affiliated or not, has free access. This repository program bypasses the copyright expenses and royalties that journals collect. Journals are not all costs however, and one negative of avoiding scholarly journals is the loss of the peer-review process. Yet programs like this one are an important way of providing access to information at no cost.

Regardless of method, universities have to strike a balance between these two responsibilities—student costs and intellectual property. Harvard is fortunate enough to provide its students with JSTOR and other expensive and all-encompassing online access programs, but all schools should work within their financial means to provide the most comprehensive access for their students at a low cost to individuals.