The Supreme Court will let stand the 6th Circuit Court ruling stand in Michigan Document Service v. Princeton University Publishing.
The 6th U.S. circuit court ruled last year that customers must pay the copyright royalties on course packs purchased from photocopy stores, and the Supreme Court decided yesterday not to hear the case.
"I think my client expressed it best when he said, 'The publisher has won but the public has lost'," Susan Kornfeild, lawyer for MDS owner James Smith said yesterday.
The Fair Use Law states that a fee cannot be charged on copies made from copyrighted items that one used for educational purposes, such as class handouts. When a business is contracted to make the copies, the guidelines are different, however.
"The case now stands that students and professors who have the right to fair use, lose (that right) when they use a business," Kornfeild said.
A representative of Princeton University Publishing could not be reached yesterday for comment on the decision.
MDS was originally sued in 1992 by three publishers: Princeton University Press, St. Martin's Press and Macmillan Inc. because Smith refused to pay permission fees for materials MDS was copying.
"Course packs were made in this country for 20 years without charging a (royalty) fee," Kornfeild said.
However, in 1991, a federal judge in New York ruled that "fair use" does not apply to photocopy shops selling course packs.
"Everyone makes money when there is copying done," Kornfeild said. "The court was blinded by the fact that you have to charge a fee to run a business."
Joan Lowenstein, a former University lecturer and an Ann Arbor intellectual property attorney, said she was not surprised by the decision.
"Ninety-percent of the requests for the Supreme Court to hear a case are denied. I don't think the decision by the appellate court was a correct one," Lowenstein said. "Judge Hackett will have to decide how much Michigan Document Service will have to pay to the three publishing companies."
The 6th U.S. Court of Appeals found earlier that course packs have "become almost as ubiquitous at American colleges and universities as the conventional textbook."
Lowenstein said the copy companies aren't the only losers because "the students are going to have to pay a very expensive amount for course materials. They may have to go back to the old system where books were on reserve and you'd have to fight for them."
Accu-copy owner Phil Zaret agreed with the Supreme Court decision not to hear the case.
"It's a pretty decent decision," Zaret said. "The publishers basically own their material and if you own something you don't want some one to take it."
Zaret said the students and business owners have already "settled into the way they handle the problem" of paying for course packs.
Some students, however, have different ideas about how the permission fees should be paid.
"I think the University should pay the royalties," said Law first-year student Jake Schmidt. "I think if it's for educational purposes, they really shouldn't have to charge royalties."
Some students are angered by high course pack prices.
"It's a corrupt system," said LSA sophomore Melody Austin. "They are stealing from us. This is a poor decision by the courts."
However, Juan Sauceda, an Engineering senior, said it is fair to charge royalties. "It drives the prices up, but it is right to give credit where credit is due."
Smith is still involved in a court case regarding $326,000 in Publishers attorney fees that he was ordered to pay in 1994 by the district court. The 6th Circuit Court has ordered the decision back to the district court.