Alligator Online

I was unhappy to see Wednesday's article claiming note-taking services may violate professors' copyrights.

Unfortunately, this is meritless sword-rattling from a disgruntled professor and nothing more.

A brief background: Copyright is a system of government protection granted for original creative works. For example, copyright applies to books, music and videos. Copyright grants exclusive control over certain uses of the work, such as modification and redistribution, for a limited time. The system was designed in the Constitution as a way to incite creation and "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

Professor Laurence Alexander's claims of copyright are invalid because copyright only applies to works fixed "in a tangible medium of expression." An instructor's spoken explanations are ephemeral and in no way fixed in a tangible medium.

Alexander also complains that notes copy "facts, theories and concepts that the professor has learned and studied." However, as the U.S. Copyright Office's Web site explains, mere "ideas, ... concepts, principles" and the like are explicitly ineligible for copyright.

If note-taking companies copied a professor's every word or engaged in wholesale copying of a textbook, a claim could be made for copyright violation. But that's not what these companies do.

What note-taking companies such as Einstein's Notes and Smokin' Notes do is summarize. Summary is not, and never has been, a violation of copyright. Despite what Alexander may claim, note-takers are indeed contributing value when they summarize lecture material and organize concepts into learning aids.

Copyright law has always recognized summary as a valid derivative work protected as a fair use under law, as it should.

What's next in the copyright crusade - Cliff's Notes? Movie reviews? Book reports?

The very same law that allows scholarly quotation, commentary and criticism protects note-takers, even if they make money without paying the professors extra. When was the last time you paid an author whose paper you cited?

The free flow of information is essential in a democratic society. The ability to summarize, quote or report the words of another person, without asking anyone's permission or paying any royalty, is key to ensuring a free exchange of thoughts.

Furthermore, even if the law allowed professors to prosecute note-takers, they should not. Legal rights do not always equate with moral rights. Everyone should abhor the use of copyright as a bludgeon to silence speech and creativity.

Unfortunately, copyright and other so-called "intellectual property" laws are used precisely in this manner time and again. The shift from viewing copyrights as the limited monopolies they are to seeing them as a form of property is dangerous, unprecedented and extreme.

If the world is to remain free to create and communicate, copyright law must retain its balances and protections. Copyright serves an important purpose in providing incentives for creators. However, we must remember its ultimate purpose and ensure that its exclusive rights do not come before the public good.

Academics, of all people, should support a view of copyright that encourages the dissemination of information - the primary purpose of a university. Threatening companies that produce educational aids is poor behavior for an institution that exists to educate.

Gavin Baker is a former Alligator writer and the president of Florida Free Culture, a student group that works to reform copyright law.