English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

rld(m, copyri~'ht eour~sel for the Amerban 'l.'extbo<)k ])ublishers Institute, ]67 "~ook publishers ~,cceived only 22 requests for computer use, a~'ainst "thousands of permission requests for other kinds of uses." In short, the publishers claim that computer use of copyrighted materials is a future thitlg, and the requirements for such use in the future is speculative. Yet, it is hard to believe that the publishers really believe in such an indistinct future for computers. More than likely, this is all rhetoric that covers some real fears. The publishers can see computers marching into their arena, and these machines shoulder potential threats to their existence. I f publishers allow computers to become "satell i te publishers," freely distr ibuting copies of a book via remote displays and terminals, they lose a lot of sales and their authors lose royalties. If textbook publishers allow any sort of fa i r use by educators, they lose exactly tha t much of their profits, since their only market is education. Tile publishers must protect their position until they can see the extent of this threat, but they are doing it in an odd way. For ten years, the copyright laws have been under study and revision, yet no one saw the computer problem until the House Judic iary Committee approved the new bill. Then everyone, including the publishers, recommended fur ther study of the computer problem, but the publishers insisted on "legislate now, study later." As Prof. Miller pointed out to the committee, this would be all r ight if the bill were neutral toward computers. But the bill inhibits the use of computers in education, it is not neutral toward them. A par t of the bill that is openly prejudicial towards computers is Section 108, which deals with the reproduction of copyrighted works in archival collections by nonprofit institutions. Section 108 permits these insti tutions to reproduce these works in facsimile or phonorecord copies only. The House committee specified in its report that this section does not allow reproduction in machinereadable language for storage in an information system. Any guesses about the ul t imate copyright bill to come out of Congress have to take into consideration tile words of Sen. John L. McClellan, chairnmn of the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, when he opened the Senate hearings March 15. "There are many provisions of S. 597 that need to be studied," he said. "Based on a preliminary study, there are certain provisions of the bill which [ may not OETTINGER EXPOSES DANGERS TO SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR INHERENT IN COPYRIGHT BILL

Oettinger exposes dangers to scientific endeavor inherent in copyright bill