Perhaps if faculty has some restrictions, then they may become sensitized
to the cost of access to the law by the rest of the profession and the
public, and having become sensitized, may then concern themselves more
with the ways in which courts disseminate legal decisions and the way in
which those decisions are cited.
Alan Sugarman
HyperLaw
On Mon, 28 Feb 1994, Lee Ryan wrote:
> Scott Pagel asked the following:
>
> >If the purpose of the new policy is to save supplies and reduce print
> >queues, why are the restrictions on downloading included? I would
> >think that Mead would encourage downloading if their goal is, as
> >stated, to limit large print jobs.
>
> Good question. I wonder if their goal might instead be to
> discourage law school users (esp. students) from excessive
> reliance on anything--printing or downloading--that leads
> to a 2 (or 2.5) cents per line charge for paying customers.
>
> If that is their goal, I have no problem with it. Students do
> need to learn that when they become paying customers they'll
> have to pay attention to both printing and downloading.
>
> But why impose the same restrictions on faculty? Presumably they
> will not go out into the "real" world and rack up unreasonable
> LEXIS bills. Perhaps Mead could relax the limit a bit for them.
>
> - Lee
> ________________________________________________
> Lee Ryan, Reference Librarian
> University of San Francisco Law Library
> Internet: RyanL@alm.admin.usfca.edu
> Voice: (415) 666-2253 Fax: (415) 666-2345
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST