I had the same puzzled reaction to the Frank bill that Eli Roth did. As
he points out, it says that if a non-copyrighted citation "may be used"
then courts can REQUIRE the copyrighted form.
I think the real problem is that the phrase "may be used" is very vague.
Does it mean "may be used as a parallel citation" or does it mean "may be
used as a substitute for the copyrighted citation form"? If the former,
the bill does nothing to encourage broader access to legal texts, or to
level the playing field among publishers, since citation would still have
to be made to the copyrighted source. If the latter, the bill is
meaningless, saying in effect "courts can require a copyrighted citation
only if its not required."
Bill Taylor
William L. Taylor \/ wtaylor@law.georgetown.edu \/ 202/662-9184
Government Documents \/ Acquisitions \/ Georgetown Law Library
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST