On Mar 12 2007, Alexis Turner wrote:
In response to the original question - is there precedent - I think the closest thing could possibly be the Google cache copyright case that was closed last year (in which Google was sued under the auspices that its caching function breached a web page creator's copyright).
No. The decision is not irrelevant, but also not really on point. As I mentioned earlier, I have analyzed the most relevant precedent here in the context of Google Book project: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=949937&high=%20mereology specifically, the Matthew Bender and Tasini cases. The Google v. Perfect 10 and Kelly v. ArribaSoft holdings also have some bearing. Turnitin's strongest argument is that their database is transformative and contains no copies of the papers, only relational data *about* the papers. The hashes have no separate value other than for plagiarism detection -- the hashes are not substitutes for the papers in the market (assuming there is any market for student papers). There is a long line of cases holding that intermediate, temporary copying in the process of creating a transformative work is fair, bolstering the argument that the intermediate copy is fair. That argument almost perfectly parallel's the Google Book project rationale. The major difference, as I mentioned earlier, is that the public benefit argument for Turnitin is not as strong. DLB -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu