ProQuest: It Just Gets Worse

An alert reader has pointed out yet another possible level of deception with respect to the settlement's release of ProQuest, a move engineered by the Authors Guild. (See “ENABLING INFRINGEMENT: A Closer Look at the Authors Guild-Driven ProQuest ‘Standstill Agreement’ That Wasn’t,” http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/2005/08/enabling-infringement-closer-look-at.html, and “More on ProQuest," http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-on-proquest.html.)

It’s true that much of ProQuest’s current infringing content is microform-like -- though I dispute whether many of the ProQuest Archiver articles that I’ve seen would truly be considered legit in the wake of the Tasini case.

But this reader says a lot of ProQuest stuff is not in microform. It’s in the same classically infringing ASCII-text format used by other defendants. So what gives?

I’d like to ask the Authors Guild’s former general counsel, Kay Murray, to explain. Unfortunately she now works for the Tribune Company and therefore is even more susceptible to taking the publishers’ side rather than ours. I suggest that we all direct queries to Paul Aiken, the Guild’s executive director. I know I will. Aiken can be emailed at staff@authorsguild.org or faxed at (212) 564-5363.