Isn't an easier way to deal with cases like the evolution one to require clear disclosure that the textbook has been edited? I.e. a sticker could be affixed stating "this textbook has been edited from its original version, and should not be considered the opinion of the author."

The textbook case also seems different in two other respects: first, the textbook has the author's name on the front, which implies the contents are endorsed by that individual. That's not true of movies. Secondly, the Kansas school board presumably added content to the text book in addition to deleting content. Taken together, those two factors raise the possibility of putting words in the mouth of the author.

But the way to deal with that would be to require the author's permission to put his name on the cover (and/or clearly marking what had been added) not by prohibiting people from changing the books.

--Hmmm... okay, for a sec, picture this... you're eight years old, and the sticker on your science text says "this books does not necessarily reflect the opinion of...blah blah blah" Huh? What? What does THAT mean? Does *anything* in the book reflect the opinion of the authors? Why would they put their material in a book if it didn't reflect their opinion? Isn't that the point?

--When the entire work is being reproduced for commercial redistribution we are a long, long way from ordinary fair use, and the question of whether an edit is trivial or not (I can imagine nontrivial deletions as well as trivial additions) seems like a place there is no good reason for a court to go.

--Whichever way the courts go on this, the second generation of deals could take care of it. The content producer could just refuse to license on terms that allow changes before redistribution. Or the redistributor could bargain for the right to make changes. The court decision, after all, is just the default rule. But, again, there doesn't seem to be any reason in this case to change it.

The link to the Reason.com story is http://www.reason.com/links/links071106.shtml

Well, I think that the law should be quite clear about the purpose of the distortion. This was a clear-cut, good faith modification that was made very obvious to the buyer. The motive was not misrepresentation. The science text book was a clear case of trying to distort the content and pass it off as barely modified, which is fraudlent in spirit.

Cases like this are why many libertarians are dubious about copyright law. No one would bat an eye about allowing a company to sell modified physical property like modified cars. If copyright is going to gain that sort of popular legitimacy, it's going to have to conform to the expected norms of physical property and allowing commercial modification without a license should be part of that.

Sigh. Treating copyright exactly like physical property when it is *not* exactly like physical property is not likely to increase its legitimacy in the eyes of anybody. Routinely imposing criminal penalties as for theft, just for example.

Furthermore this case is not about commercial modification without a license (you can't possibly mean that; that means that the cleaner-company goes ahead, edits and copies the darn thing for redistribution without buying it). It is about which way a court should default if the license is silent.

Furthermore, cases like this are *not* why many libertarians are dubious about copyright law. That would be very, very silly.

Oh, and one more thing. Inquiries into "good faith" or "bad faith" alterations? Oh DEAR! Does that REALLY make any sense whatsoever?

FYI, the Kansas State Board of Education case you are referring to did not involve the content of textbooks, but of the state science standards, which contain content from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association. Those two organizations denied permission to the Kansas State Board of Education to use their publications which were part of the state science standards--specifically, the National Research Council's "National Science Education Standards" document and the NSTA's "Pathways to Science Standards." See http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20051027.html

Ah, thank you Jim.