Does anyone have examples of how easy (or not) CCC is to use? Does CCC add titles quickly? What about professors who wish to add material as an area changes? I can recall in business associations and in IP classes seeing articles and parts of books that might be great midstream additional reading but might not be “cleared.”

As for the university indemnification idea, given that universities have been pushed around by the RIAA, I wonder how well they will manage in-house copying policies. I could see a world where professors fight with the university over its policing systems. Put differently, the chill of unclear fair use standards might shift to the chill of not wishing to deal with university bureaucracy.

Last, the second option: Lessig’s Code 2.0 seems to be an example of this idea. The Web site http://codev2.cc/ has the CC information, free versions to download and links to buy which as the site notes is cheaper than printing. Now, when e-readers (Sony’s latest one is close to what one would want: easy on the eyes but may not be able to mark text) become common, my guess is that the same battles from music and film will show up for text, because the print barrier will no longer be in place. At that point I wonder whether the model Code 2.0 uses will survive. People may not buy the book and if the digital is CC-licensed, revenue will become an issue. Now, as others have noted, scholarly publications may not be as driven by revenue concerns but someone in the academic press or non-academic press world will ask where’s the money? All of which moves away from Mike’s point about scholarly journals which could function as he describes and run on tenure and promotion models.