Isn’t that a false conundrum? I don’t think the equation is Turnitin is legal moral and therefore anyone who thinks otherwise is in favor of unfairness and cheaters. It is perfectly possible to think that Turnitin could be a violation of copyright even if it serves a potentially reasonable end. However, I don’t buy your implied “the end justifies the means” rationale.

If Turnitin was used as designed, as a teaching tool, allowing the students to do a self-check of their papers, this lawsuit probably never would have happened. Most people are ignorant to the fact that a large percentage of the student papers that are submitted consist of words and ideas taken from other authors without proper citation or acknowledgment. The student that initiated this whole scam lawsuit is a D level student. Do you think it is fair to the honest, hardworking students when the cheaters get better grades on papers by using what someone else wrote?

In the case of student papers, Turnitin is scanning un-published works as opposed to published ones. These papers may contain the private thoughts and opinions of the students, intended only to be seen by the instructor and no one else. In addition to copyright issues, these papers may have privacy issues as well. In addition, to what degree can a commercial company use the works of minors without their consent?

However, I think that my problem on this issue is that I have a gut feeling of unfairness regarding this issue which an objective comparison to Google . It would seem that the biggest difference is the fact that Google spiders and scans published works whereas Turnitin archives unpublished works coercively obtained from students.

If there are no legitimate markets at all, it seems like that fact would tend to undercut the cost recovery rationale for copyright, limit the infringement argument (because there’s no improper appropriation), and maybe strengthen at least one factor of a fair use defense.

If there are no legitimate markets at all, it seems like that fact would tend to undercut the cost recovery rationale for copyright, limit the infringement argument (because there’s no improper appropriation), and maybe strengthen at least one factor of a fair use defense.