News

Is Relying on Open Access Materials “Irresponsible”?

Last week I raised the question of whether Canadian universities should consider walking away from Access Copyright in light of its recent tariff demands.  The post did not reject licencing, but rather noted that the combined effect of openly accessible materials, licenced databases, and fair dealing was such that the Access Copyright licence may not be necessary for many professors.  Where there is a need for a specific work that is not otherwise available, it could be directly licenced with the copyright holder, thereby ensuring that the actual author receives full compensation for their work.  In the post, I used myself an example, noting that I am able to rely on openly accessible materials for my courses.

The fact that I rely on openly accessible materials led Access Copyright supporter John Degen to describe my approach as a “shockingly arbitrary and irresponsible policy that will only place artificial (and highly political) limits on education.” Degen then implies that the choice is based on attempting to find cheap materials or ones that are consistent with my political leanings.

Yet the only thing irresponsible is Degen’s effort to link cost with quality. 

In my course, I use court cases, statutes, government reports, policy submissions, and academic articles.  These are all materials that are openly accessible either because of government policy or because the authors’ priority is to make their works available, not generate income directly from their academic scholarship.  It is hard to understand how asking students to read the Supreme Court of Canada CCH case or the Copyright Act or the CRTC’s Internet traffic management decision or the National Task Force on Spam report is irresponsible.

Indeed from a legal education perspective, there seems to be little, if any, use for an Access Copyright licence.  Cases and statutes form the foundation of many courses and they are all openly accessible.  In addition to purchased texts, all students have licenced access to legal databases that provide comprehensive coverage of the law, including primary (caselaw, statutes) and secondary (scholarship) materials. There is just isn’t much left for Access Copyright to licence to thousands of law students.

I don’t know if this is consistent with other fields, but my sense is that the reliance on the Access Copyright licence – both for ordinary copying and for “coursepacks” – is declining.  Cross-country licensing such as the Canadian Research Knowledge Network provide licenced database access to thousands of journals for 650,000 university researchers and students.  Coursepacks are giving way to database-generated course reading lists that build on this form of licenced access.  Beyond licenced databases, the growth of open access now means that there are over 5,000 open access journals and about 20 percent of the world’s peer reviewed journals are open access.  In many scientific areas, openly available e-prints is the standard – arXiv.org provides open access to over 620,000 articles in fields such as physics, mathematics, and computer science.  PubMedCentral provides access to millions of biomedical and life sciences articles.  The Social Sciences Research Network is used by thousands of professors in social sciences fields to make their work freely available to the world. The movement toward open educational resources and open data for science only add to the open availability of cutting edge materials that are the very best in their field.

Reliance on these works is neither irresponsible nor a function of seeking cheaper “minor league” material.  Supporters of Access Copyright often claim that they support the right of an author to choose where they publish and under what terms they make their work available.  Yet when researchers make their work freely available, it is derided as a cheap alternative.  This shows a deep misunderstanding of how higher education works and how the dissemination and use of research is rapidly evolving toward open access. 

106 Comments

  1. The proof lies in what is actually happening, and coursepacks continue to be used extensively. While that is the case, the option of walking away from Access Copyright is obviously limited. And while law is a discipline where most of the content can be sourced free, there are still coursepacks for law students that have material from textbooks and other publications that aren’t open access. Also, law is a postgrad degree. For undergraduate study, the kinds of material that Prof Geist mentions (high-level scholarly) aren’t suitable. This is where coursepacks are used extensively. As for the suggestion that many fields don’t rely on copyright material, try English Literature (or any literature for that matter) unless you confine it to pre-1900 novels; or most of the arts/humanities; or sciences – almost everything in fact. Sure patterns may change. But now, coursepacks continue to be used. This wasn’t always the case. Professors used to write their own course materials and students used to buy the textbooks and spend time in libraries. Now most of the teaching is dumped on TAs and untenured sessionals.

  2. This might apply to law, which is a postgrad degree. At the undergrad level, coursepacks are alive and well because the focus is on less exalted content. Anyone other than a law professor would understand this. Literature, for example, involves studying novels, not research papers. So do most of the arts and humanties, the phsycial sciences…most subjects in fact. If no-one is using coursepacks then un iversities won’t use that part of their Access Copyright licence. As they are using them, it’s the quickest and cheapest way to clear permissions. But the real problem is this – universities offload undergrad teaching to sessionals and TA’s. Once upon a time even the most senior faculty spent serious time in front of students, and they wrote their own course materials. Students used these, went to lectures, and then off to the library. Fix the slide in how untenured faculty are exploited, make professors do more undergrad teaching, and my guess is you will then see less use of copied material.

  3. Public Scientist says:

    Open access science is not cheap science
    Biomedical research is not cheap, nor is it funded out of the pockets of scientists or publishers. Tax payers and charitable donors fund the vast majority of biomedical research. The open access policies of the US NIH and the Canadian CIHR are based on the entirely valid principle that all taxpayers and donors should have access to the results of research they already paid for.

    Open access science is not free, it’s already paid for. Publishers are trying to act as gate-keepers on publicly funded science and this ends up driving up the cost of all research, in an era when the actual costs of publishing and distribution have almost disappeared. This drives up the costs of research because all lab work starts in the library.

  4. @Public Scientist
    Fair point. Then figure out how NOT to rely on publishers. If you still need them, you can’t complain if they want to make money off the deal.

  5. So…
    … you’ve evolved from a Radical Extremist to a Irresponsible Radical Extremist. Time for new business cards I gues…

  6. quality education says:

    Deliberately excluding relevant but copyright content would be irresponsible. If you can find what you need for free, fair enough.

  7. So far, I’m noting that most of the commenters here are answering the question with a yes — it would be irresponsible to exclude relevant content simply because it is covered by an Access Copyright agreement.

    Your “sense” is that dependance on the AC repertoire is declining. I’m not really sure it would be responsible to Canada’s students to walk away from content based on how you feel about it.

    But that’s just me… and most of the other commenters so far.

  8. Public Scientist says:

    Perhaps Michael can clarify this for us, but my understanding of what he suggests is not that all commercially copyrighted material (open access material is still copyrighted) be excluded, just that copyrighted material that cannot be licensed without royalties be licensed directly from the creator or publisher rather than through Access Copyright. I think that’s entirely valid.

    In the biomedical sciences at least University libraries pay king’s ransoms for access to publisher’s digital repositories. If your teaching material comes primarily from open access and these proprietary databases why would you pay an extra fee to Access Copyright to cover activities that are probably fair dealing anyway? If the fee is minor, it may be worth it just to keep the risk management people happy, but if it gets jacked up to the point where you either need to increase tuition or decide what research not to fund, I agree with Michael that this is probably not the best way to go.

  9. Bullies never prosper, cheaters never win
    What people should walk away is from those who try to push others around. That used to work when you held all the cards, but it’s a bright new internet age today. Yes, a certain amount of AC holdings are still relevant, but an increasing amount of quality open source material is becoming available. What is the AC response? Try to grab as much of the pie as possible, outside it’s scope and by methods not even covered under copyright law (eg. linking). Reeks of desperation to me, probably a viable tactic for them but a little smelly to the rest of us.

    Play ball or go home.

  10. @Degen,
    It isn’t irresponsible to exclude relevent, possibly even superior material based on cost, that is simply budgetting. If there are free materials available, even if they might not be as good, the priority of the AC materials relative to other costs will go down. Schools have limited funding, so if they can get more benefit by using that money elsewhere, I don’t think it would be irresponsible.

  11. I have an issue
    with a paragraph from James Degen’s blog entry:

    “Yet just one representative Canadian university — say, the University of Ottawa — could reasonably pay the fee for all of their full-time students with a tiny 0.2% of their budget. It would be entirely unnecessary for them to pass the cost on to students.”

    Yeah, right. Of course they are going to eat the cost themselves. Just like the cable and satellite companies are going to eat the cost of FFC themselves.

  12. Michael Geist says:

    @Degen
    Read the posts. My first post highlighted the situation in law (with reference to my experience) and asked whether it was similar in other disciplines. This one focused on the role and quality of open access as a viable alternative in many disciplines.

    I don’t advocate excluding non-OA content. I explicitly state that much of that content is available either via database licencing or can be individually licenced directly with the rights holder. The point is that obtaining that content need not require an Access Copyright licence given the alternatives.

    The situation in law is such that virtually all content is readily available at no cost and without the need for any licence. Your post infered that this was cheaper, minor league content. Is that your view of the Supreme Court of Canada? Government reports? Statutes? Or what is it you think we actually study in law schools?

    MG

  13. quality education says:

    Has anyone tried to licence directly? It takes for ever and it is almost never cheaper than AC.

  14. “Has anyone tried to licence directly? It takes for ever and it is almost never cheaper than AC.”

    Hmm … Was that before or after the 1300% increase?

  15. Michael,

    This is really a shameful bit of dodge and weave from a public intellectual.

    You have a bee in your bonnet about Access Copyright — have had one for a long time — and you have clearly suggested that all Canadian universities – not simply law schools – walk away from AC’s collective licensing. You do so in the context of a running campaign against their recent tariff proposal.

    The source and substance of your objection to the proposal has been effectively and honestly refuted by AC themselves as well as some of your own commenters here.

    I am happy you feel you manage to provide your students with enough open access and freely licensed content as they need to pass your classes, but I repeat that a blanket policy for all education that involves walking away from an established, used and tracked repertoire of content is both arbitrary and irresponsible.

    I think it shows ignorance of just what goes into a high-quality liberal arts education in this country, and it shocks me to see such ignorance displayed here. You are, or should be, very well aware that AC covers a specific repertoire unlicensed elsewhere, is not interested in payment for fair dealing uses, is not advocating a 1300% increase, and provides licensing efficiencies that make the suggestion of individual licensing meritless in this context.

    “I’m just talking about law classes” just doesn’t cut it.

    On my blog, I asked if your guest lecturers are paid for their contribution, to which you replied, proudly, that they are not. While that’s all very generous of the guests you do bring in, I find it hard to believe there isn’t some outside expertise your students would find invaluable that doesn’t come at reasonable cost, so again a blanket policy against paid content would insert an unnecessary prejudice against such a guest.

    But let’s go with your scenario – all content in law schools is freely available by its very nature, and all guests come without charge.

    So why charge tuition at all?

  16. quality education says:

    But the 1300% is a lie. That is not the increase applied for, and as Geist now knows that he has a duty to make that clear. The page rate for course packs is 10 cents. Most publishers think that it was too low and the prices they charge when you go direct is several times higher. And is also takes weeks to get permissions, if you can find the right person.

  17. OK in the spirit of fairness I would like to know from you what the actual increase is over the previous agreement. I also would appreciate hearing the rational for including aspects in this agreement that are outside the scope of AC such as hyper-linking.

    I look forward to your reply.

  18. strunk&white says:

    an element of style
    Degen calls your policy irresponsible, to which you respond:

    “…the only thing irresponsible is Degen’s effort to link cost with quality.”

    Cheap word repetition for rhetorical effect. C+

  19. @strunk&white
    …”Cheap word repetition for rhetorical effect. C+ ”

    And what would you call the attempt to “grade” an active professor’s words?

    And whose words are being repeated?

  20. Stop skimming
    Some people here didn’t really read the whole article, I don’t think. He is talking mostly about his own field of education: law. Which, for the most part, all materials are publicly available.
    So who here works for the AC?

  21. strunk&white says:

    I see, Blaze, when Geist says “Canadian universities” we are supposed to read “the University of Ottawa law classes I teach.”

    Thanks for clearing that up. While I did read the whole article, it appears you did not read the very first sentence.

  22. Free is Freedom, not free from payment
    > So far, I’m noting that most of the commenters here are answering the question with a yes — it would be irresponsible to exclude relevant content simply because it is covered by an Access Copyright agreement.

    Even if universities exclude Access Copyright’s phantom repertoire, it would be Responsible to Reject Access Copyright’s Excessive and Encumbering terms. Is it responsible for Access Copyright to infect and plague bill C-32, encumbering the Tariff at the expense of educational institution’s resources and time, and claiming new phantom rights such as linking, meanwhile revoking Fair Dealing (section 29?)

    Degen obviously value money over freedom; however, free usually means freedom rather than free from payment. By suggesting free from payment equating low quality, Degen polarizes the debate into the common denominator of value by money, instead of value by freedom. This is the biggest misconception there is, when people like Degen starts talking about accessing open/free materials. Moreover, the quality of freedom in Open Access should be the deciding factor in using Open Access. The more you pay Access Copyright, the more they can claim relevance, claim rights the law doesn’t allow, and infect Copyright amendments with private licensing language into public law.

    More peer reviews in education and science is only good by improving the research or work, regardless of what Degen thinks of free.

    > Cheap word repetition for rhetorical effect. C+

    strunk&white is hilarious, grading people using
    http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497

  23. Seemingly lost in this discussion is the tariff that Access is currently proposing, namely, a one-size-fits-all $45.00/student charge. Previously there was a ~$3.50/student charge for individual photocopying plus a ~10 cents/page charge for course packs.

    Fair dealing would seem to remove the need for the $3.50/student charge for individual copying. Licensed online periodicals, e-books, and open access resources reduce considerably the need for the 10 cents/page charge, as does the increased availability of public domain works online (e.g., students still read Victorian novels and historical documents). Indeed, Access’s own annual reports show a decline in the tariffs that have actually been collected from post-secondary licensing. Moreover, as reported yesterday, universities like UofT are now renting out new textbooks in an effort to reduce students’ expenses.

    So what is the rationale for Access charging universities $45.00/student? As suggested earlier, maybe Access is just treating its tariff proposal as an opening bid.

  24. Michael Geist says:

    @Degen
    John,

    First, both of my posts cited the experience in law and asked – asked – whether it is replicated in other fields. I then suggested that Canadian universities consider the issue as it assesses the costs involved. As DJP comments above, the alternate availability of materials suggests a reduction in the tariff, not the kind of increase AC is asking for.

    Second, you have noted that AC has put forward its proposal and it now falls to others to respond. I respond and encourage others to do so which seems wholly consistent with what you say is part of the process.

    Third, I have a hard time thinking of any guest lecturer who would charge for a law school class appearance. It just is not in the culture as many lawyers and legal professionals seem to welcome the opportunity to engage in the law school environment and fees never enter into picture. It isn’t a matter of policy, just practice.

    Fourth, just because the materials and guest lecturers come at very little or no cost, does not mean there are no costs in running a law school. Tuition is needed, though I would agree with anyone who says law school tuition is too expensive. Costs increased dramatically about 15 years ago when the government deregulated law school tuition fees, a move that raises concerns about accessibility to a law school education.

    MG

    PS – comments on this blog are only held in moderation due to anti-spam filters. Your post must have contained a trigger word. Submitting the same post twice only means that both posts get held. I approve everything once I get the notification.

  25. Show us the error of our ways
    Degan & quality education,

    I would still invite you to show the rational for the $45 per student charge over what was charged in the previous agreement. Maybe there is a mathematical or clerical error in the “1300%” increase figure, maybe the costs really used to be $45 but now is just costed out differently?

    Until you provide any any numbers how can I compare? Just saying it is a lie doesn’t cut it. Lay your cards on the table and explain your rational for your apparent increase, also the inclusion of new linking and display clauses.

    Maybe we are just misinformed, enlighten us and we may become your biggest supporters!

  26. quality education says:

    @Crockett
    OK, here’s the argument for including linking in the tariff. Please try and read all of this before commenting:

    (1) The way this tariff application is designed is as a global amount to cover everything on which copyright fees might be payable.
    (2) Linking on its own probably isn’t infringing copyright.
    (3) But if someone clicks on the link, and as a result displays or prints material, then that might infringe copyright.
    (4) Under the present licence, each copy in a coursepack carries a copyright fee of 10 cents a page.
    (5) Under the proposed tariff, it will work a bit differently. This tariff assumes that universities might prefer, instead of making coursepacks, to have students assemble their own materials. Placing copyright content on an intranet, or giving them links to where they can find the content, are ways to do this – and also offload the cost of printing to the student.
    (6) Not every link will result in an act that needs copyright owner permission, but some will.
    (7) The proposed tariff is not saying that every link (and use of a link) triggers a copyright fee.
    (8) However by including linking in the tariff, there is a basis for authorizing things that might require permission.
    (9) It is now for the Copyright Board to figure out the volume of copyright activity within universities that requires payment. Without a survey, or an agreement with the universities, Access Copyright has no way to do this on its own.
    (10) Obviously if there is open access or other “free” or licensed content available, professors and students should use it if it meets their needs.
    (11) The tariff of $45 is more than is now collected by AC from flat fees and coursepack fees, but not massively more.
    (12) CCH has several limits and it is not a free pass to copy whatever you want under the label of fair dealing.

    Hope this helps.

  27. Use of “linking”
    Ye gods AC has zero technological prowess… Ok let’s get this out in the clear. Stop talking about “linking”. Clearly what you guys have problems with is the HOSTING of copyrighted material and the giving of ACCESS to them to students.

    Your tariff should talk about a hosted copy’s # of pages times the # of student accounts that are given access to it. Not the amount of times the bloody things are accessed.

    “Linking” has nothing to do with it.

  28. Maple Leaf Penalties.
    Like the seats at a Maple Leaf game the Access levy in their new approach is based on trailing numbers and past glories.

    Most observers see the significant increase in the use of content often referred to as “born digital”. Catalysts such as I pads and the increasing number of tablets set to proliferate across college campuses will result in more digital sources and less paper. A medical student expects to observe a beating heart beat on an I Pad – are there permissions for that kind of content or any born digital objects in the current repository?

    Digital content and permissions can be distributed more efficiently with less cost. Consequently, Access Copyright, their paper based repository and antiquated model will become less relevant in the next period on campus. BTW What is a cheque and why do we “mail” money ?

    Sure there are still course packs but they contain less and less licensed content from yesterday’s repository. Moving forward they will not contain the same amount as they once did , certainly not more.

    It’s a new game ,others should be charged with the secure , efficient and commercial distribution of digital content and permissions.

    Access is out of its time and out of its league. Students will not pay major league prices to watch old timer hockey.

  29. @quality education
    You are correct, accessing a hyperlink on it’s own isn’t copyright infringement. Start with that point, put it firmly into your mind.

    Placing copyrighted material onto a web page so that it can be reached via hyperlink, might be a point to include in the proposal. But that isn’t how it is phrased. There is a major difference. I’d suggest AC completely rethink this part of the proposal and how it is phrased. Maintain the focus on what AC actually has rights to negotiate, and don’t step over it’s bounds.

  30. Thank you for your reply. I have a few more questions:
    * “11) The tariff of $45 is more than is now collected by AC from flat fees and coursepack fees, but not massively more.”
    If the use of open licence materials is on the rise (and thus proportionally AC content on the decrease), then what is the justification for the increased licence fee AC is proposing?

    * “(2) Linking on its own probably isn’t infringing copyright.
    (3) But if someone clicks on the link, and as a result displays or prints material, then that might infringe copyright.
    (7) The proposed tariff is not saying that every link (and use of a link) triggers a copyright fee.”
    The problem I have with this is you are hoping to charge on a link that ‘might’ infringe copyright? With a flat fee of $45 you are including the costs of ‘possible’ infringement? This I think would be similar to the tariff on CDs (which I also think is unfair) but at least in that case I am one step closer actually having a physical disc, in the case of a ‘link’ I might never even see it.

  31. cndcitizen says:

    Linking should be completely removed
    Otherwise someone will turn around and then tell Google that they need to pay Access Copyright 10c for every link they display in the search results. AC needs to get some people in their group that understand technology and see where the world is going….or maybe they do and this is a small foot in the door to start expanding out their copyright agenda.

    lol captcha – Swaged War

  32. Public Scientist says:

    Course pack vs. Licensed databases in biomedical sciences
    I still think Michael’s argument is at least as valid for biomedical studies (if not more) as it is for law. The reason being that university libraries pay for digital access to publisher repositories. Course packs in science would include selected readings from current or historical scientific literature. It’s kind of silly to pay a surcharge to AC for paper course packs, even if the surcharge is cheaper than the subscription fee to the databases, because Universities need to maintain institutional access to these databases to support research activities, regardless. The “linking” that AC wants to licence is already licensed to the University through the publishers. It is entirely legal (and already paid for) for a science professor to send his students a list of papers to download as PDFs directly from the publisher or to host a list of licensed links on a course homepage.

    The only other possible components of course packs are sections of different textbooks or material that the professor or his colleagues have developed themselves. In the former case, students in science are usually asked to purchase a primary text and secondary texts are kept in the library. The primary data is always in the literature however, which is licensed directly. In the later case, it makes more sense for the University to licence this content directly since they developed it in-house and they will have direct control over how many times it is used.

    In the biomedical sciences AC is asking universities to pay twice, which is ridiculous, even if the second price is less than the unavoidable first price.

  33. @quality education
    (3) But if someone clicks on the link, and as a result displays or prints material, then that might infringe copyright.
    – So what if they do? Displaying and printing material are already being paid / negotiated for seperately.

    (7) The proposed tariff is not saying that every link (and use of a link) triggers a copyright fee.”
    – The problem is, NO link, or use of a link can trigger a copyright fee, because copyright doesn’t apply to linking or using links, it applies to copying. The link might trigger making a copy, but that is fine, because making that copy has paid / negotiated for seperately.

  34. Quite unsurprisingly, there is a great deal of sound and fury over here about things that are just not happening. It’s a panic festival, and continues the rather tiresome trend in the copyright debate of assuming the worst of rightsholders. They simply MUST be trying to screw the ordinary citizen at every turn. It’s such a juvenile and unhelpful starting philosophy, that is actively encouraged by posts like Dr. Geist’s initial reference to Howard Knopf.

    It’s as though a collective society of well-intentioned creators and publishers could never exist, or that their request for compensation for use could never be reasonable. The copyright board has no doubt heard all the objections encouraged by Dr. Geist, and will keep them in mind as it decides on the tariff. It will also, no doubt require explanation of and evidence for new usage estimations and definitions. But why wait for all that, when it is so much more fun to start throwing up barricades and screaming in the streets.

    Thank goodness someone is looking out for Google, though. They really need to be protected from Canadian writers and publishers.

  35. FYI
    Here’s what Access Copyright has to say about its tariff proposal:

    FIVE FAST FACTS ON ACCESS COPYRIGHT’S POST-SECONDARY TARIFF APPLICATION

    1. This is about high-volume copying, not students copying texts for
    private study.

    Every year, Canadian universities and colleges generate several hundred million copies of educational materials. That’s equivalent to over a million books containing the scientific, technical and artistic output of tens of thousands of Canadian knowledge workers. The knowledge industry and the people who work in it are entitled to compensation when the works they create are not purchased because copies are used instead.

    2. Access Copyright asked the Copyright Board to set a tariff to ensure that creators and publishers are fairly compensated.

    Under the proposed tariff, universities and colleges would pay a flat fee per student to make all the copies they need, up to 20% of any given publication. It’s a simple principle: creators are entitled to compensation when their work is used.

    3. The Copyright Board is a quasi-judicial body that, like a court, hears evidence and delivers a pondered decision.

    The Board will examine all the evidence. Arguments about the medium in which the texts originated, the amount of copying, or whether the copying is fair will be decided by the Board, not in the media.

    Access Copyright is not claiming for works that are already licensed
    or that are excepted under the Copyright Act. 1 The tariff process will identify works for which there is no other licensing arrangement or other exception under the Act. We will only capture what is being used but not otherwise authorized.

    4. The proposed increase has been grossly exaggerated by critics.

    The tariff blends two previous fees, and covers extensive digital copying not covered by previous agreements. The tariff represents a tiny fraction of one percent of university budgets. It’s the university’s or college’s decision whether to absorb the small additional cost, or pass it on to students.

    Some academics say there should be no payment at all; however professors do not work for free, and their unions are silent when pay increases they demand get passed on to students.

    5. Most countries have licensing regimes that include the education
    sector.

    It’s misleading to allege, as some have, that exemptions in U.S. law for educational use make mass copying free. While the law is different in Canada and the U.S., in neither country is it permissible to make copies on a massive scale without a licence. It’s the essence of copyright.

    Some university and college libraries have direct licensing arrangements with some publishers. We support all means of ensuring works are paid for. The effect of those licences and the value of the uses will be determined by the Copyright Board.

  36. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    the cost of doing business
    Rights holders are welcome to their rights. Like any other business it’s their prerogative to price themselves out of the market.

    @Degan: It is up to Professor Geist and his or any other university to decide whether or not to use Access Copyright materials. The fact that Access Copyright is inflating the flat rate per head cost at a time when use is diminishing will very likely contribute to the decline of Access Copyright.

    Since Mr. Degan seems very knowledgeable about Access Copyright, and we’re talking about costs and salaries and all, perhaps he can tell us:
    (a) What is the highest amount paid out to an actual writer of material represented by Access Copyright annually?
    (b) What is the lowest amount paid to an Access Copyright writer annually?
    (c) Then, what is the average annual payout to the writers represented by Access Copyright annually?

    I’d be curious to contrast those figures with:
    (d) what is the lowest amount,
    (e) highest amount and
    (f) average annual income figure earned by Access Copyright staff?

  37. Public Scientist says:

    @Degen
    “Quite unsurprisingly, there is a great deal of sound and fury over here about things that are just not happening. It’s a panic festival, and continues the rather tiresome trend in the copyright debate of assuming the worst of rightsholders. They simply MUST be trying to screw the ordinary citizen at every turn. It’s such a juvenile and unhelpful starting philosophy.”

    Reverse “rightsholders” with “ordinary citizen” in the quote above and I would agree wholeheartedly.

  38. Activism after the fact is nothing but regret
    “But why wait for all that, when it is so much more fun to start throwing up barricades and screaming in the streets?”

    Because if people remained silent I expect your proposal would go through with nary a change. It’s just not AC, it’s as you say “the worst of rights holders” who “screw the ordinary citizen at every turn”. The likes of the RIAA and MPAA who sue grandmothers and phone children to rat on their parents. Quasi-legal outfits that send out blackmail letters to knock up the average Joe for a few bills, all the while the taxpayer footing the legal costs for their racketeering.

    Should I even mention the cash flush lobbyists and graft that goes on in Ottawa, Washington and London, as evidenced by the consistently lopsided legislation in favor of the content holders?

    With a track record like that is it any wonder that people think “well-intentioned creators and publishers could never exist”?

    You may not even think most of the above behavior is wrong but most of your customers do, hence the PR problem your industry finds itself in.

    It’s not rocket science, people hate getting ripped off by big business. In some cases they can decide to not buy the product or service, in other cases (eg. gasoline that goes up in price faster that it comes down) it is hard to do without. With the Internet and new technology, consumers finally have a little more control over a small part of their lives. Do some people abuse that freedom? Yes, no doubt and that’s wrong. Others just want to have some fairness such as being able to backup or shift their DVDs, but big business hates the thought of loosing even that much control, even if it’s perceived as fair by the population at large. Thus, you have competing interests and world views.

    I hope this gives you a better outside perspective on how the average consumer sees your industry, explains the cause of their understandable distrust, and explains why it is often too late wait for the deal to be done.

  39. quality education says:

    @Laurel
    FRom what I heard at their last AGM, the average salary at AC is less than half the salary of a U of Ottawa associate professor…although this is totally irrelevant to the tariff. The Board, which includes many grumpy and low-income writers, determines salaries.

  40. Have a nice cold one and relax.
    Dear quality education,

    I am truly sorry to hear you are down in spirits. In all honesty, it is not actually writers/creators/actors that I have a problem with and I would be happy to see you get a better deal and compensation for your work. The current publishers and distributors though, may not be the best way for you to achieve that goal. The digital age is and will continue to be changing the way people access and consume information. The old distribution systems required more manpower and middle management and much of that structure is unfortunately becoming obsolete. We are in a information revolution and in all great upheavals there will be change and some people do not like that and will fight it tooth and nail (see my previous post for examples).

    But with progress comes efficiencies and usually a better standard of living. Creators would do well to adjust to the new paradigm sooner rather than later. It is common opinion, and even admitted by the music industry, that had they embraced & worked with Napster rather than trying to stamp it out then they would be in a much better place today. Large monolithic agencies have too much momentum to adapt to quickly changing economic landscapes, the small and spry in such cases usually comes out on top.

    Will this transition be easy? No. Is it inevitable? Most likely.

  41. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    @ quality education
    You’ve missed my point, it isn’t between Access Copyright and the Professor. Universities and staff are CUSTOMERS of Access Copyright. They pay MONEY to use Access Copyright product.

    Access Copyright collects funds from Universities in the name of “copyright”, which is supposed to benefit “rights holders”, but obviously benefits Access Copyright as well. If you are right, and the average salary at Access Copyright is half what a professor makes, I am quite sure that is MUCH more than the average writer ‘represented’ by Access Copyright makes from the copyright work they have created.

    As a writer my concern is with how copyright law has been altered and abused by non-creators to the detriment of both creators and society. The interests of most creators are not parallel with the interests of publishers and collectives as implied by you and Mr. Degan earlier.

  42. Having taught undergraduate and graduate engineering in 3 universities over a span of 40 years I must agree with Public Scientist and Michael Geist. Increasing amounts of engineering material, other than the journals for which we pay dearly, can be found for free.

  43. Ah yes, the lectures about suing grandmothers and cash flush lobbyists. Nothing ever changes.

    Laurel (notice how I spell your name correctly?), AC staff works for the collective, which is made up of affiliates who have chosen to belong and benefit from the activities of the staff. As an affiliate, I expect professional staff to work for my interests, and as an active affiliate and one who attends AGMs and asks a lot of questions, I know that they do and I approve of it and their salaries. I am more than happy with the way the budget is allocated by the board of directors (which is made up my fellow affiliates, democratically elected and responsible to the membership).

    The reason to have a professional administration is to realize the massive efficiencies involved in working as a collective and not individually. Have you ever heard the expression “strength in numbers”? You talk like AC is a huge multinational profit-making corporation. It is a grassroots collective of “little guys” working to ensure fair compensation for use.

    It is popular over here to invoke the individual citizen in a struggle for her rights against a larger, more powerful adversary, the evil corporation. Makes for great rhetoric and strong, satisfying emotions.

    Except in this case, one single Canadian University could buy and sell Access Copyright’s annual budget with its pocket change.

    You have been completely hoodwinked into believing education resists paying the AC tariff in order to benefit you the ordinary citizen. If that were true, and if universities did as the hero of the little guy suggests and walk away from the AC tariff, then education should naturally become cheaper for every poor student.

    Would you care to enter into a wager on that outcome?

    Walk away from Canadian creators and publishers, Canadian creators and publishers will be poorer, and education costs will continue to go up. As Dr. Geist himself has written “tuition is needed.” And for all the nice words about the cost of education affecting accessibility, we don’t see a lot of (any?) campaigning from Dr. Geist on lowering “other” costs at university; just the reasonable costs that go to copyright collectives.

  44. oh, there we go again. I wonder what it is I keep writing that sets off the SPAM filter?

  45. Public Scientist says:

    @Adam
    Thanks for bringing a perspective from a different field. Do you happen to know whether NSERC or any of the large granting agencies for engineering research have adopted open access policies?

    While I wholeheartedly support the principle of open access and the implementations of NIH and CIHR, one of the unfortunate side effects of open access is going to be that publishers are going to increase prices and their grip on the historical literature they still control (this is already happening). As libraries start clearing out shelf space in favour of subscription-based digital repositories we run the risk of losing access to our scientific legacy.

    As a previous poster here mentioned, publishers have a right to make a profit, but I’m not sure how we can equitably prevent price gouging. Does anyone have any ideas?

  46. quality education says:

    @Laurel
    I’m sure that AC staff earn more than most writers. That argues for respecting copyright, not copying without permission, and accepting that fees and royalties should be paid. AC won’t recruit quality staff if it can’t pay at least average salaries. One of the competitive factors is publishing, where salaries are way higher than at AC for most comparable jobs. The average VP salary at a medium-to-large company is much, much more than anyone at AC is going to earn.

  47. quality education says:

    @Degen
    John, this is my last post. Suggest you follow suit. These guys only seem to post in response to stuff they don’t like. So let them hang in the their own wind. No point responding to them ‘cos they don’t read it properly and don’t understand what they do read, and don’t agree with what they do understand.

  48. @John
    I think stop posting and responding. The discussion will slow to nothing within a day if there’s nothing for them to react to.

  49. 5 fast facts, but 0 low cost is mediocre facts
    > They simply MUST be trying to screw the ordinary citizen at every turn. It’s such a juvenile and unhelpful starting philosophy, that is actively encouraged by posts like Dr. Geist’s initial reference to Howard Knopf.

    Degen, you are hilarious!! Instead of trying to debunk the points being made, you’d rather resort to personal attacks. If they’re not “trying to screw the ordinary citizen at every turn,” then why was the Copyright Consultation last year entirely ignored? Why does bill C-32 contain objected wording from the Copyright Consultation?

    > Quite unsurprisingly, there is a great deal of sound and fury over here about things that are just not happening.

    I am supposed to trust you to understand the Copyright Act for me, so you can claim linking is infringement? Let’s see, Access Copyright infected and plagued bill C-32 with private licensing language; then, Access Copyright files an unacceptable Tariff banking on C-32′s silent passing into law, which will generate profitable returns thereafter. How is this interpretation wrong? I’ve seen this happened before, and it’s called section 79 of the Copyright Act, the blank media taxing levy.

    This is what happened around december 2008:

    “The Copyright Board of Canada has released a decision on the private copying levy for 2008 and 2009. The Board INCREASED THE LEVY on each blank CD to 29 cents (it had been 21 cents). The Board argues that this will keep revenues constant at $30 million per year since blank CD SALES ARE DECLINING and there is no levy on digital audio players.” [Emphasis added in caps]
    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3562/125/

    Ah, history repeats itself! What was it you wanted to say, something about “so much more fun to start throwing up barricades and screaming in the streets?” Utterly laughable!!

    We have Degen deliberately evading public concerns, while pretending public concerns are meritless, and quoting non-legally binding texts and extolling them as legally binding via the Tariff. The Supreme Court of Canada is going to rule on Access Copyright’s “FIVE FAST FACTS ON ACCESS COPYRIGHT’S POST-SECONDARY TARIFF APPLICATION” rather than the Tariff. Absurd and ludicrous!!

    Even more so, Degen takes serious offense at the thought of universities using Open Access materials. Why is there vile contempt for using Open Access materials, and equating price with quality? Open Access’ freedom is the best quality there is. Countless people have died for freedom, countless are dying for freedom, and countless will die for freedom; thus, Degen’s monetary value over freedom just doesn’t make any sense. While we require proof of Open Access’ mediocre quality, Degen has provided none. Again, Degen doesn’t make any sense.

  50. Tom,

    What was that you were saying about personal attacks and not making any sense? I didn’t quite understand.

  51. Thank you for your participation
    @ Degen “You talk like AC is a huge multinational profit-making corporation. It is a grassroots collective of “little guys” working to ensure fair compensation for use.”

    It’s not the size of your organization that matters, but how you use it. I can appreciate that you are wanting to compensate creators for their works, a noble goal, but in your enthusiasm, its the overreach of your organization that got people upset.

    Creators must be paid and consumers should get fair value, the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. In previous posts I was not equating AC to likes of the **AA except to point out that they have poisoned the pot for everyone. Demanding more when proportionally your portfolio is being used less and attempting to monetize fair use is not helpful in such an environment.

    I was pleased when it was originally posted that AC had won a court ruling because it showed the courts recognized the need for fair compensation. Then, possibly in the throws of victory, you crossed one hill to many.

    Thank you for participating in this thread as it has provided an opportunity for both sides to make their case, but I think it’s fair to quote, “cos they don’t read it properly and don’t understand what they do read, and don’t agree with what they do understand.” for both arguments.

  52. Crockett,

    I am not AC. I am an affiliate, because I’m a professional writer and have content out there in the repertoire.

    The over-reach you describe is a matter of interpretation — and the Copyright Board is in place to take various interpretations into consideration.

    Certainly, I see no hard eveidence that the AC repertoire itself is shrinking – in fact I know it grows every day – or that use of that repertoire has decreased. Speculation about a potential decrease is all well and good, but it is mere speculation; and in my opinion is based mostly on political and ideological preference (certainly over at this blog).

  53. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    @ Mr. Degen
    First, I apologize for spelling your name incorrectly. It was not deliberate; this site is in a tiny font on my screen and I misread.

    And I am quite certain you’re correct in your assumption that University fees won’t go down as a result of rejecting the Access Copyright tariff. However it is an action unlikely to trigger an increase. It doesn’t matter that Access Copyright is not a “huge multinational profit-making corporation”. To my way of thinking “a grassroots collective of “little guys” don’t break down doors of other businesses and seize photocopiers, nor do they dictate government policy. You speak of Access Copyright “massive efficiencies” yet what I hear is Access Copyright wanting to charge much more for less content. Price gouging does no favors to the copyright system and most assuredly won’t engender respect for it.

    University budgets and levels of efficiency are completely separate issues. The issue at hand is copyright and tariffs that the government has been asked to increase by a disproportionate amount. Tariffs that are intended to far exceed the scope of what is actually covered by Canadian Copyright Law.

    Once upon a time there was a need for collectives, but most if not all became bloated bureaucracies manufacturing problems for their own self preservation. Although there seems to be a host of valid and important problems faced by many collectives they don’t seem to fight the needed battles but instead make things worse for their members.

    A classic example is the Google Book Search fiasco. Google began scanning books for their online book search which would have helped make books findable when the Authors Guild brought a class action suit on behalf of all the authors in the world. The Author’s Guild “won” Google the right to sell copyright works they scan after payment of a nominal fee.

    Copyright Law around the world has become onerous for creators because changes have been driven by “rights holders” and “interested parties” like publishers and collectives who are NOT creators. The chief difference is that non-creator “rights holders” are only interested in the bottom line. This means that unlike creators, they don’t care if works are lost, only that they realize a profit. Most creators have some kind of personal stake in their works, so for them the priorities tend to be reversed.

    The Internet works through links, a form of attribution which is a large part of SEO or “Search Engine Optimization”. Linking is a good thing because links (a) help people and search engines find things, and (b) increase brand recognition. Adding links to blog posts adds extra administrative effort to the creation process but is essential to how the Internet works. It is counter productive to discourage linking, because the end result will be the isolation of material online. Charging for links will certainly discourage them. Not to mention exceeding the scope of existing copyright law.

    As a writer I am opposed to the imposition of tariffs and levies because I think they do much more harm than good. Good will between creators and audience does far more to support copyright than random lawsuits. Russel McOrmond had an excellent article in the IT World Canada’s blog: The most objectionable aspect of the Copyright debate http://www.itworldcanada.com/blogs/ahead/2010/08/19/the-most-objectionable-aspect-of-the-copyright-debate/53342/

    No one here has advocated a “walk away from Canadian creators and publishers”, unless you count Access Copyright’s litigation and tariff approach which is harming Canadian creators. Canadian publishers need to update their business practices if they wish to survive.

    Seriously Mr. Degen, you must certainly inhabit a different universe than I since in my world a 1300% increase could never be mistaken for “reasonable costs”.

  54. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    @quality education
    You wrote:
    “I’m sure that AC staff earn more than most writers. That argues for respecting copyright, ”

    I really don’t get the part about how Access Copyright staff making a better living from copyright than actual creators will make anyone respect copyright.

    And this discussion has not had anything to do with “copying without permission”.

    As well, I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that payment should not be made to creators.

    My understanding is that Access Copyright is supposed to provide administrative support to creators. So I’d think junior book keeping rather than Vice Presidential salaries should be the order of the day. I don’t understand why Access Copyright would be competing for publishing house staff, since I can’t quite imagine why Access Publishing would need editorial staff to collect and disburse royalties.

    But then I have this silly idea that creators should be making a better living from their royalties than copyright collective staff. Interestingly neither you or Mr. Degen have chosen to furnish the figures I requested, which implies the divergence is probably far worse than I thought.

  55. Ms. Russwurm,

    On what evidence or even theory do you conclude that rejection of the tariff will not result in an increase in educational costs to students? Even Russell McOrmond’s proposed move to peer production involves greater immediate and sustained costs to the universities that will without question be passed on to students. Creating cirriculum materials, even in Open Access, is not an inexpensive venture, nor is it getting less expensive over time.

    The fact remains that much of the argument over here is based on the most simplistic ideological speculation, a naive misunderstanding of the cultural economy… and completely incorrect “facts.”

    There is no 1300% increase. Ms. Russwurm, despite the fact that neither Dr. Geist nor Howard Knopf have lifted a single typing finger to correct this piece of misinformation they have both spread around the internet. I understand anti-copyright activists are heroes of yours (I have read your blog), but I question heroism predicated on this kind of intentional and sensational inaccuracy. The set fee proposal from AC is based on the combination of set and per-page existing fees plus an increase not even in the ballpark of 1300%. That increase will HAVE to be justified before the Copyright Board based on factual reporting and estimation of use. This process is in no way arbitrary, despite how it is portrayed by your heroes.

    Unlike you, I have not come to the copyright reform discussion just recently. I appreciate your “once upon a time” summary history of the issues, but you’ll pardon me if I continue to know what I know after two and half decades of professional interaction with this law.

    Do I inhabit a different universe? I don’t think so. But I do live in the real world, as does the Copyright Board.

  56. Here’s to hope!
    Degen, I understand creators feeling like they have been cheated and stolen from, in fact in many cases they have when people use/copy/distribute their works without permission or compensation. This is obviously wrong and should not be condoned. I personally purchase the media I consume, and think I should be able to legally use it for fair uses (Of which digital locks prevent, but that is another discussion). I think this is the opinion and behavior of most bloggers here.

    But there is also a mistrust of content holders and governments due to their past and current activities. You slugged off my comments about
    suing grandmothers and harassing children (of which I am not accusing AC) but these are documented facts and thus in part form the bad
    perception of the pro-copyright industry. AC unfortunately falls into that category in most peoples minds.

    Also, the government in preparing for Bill C-32 had a public consultation and all but ignored the over 5000 entries calling for
    greater fair dealing in favor of the 2 or 3 in favor of greater industry control.

    From posts on blogs from the other side of the table the opinion there seems to be advocates of fair use are all a bunch of pirate hippies.
    So as you can see there is much rhetoric from both camps.

    My hope, as you say, is that the copyright board does live in the real world and not a hippie smoke house nor a gilded castle. My natural
    mistrust of anybody associated with copyright oversight aside, I hope they will weigh both the rights of compensation to creators with the
    freedom of consumers to exercise fair dealing.

    Here’s to hope for a better future.

  57. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    @ Mr. Degen
    I suggested rejection of the tariff was “unlikely to trigger an increase”. My groundless supposition was that if educational facilities continue to pay a tariff assessed at $3.50 per head rather than $35.00 (college) or $45.00 (university) per head there are no reasonable grounds for student costs to increase in this respect.

    Although I think it’s unlikely that switching to Russell McOrmond’s model would cause a transitional cost increase — based solely on my assumption that post secondary institutions are run with some level of fiscal responsibility– if there is an increase, it would go to the creators. It is reasonable to expect creators to be paid a reasonable amount for the work that they do.

    Until recently the lion’s share of publishing costs have been to pay for the physical cost of printing and shipping physical books. The creation of curriculum materials — the Intellectual Property — is no more or less expensive than it ever was, but the cost to distribute digital course material has dropped to almost nil.

    It is unfortunate that you have such difficulty understanding that we are in the midst of the greatest technological revolution the world has ever seen. Your reference to Cory Doctorow as an “anti-copyright activist” speaks to your inability to comprehend the copyright reform he espouses. Many of the people who have come up with radical evolutionary ideas are labelled “radical extremists” because the ideas are complex and different. Its what is sometimes called “thinking outside the box” and can be difficult for many to grasp.

    I do understand you believe you “know what you know”, and accepting change can be difficult, perhaps even frightening. But the world has changed and you can’t put the genie back into the bottle.

    Instead of investing all this energy in trying to reinstating the old fashioned way, learn to adapt. Rights holders are welcome to their rights. Like any other business it’s their prerogative to price themselves out of the market.

    In the real world, those who don’t adapt get left behind.

  58. here’s to hope
    My own wish is that anti-copyright camp-followers will one day tire of being so terribly wrong in their facts. And I know it is a doomed wish, because I’ve been at this bloggy hobby too long.

    Ms. Russwurm, you have failed to account for the per-page charge in past licenses. PLEASE – know what you’re talking about before you start typing. And at that point, spare us all the canned copyright commentary. Think for yourself.

    Crockett, I appreciate the sentiment, and I suspect you and I could share pints happily while talking of other matters, but the way in which you have completely swallowed the “consultation-ignoring” agit-prop disturbs me in this discussion. It is fair and honest for a government to weigh the relative value of submissions. Those who show up at town halls and roundtables and speak with evidence and experience are probably always going to be listened to with greater attention than those who click their mouse once on their way to another website. The real world hasn’t changed all that much, thankfully.

  59. Mr. Degen,
    On the issue of pureness of rational of our elected officials I will agree to disagree. Perhaps I am too jaded or the actual realist, who is to say? I would gladly share a pint with you as civil discussion is the genesis of new ideas.

  60. @Degen
    “It is a grassroots collective of “little guys” working to ensure fair compensation for use.”

    A grass roots organization that seems to be acting outside of the jurisdiction of it’s membership. Most of it’s members that responded directly in the Copyright Consultation on Access’s fears, actually strongly disagreed with Access’s position on user rights.

    A non-profit organization should be acting on the collective agreement of it’s membership. The board has to act directly on the wishes of it’s members. Has anyone from Access be contacted for a vote on their position with this tariff?
    “It’s a panic festival, and continues the rather tiresome trend in the copyright debate of assuming the worst of rightsholders. They simply MUST be trying to screw the ordinary citizen at every turn.”

    Gee I wonder what gave them that idea John? It’s not just citizens here that think that John, it’s a global perception of the creative industries, and there’s lots to work with to support this. That’s not at the fault of creators, it’s at the fault of those representing creators causing a lot of these perceptions with their actions.

    There is currently a very lively debate going on in the US right now, on actions rightsholders and corps have taken:

    It’s going to get ugly in the US as a result, and will probably end up crossing the boarder here as well.

  61. Oh, and by the way …
    Dear Mr. Degen,

    While I still offer the sentiment from my previous post I felt I let you off a little easy. So in response to your assertion that pro-fair use submissions were a ‘click of the mouse’, here are some of the Pro-fair use groups who gave comprehensive submissions and who just didn’t click on their way to another site:

    Canadian Association of University Teachers
    Canadian Federation of Students
    Literary Press Group of Canada
    BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association
    Appropriation Art Coalition
    Canadian Historical Association
    Canadian Music Creators Coalition
    Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
    Canadian Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centers
    Canadian Civil Liberties Association

    And that was just in the first week. In all the ratio of fair use submissions to stricter copyright submissions was 38:1, and to insinuate that the bulk of fair use submissions were spurious does not seem to pan out.

  62. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    @ Mr. Degen
    Interestingly I asked you for facts but you neglected to provide any.

    My thoughts on copyright are not “canned.” The ability to understand and appreciate ideas formed and expressed by others is essential to learning. The critical ability to understand and assess new ideas is part of the process of independent thought.

    My opinions do not coincide with your own. That gives you the right to disagree, but not malign my ability to think. Deriding my facts without substantiation is utter nonsense. Your life experience may be a justification for your conclusions, but can as easily indicate a mind that has been closed for 25 years. It does not elevate your opinion to fact any more than erroneous labels or name calling does.

    What you choose to believe is your affair. That is… until we get into the imposition of large tariff increases. I think the tariff was as wrong as the CD levy in the first place for much the same reason: funds are collected but not necessarily paid out to the correct creator.

    Canadian copyright law is currently up for debate. In a democracy, that usually means citizens are allowed to have opinions.

  63. Deflection, no proof, credibility?
    > You have been completely hoodwinked into believing education resists paying the AC tariff in order to benefit you the ordinary citizen. If that were true, and if universities did as the hero of the little guy suggests and walk away from the AC tariff, then education should naturally become cheaper for every poor student.

    I read no such thing from anyone here about not paying Access Copyright to benefit someone else. You, Degen, Repeatedly Deflect the issue of Access Copyright claiming rights the law doesn’t even recognize, nevermind bestow. If this is your strategy to win public opinion, it is flawed and deceptive. Once again, the real issue is not the universities; the Real Issue is Access Copyright infect and plagued bill C-32, Access Copyright claim rights even C-32 doesn’t recognize (linking), Access Copyright’s price increase as Reprographic Reproduction reaches zero, and Access Copyright’s ludicrous demands on rapid reporting, record keeping, surveys compliance, etc. etc. etc. Please read the Canadian Library Association’s objection, and try to debunk that with, I don’t know… proof?

    > What was that you were saying about personal attacks and not making any sense? I didn’t quite understand.

    I laugh, for this is all you could think of, instead of actually trying to disprove anything I’ve said.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    You obviously do not want people to be free, so you keep repeating your monetary value beliefs, which is quality equals price (higher quality means higher price.) You think by repetion, quality will eventually equal price, but it’s just a pipe dream.

    As a professional writer with decades of copyright experience such as yourself, you haven’t shown any proof to back your claims. I’ve asked for proof in the Copyright Act or any legal text to show a link is a copy, or a link is protected. Guess what? You have provided nothing. Michael Geist has asked you, more or less, to provide proof Open Access is low quality, but you’ve tendered nothing. How believable are you, when you totally ignore the legally binding document, the Tariff, and show things any court wouldn’t even look at as proof?

    > Certainly, I see no hard eveidence that the AC repertoire itself is shrinking – in fact I know it grows every day – or that use of that repertoire has decreased. Speculation about a potential decrease is all well and good, but it is mere speculation

    Michael Geist and others have said they’re not using Access Copyright’s materials, so that’s at least some proof compared to your emotionally contrived arguments.

    > There is no 1300% increase. Ms. Russwurm, despite the fact that neither Dr. Geist nor Howard Knopf have lifted a single typing finger to correct this piece of misinformation they have both spread around the internet.

    The Canadian Library Association used a figure of “3.5 to 4.” These 3.5 to 4 times the current cost figure Does Not include the cost of record keeping, survey compliance, rapid reporting, email monitoring, link usage tracking, secure server, etc. etc. After factoring in the compliance to the usage tracking and rapid reporting, the total cost could be 1300% or higher. You obviously ignored the usage tracking and rapid reporting for your hide-the-evil profit.

    > Those who show up at town halls and roundtables and speak with evidence and experience are probably always going to be listened to with greater attention than those who click their mouse once on their way to another website.

    Ah yes, the townhalls etc. Don’t you mean cartel stacked townhalls, where the public has no seat nor voice? I don’t see how typing on the internet is any less relevant or should be treated irrelevant compared to being in person, or mailing a paper letter. Copyright protects internet messages just the same as any messages in other media/form of communication. In fact, I prefer internet messages because I can check any proof you (joke: have not) present, while it’s difficult to check anything at a townhall. Nevertheless, your preference over townhalls is due to the fact you can stack them to your favour, thereby silencing public dissent. Who do you think reads laws and rulings to post to you these messages, some programmed robot?
    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4329/125/

    You are hilarious!! You should call the Canadian Private Copying Collective and ask for your business model back. Wait, maybe they should call you to stop infringing on their business model, since they started in 1998.

    hahahaha

  64. Crockett,

    My submission to the copyright consultation should also be counted under the support for fair dealing. The existence of support for fair dealing in no way generalizes to a massive ratio of anti-C-32 opinion.

    And this is part of the rhetoric over here I object to. Informed submissions were subtle and detailed, and can’t be easily slotted into “for” and “agin’”. But that doesn’t stop certain consumer advocates from misstating the outcome of the consultation. It’s shameful, and really I can’t figure out how anyone using these tactics could be surprised or annoyed when government decides to look for other sources of information.

    So now we are treated to the spectacle of Tom frothing on about cartel stacked rooms silencing dissent. Come on, does no-one here want to move on from the Little Revolutionaries Club? Real people, real Canadian citizens, work in culture and chose on their own to show up and speak about their industry worries and concerns.

    Facts, facts, facts. Degen refuses to provide facts, therefore we’ve won. Yet every fact I do provide is ignored, and I’m accused of having a closed mind.

    The “facts” you want about AC’s salary and distribution structure exist in public information on their website, Ms. Russwurm. Do the work yourself. While you’re there, do a bit of research to inform Mr. Koblovsky about the board structure and democratic governance.

    Aha, Degen chose to deflect the work of our “argument” to one of us. We win! hahahahaha

    Have a nice weekend everyone. Sheesh.

  65. Re Growing Repository
    Does a growing repository mean increasing relevance for AC?
    What is taken out of the repository is more significant than what is going into it.

    I read ,(see below), that the vast majority of the books in The Stanford Engineering Library had not been checked out in over 5 years. The library will pare its it 80,000 books to 10,000. Moving forward we can expect that the body of work most utilized by students will be available digitally as apart of a paid subscription.

    Pay the authors their due, pay them more than they get now, pay them directly , just don’t pay an artifact overpriced analog overhead to to administer it. And lets not risk paying twice simply because it is may be included the “growing” repository at AC.

    This is the wrong license , the wrong collective , and the wrong time
    …walk away

    links:
    http://www.teleread.com/2010/07/11/new-stanford-engineering-library-pares-paper-books-from-80000-to-10000/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439522126865254.html

    http://toc.oreilly.com/2010/08/followreader-consumer-attitudes-toward-e-book-reading.html

  66. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    Maybe I can help Mr. Degen with a quick lesson on the Internet:
    @Degen wrote:

    “Thank goodness someone is looking out for Google, though. They really need to be protected from Canadian writers and publishers.”

    This statememt indicates your complete misunderstanding of the issues at play here. Clearly you approve the idea of being paid for links, although neither contemplated or covered under Canadian copyright law. But that’s short term thinking detrimental even to you in the long run.

    Links are critically important to the use of the Internet for disseminating ideas. Every link adds value to a site, not only by allowing users to click the link and go to the site, but by adding authority to the web page that makes search engines like Google rate it more highly. Being online is all well and good but if no one can find you or your site there is no point. Isn’t that part of why you find yourself posting comments here as well as comments (and links) on the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook page?

    So no, Google doesn’t need saving from Canadian writers and publishers, but Canadian writers and publishers may well need saving from the Access Copyright’s attempt to make people pay for Canadian links.

    Then there was the Google Book Search cautionary tale of how one misguided collective won a battle against Google but lost a war to the detriment of all the other writers — and collectives — in the world.

    Google’s original “book scan” project would have benefited all writers — including Access Copyright writers– by making their works searchable online. The inability of the Author’s Guild to understand the new idea led to their short sighted copyright infringement lawsuit which resulted in an initial settlement so bad that it was over-ruled by branches of the American Government along with strong protests by most other governments. (Who were subsequently released from inclusion in the new settlement.)

    Unfortunately Canada’s government chose not to protest — leaving Canadian writers liable to the second attempt at a settlement. No other writer’s collective in the world seems to support the Author’s Guild settlement which gives Google the right, not only to scan books protected under copyright but also to sell ebook versions of them.

    The direct result is that a great many Canadian writers (and collectives) have been forced to invest time and effort to fight against this problem– brought on their heads through the actions of one misinformed collective. This has caused a great deal of damage to Canadian writers– and presumably publishers. Possibly even Access Copyright writers and publishers.

    Rushing to make bad laws or impose bad tariff increases that will cause long term harm to Canadian writers and publishers is not in the best interests of any Canadian.

  67. @Laurel Good comments.
    @Degen I hope you have a nice weekend too.

    I will be gone for the next week, happy to know the debate will go on.

  68. Google
    There is not an authors group in the world that was ok with Google digitizing books without permission.

  69. Weak legal standing, strong ad hominems
    > The existence of support for fair dealing in no way generalizes to a massive ratio of anti-C-32 opinion.

    Whatever the ratio you think it is doesn’t explain the anti-C-32 opinions right now. So, the ratio is either massive towards anti-C-61, or massive towards anti-C-32. The problem is James Moore already decided the draconian measures regardless of the Consultation. If you go back a few weeks before C-32′s release, you will find comments relating to “we win” Before the bill was even released.

    > So now we are treated to the spectacle of Tom frothing on about cartel stacked rooms silencing dissent.

    hahahaha
    Look who’s frothing, me typing in anger or you descending into ad hominems? How many times did you resort to ad hominems? Scroll up and see.

    If you chose not to read the link, fine. It is proof I’m not a liar, nor trying to run off-topic of Access Copyright trying to grab undeserved rights Under The Law. You know the law right? The thing that the Tariff keeps touting as sacred, and yet Access Copyright feel they can get away with claiming linking as their right.

    > Yet every fact I do provide is ignored, and I’m accused of having a closed mind.

    The “fact” you provide have Zero Merit Under The Law. Do you think any court would look at some quotation on Access Copyright’s site over the language in the Tariff? This reminds me of the show “The Docket” on CBC. One episode had a cartel lawyer, an artist, and some joe representing the public. The lawyer and artist slammed the joe for illegally Downloading music, which didn’t make any sense because section 79 was already there. Downloading music then wasn’t tested in court, unlike now, so downloading music wasn’t illegal and still isn’t. The average joe became their tech “expert”, if I’m not mistaken. Anyway, the point here is the music cartel had a lawyer present, and none for the public. You, therefore, keep pulling a CBC “The Docket”, and that’s hilarious!!

    > Aha, Degen chose to deflect the work of our “argument” to one of us. We win! hahahahaha

    Funny, but I am not here to win any “argument”. I am here to ask you to provide proof for Access Copyright’s claims of new rights, and/or disprove Canadian Library Association’s objection by providing some legal proof. Nobody from Access Copyright has provided any legal proof, and certainly not you. The only thing you do is resort to ad hominems; while I could copy you, I’d rather not infringe your copyright and/or trademark on that. I do see why you’re angry, and it’s due to your indefensible rhetoric. If you did have any legal proof, you would have revealed it by now and not resorted to ad hominems. It just shows no matter how great an artist is, and without legal proof, you’re not as moral as you think. Moreover, try and steal Fair Dealing (section 29) in C-32 is very immoral.

    Please do try to tone down the demands!

  70. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    digitizing books
    @ bob
    You are quite probably right that no authors group in the world would have been ok with Google digitizing books without permission. Of course, the Authors Guild/Google Books Settlement not only gave Google permission to digitize for search but the right to SELL ebooks they have digitized.

    As an Indie writer I would have welcomed Google digitization for search purposes with open arms, but it helps I have some grasp of Search Engine Optimization or SEO.

    Also, where are the author collectives in regard to publishers assuming control of digital works? The only mainstream entity I’ve seen to stand up against this publisher rights grab was Wylie and their interest was dealing themselves in for a piece of the action. Maybe that’s the way to go. (Except isn’t it a conflict of interest?)

    One of the biggest problems with all of the issues around copyright and the Internet is that decisions and policies are being made without stakeholders understanding the issues. Copyright impacts on all of society; every citizen is a stakeholder, yet most are still unaware of the changes that have been implemented over the last few decades.

    Copyright can only work if it a balanced agreement between creators and society. What we have right now is far beyond the tipping point.

  71. @Laurel L. Russwurm
    I agree that authors, indie in particular, would likely have not problem with Google having digitized for search purposes. This increases your chances of being found.

    However, as I understand it the Author’s Guild complaint was that Google wanted to make very large portions of the books available online. Let’s say that you have a book of 200 pages. Even if you can only get 5 pages of the book as a result of a search, 40 searches would be sufficient to download the entire book. In that sense I can see their point, even if I don’t agree with it.

    Now, to take this into context of the current discussion. The proposed tariff drops the $0.10 per page course pack fee. As such, it is no longer a 1300% increase… If the course pack was ~416 pages, then it represents a cost DECREASE, since the old flat fee is also absorbed into the new tariff. The actual increase will vary according to the course pack used; it could range UP TO 1300%.

    With respect to linking. Again, even if I don’t agree with it I can understand the rationale for linking; linking puts the expense of producing the copy on the student… so, if the college/university makes available a digital copy via a link, they’ve not actually produced a hard copy for a course pack, however if it is something that would otherwise be part of the course pack, why shouldn’t it be covered under the tariff? A copy is a copy, whether it be hard or bits on a hard disk. Using the current per page course pack fee, does the fee cover a document provided to the student and printed by the student as part of an electronic course pack? If not, then this could be viewed as a way to bypass the fees that AC charges.

    The main issue that I have with the AC proposal is that it would mean that AC get $45 per student even if there is no AC covered works used; this is money for nothing. Presumably, since there is no record of any covered works being used by these students, this money is not added to the pot used to compensate original authors. This money is then used to fund AC’s lobbying efforts or for executive bonuses at AC, etc. In the worst case scenario, all post-secondary institutions go to open source but still pay AC. No money goes to authors since there is no record of ANY works being used.

  72. Create your own little repertoire server and track that
    > if it is something that would otherwise be part of the course pack, why shouldn’t it be covered under the tariff?

    Why should there even be a Tariff???

    Anon-K, did you read the Canadian Library Association’s objections? Please read CBQ’s post “Access relevance ramble with apologies to James MacGillivray” at
    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5252/125/

    > A copy is a copy, whether it be hard or bits on a hard disk.

    A copy is a copy, but the context of the copy’s usage is different. According to Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45 (Supreme Court of Canada):

    ‘The creation of a “cache” copy is a serendipitous consequence of
    improvements in Internet technology, is content neutral, and in light of
    s. 2.4(1)(/b/) of the Act ought not to have any legal bearing on the
    communication between the content provider and the end user. “Caching”
    is dictated by the need to deliver faster and more economic service, and
    should not, when undertaken only for such technical reasons, attract
    copyright liability and therefore comes within the shelter of
    s. 2.4(1)(/b/). The Board’s view is correct and its decision in that
    regard should be restored.’

    Fair Dealing in the Copyright Act:
    29.4 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an educational institution or a person acting under its authority
    (a) to make a manual reproduction of a work onto a dry-erase board, flip chart or other similar surface intended for displaying handwritten material, or
    (b) to make a copy of a work to be used to project an image of that copy using an overhead projector or similar device
    for the purposes of education or training on the premises of an educational institution.

    If you combine that Supreme Court of Canada ruling with section 29.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, you can appreciate the Fair Dealing nature of using an improvement of technology for the purposes of education or training on the premises of an educational institution.

    Here’s an idea: Why doesn’t Access Copyright create their own distribution server, and charge 100 cents a click for using their little repertoire, or any amount they want? They can create secure servers, secure connections, log everything, and whatever else they want to do with their little repertoire. It’s easy, since we have online stores and auctions galore nowadays. Why should all educational institutions be subjected to ridiculous demands on usage tracking and rapid reporting via a Tariff, when the onus is clearly on Access Copyright?

    The answer is Access Copyright wants to charge for phantom repertoire usage. In other words, Access Copyright wants to charge for usage of every content regardless who owns it, and even content already paid through existing licenses. This is why nobody outside of Access Copyright knows of their little collection. Many on here have asked for a public list, but there is silence. When nobody has a clue on what is being charged, Access Copyright can charge any content they want and claim anything. The proof is already in the Tariff and in bill C-32, when they include linking and other nonsense.

  73. At the risk of being accused of “ad hominems,” let me just point out once again that several commenters here are getting very worked up based on incorrect information. I know as well that this will lead to more demands for “proof,’ but whatever. If you expect a book report on every opinion before you even consider engaging with it, I wish you well in the world.

    So, Laurel, thanks so much for the lesson on linking and the Google book settlement. As Bob has pointed out, resistance to the Google books project by author and publisher groups was widespread, and it was really only Cory Doctorow who thought it was so fantastic that we should all send gift baskets as a thank you to Google for attempting copyright infringement on a massive scale.

    The settlement was celebrated not for its many troublesome details, but for the simple fact that Google was forced to acknowledge their “raw material” had owners, and they needed to deal with those owners. After that win, the real discussion began (on both an individual and collective level) about staying in, opting out, and the overall legality of the US agreement. I know all that is messier than rolling over and sending gift baskets on the way to Search Engine Optimization utopia, but the real world can be messy.

    As to writer groups protesting rights grabs, Canadian professional associations – like PWAC, which I ran for five years – were largely responsible for all the costs (beyond pro-bono legals), behind the decade long Heather Robertson v. Thomson court class action – which went to the Supreme Court and set important writer rights precedent. As well, Canadian writer groups are outspoken on bad contracts, and always have been:

    http://www.badwritingcontracts.ca/

    The examples (proof!) I’ve provided here represent real, professional, working, writers in Canada – the same people who started Access Copyright — putting their own money, time and effort on the line, every day for the past 30 years or so, to work for your individual rights as a Canadian creator. You’re welcome. I suggest you contect the Writers Union, PWAC et al and see if they would be interested in a lesson on copyright.

    Tom, I’d respond to your comments as well, but honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. None of your accusations about AC repertoire or its claims in the tariff proposal correspond to reality, as far as I can tell. I don’t mean that as an “ad hominem.” It’s just a “fact.” The principle behind the proposal is to collect reasonable fees for actual use. Post-sec institutions are free to present their own “proof” that the claimed usage is not happening, or that fair dealing covers their usage.

    The panic over linking and extreme increases is all out of proportion to the actual proposal and the CB process. No surprise, really, but an ongoing disappointment.

    As much as I enjoy the odd scrimmage over here, it is really disheartening to note that the knowledge base in these comment sections is shrinking over time. For a blog apparently dedicated to increasing understanding of copyright issues, it is remarkably ineffective in that project.

  74. @Degen
    I wonder why your references to the Copyright Board are so frequent and so flattering despite the biases this Board has shown in the past, like its recent position in favor of an increased levy on blank CDs despite falling sales.

    Here are some excerpts from your posts in this blog:

    > The copyright board has no doubt heard all the objections encouraged by Dr. Geist, and will keep them in mind as it decides on the tariff.

    > It is now for the Copyright Board to figure out the volume of copyright activity within universities that requires payment.
    The over-reach you describe is a matter of interpretation — and the Copyright Board is in place to take various interpretations into consideration.

    > The Copyright Board is a quasi-judicial body that, like a court, hears evidence and delivers a pondered decision.

    > That increase will HAVE to be justified before the Copyright Board based on factual reporting and estimation of use. This process is in no way arbitrary, despite how it is portrayed by your heroes.

    > But I do live in the real world, as does the Copyright Board.

    You would not speak otherwise if you were yourself a member of this Board. Because of the fallacies presented in your posts, this is an idea that makes me cringe.

    @anon
    You are right on target when you write:

    > This money is then used to fund AC’s lobbying efforts or for executive bonuses at AC, etc.

    By trying to impose a blanket fee, the AC’s proposed tariff is not intended to benefit the creators but the big guys at the top of this corporation, thanks to the expected complacency of the Copyright Board.

  75. Well, I’m not at all surprised that someone over here would intepret considered decisions by the Copyright Board as “biases.” That’s the standard MO, right? Call for fair process, but when fair process concludes with something other than your received wisdom, accuse the process of being biased and/or in the pockets of lobbysist.

    For years, everyone was caling for a public consultation. And when there was a remarkable cross-country consultation using the web and in-person meetings, did 90,000 citizens storm the halls and demand “fair” copyright, as promised by all the hype over here?

    Nope; instead reasonable, professional, culture workers with a real stake in protecting their rights showed up and made reasonable, professional submissions, while the copyleft stayed at home. As well, real, professional culture workers and their associations made unique, challenging and detailed written submissions online, while a whole bunch of other folks, many of them from outside Canada, clicked “send” on a pre-fab protest letter.

    And now — gnashing and wailing about bias and unfair process. Surprise, surprise.

    Decisions by the Copyright Board can be rejected by the courts, and have been in 12% of cases. Looked at another way, that’s an 88% success rate on review of decisions by the CB.

    Biased? Canadian courts don’t think so.

    But I’m sure you can find a way to believe it anyway.

  76. quality education says:

    But, but, of course the courts are biased because AC is bribing the judges. And in addition to executive bonuses at AC, you forget that the admin assistant’s butler is paid at least $1 million a year.

    This discussion has run its course. Degen – I think that if you simply ignore what’s said, posting wil wind down after a day. No point encouraging them, given the nonsense they put up.

  77. Sandy Crawley says:

    Specialized education for very special purposes
    In a country that was at least partly founded on the concept of universal public education Professor Geist’s approach seems to make the needs of highly specialized education such as he, no doubt, provides – paramount to access to all potentially relevant material by and for all students of all subjects, even brand new fields such as his own. But then, perhaps the Professor envisions an era when all information is treated with “Open Access”. Hmmmm. No longer a need for the kind of personal expression we used to call art as a means of making a living. The dream of the cloud coupled with a meritocracy built on pure commerce. Seems downright anti-human, not to say irresponsible. Then I look at the clouds and I see a noisy, overconfident Hare in a hurry and I see a calm and deliberate Tortoise following the course on tried and true principles of forward motion. We know how that one turns out.

  78. Some figures
    According to quality education: ‘The tariff of $45 is more than is now collected by AC from flat fees and coursepack fees, but not massively more.’
    According to StatsCan, from 2004-05 to 2008-09 the number of university students rose from 1,021,521 to 1,112,370: http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/educ54a-eng.htm?sdi=university
    Accordingly, a conservative estimate of the the number of university students in 2009-10 would be 1,122,376.
    If $45 was a reasonable measure of universities’ use of AC repertoire, in 2009-10 AC should have had revenues of $ 50,506,920 from universities alone. Instead, AC’s revenue *from all sources of licence fees* was only $33,728,000.

    If one combines this low figure with AC’s continuing decline in revenues and the ongoing decline in coursepack use, one finds that the $45 tariff is preposterous. Combine these with a reasonable projection of university enrolments (e.g., 1,203,960 by 2013-14) and AC’s tariff is a transparent attempt to grab 50 to 60 million dollars annually *from universities alone.*

  79. DJP,

    I hope some of the commenters here thank you for doing those calculations. Looks like you have proven the much touted 1300% increase is a work of science fiction intended to scare the public into thinking greedy artists were trying to gouge poor students. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to spin such an obvious falsehood, but there you go.

    A really close look at AC annual reports for the last five years shows decreasing admin costs, increased efficiency in distribution and transactional (per-use) licensing, even as the shift from print to digital (which AC is only now broadly licensing through its tariff proposal, accounting for the revenue gap you’ve idetified) makes only a small impact on revenues.

    Far from a money grab, AC’s tariff proposal looks more and more like a reasonable request based on responsible research into actual usage in the educational context.

    In case no-one else thanks you for your work (which is a trend over here), let me do so. Thanks.

  80. Au contraire, Degen, AC’s “general and administrative costs” are budgeted to increase from 6,270,000 (2009 actual) to 6,882,000 in 2010 (a 9.7% increase). AC’s “professional fees” are budgeted to increase from 709,000 (2009 actual) to 1,439,000 in 2010 (a 102% increase). AC’s “travel, meetings, and directors’ costs” are budgeted to increase from 355,000 (2009 actual) to 399,000 in 2010 (a 12.4% increase). None of these figures includes Copyright Board applications, which are budgeted to increase from 301,000 (2009 actual) to 1,651,000 in 2010 (a 449% increase).
    If AC’s “administrative costs” have actually been decreasing (as Degen claims), quite plausibly it is largely because AC’s licence fees from universities have been decreasing: e.g., from ca. 16 million (2009 actual) to 13 million (budgeted for 2010: by the way, the latter figure would imply that AC should be seeking no more than ca. $11.37 per student in 2010, rather than $45, and diminishing amounts thereafter). As reasons for this projected decrease AC has cited ‘fair dealing’ and licensed digital access (e.g., students’ and professors’ online access to periodicals, for which universities pay such aggregators as JSTOR, ProQuest, and Gale). Not mentioned by AC are other thoroughly legitimate sources of revenue loss, including open access publications.

  81. Percentages, please. Start with percentages, stick with percentages, okay? That’s what people who want real answers do. Oh no, a collective planning to do significantly more work is budgeting to increase admin. How irresponsible.

    What is needed over here, exactly? You prove your own assertions (1300% increase!) to be baseless and ridiculous falsehoods, you act like any work done on behalf of creators should be free (how dare they pay themselves and their lawyers!), and you could care less that the real cost of education is centered in the universities themselves ($806.1 million annual budget for U of O) who you completely forgive for passing all increased costs onto students.

    If that is not blind ideology at work, what is it?

    AC is reasonably and logically following actual educational use of copyright protected material from photocopiers to digital. It’s proposed fees are a fraction of what universities regularly pay to keep their student pubs stocked with beer. Why is that unfair?

    If all the use is protected by fair dealing and/or individual licensing and open access content, y’all have nothing to worry about. Prove that to the copyright board and you’re in the gravy. And, of course, at that point tuition fees will drop, and we can all hold hands again.

  82. Facts are convenient only if true
    Dear Mr. Degen,
    You accuse people here of ignoring facts but at the same time you make them up.

    You said, “Nope; instead reasonable, professional, culture workers with a real stake in protecting their rights showed up and made reasonable, professional submissions, while the copyleft stayed at home.”

    I have just read each submission from all organizations for the first 5 days of the government copyright consultations and categorized them into 3 groups:
    A] Support Key points of C-32 and and/or suggest greater restrictions on fair use
    B] Oppose key points of C-32 and/or suggest less restriction on fair use
    C] Essentially neutral (I have omitted these entries from list A or B)

    Submitters in group A = 14
    Submitters in group B = 49

    To say the “copyleft” (of which I am unclear of the definition but I assume is group B) did not show up, and to insinuate that the those who do not agree with your position (eg. CRTC, Retail council of Canada) are not reasonable or professional … is untrue, deceptive and deters from the credibility of your other comments.

    [GROUP A]
    Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network
    Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters
    Canadian Publishers’ Council
    Entertainment Software Association of Canada
    Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce
    Independent Digital Licensing Agency
    Society for Reproduction Rights desauteurs, Composers and Publishers in Canada
    Professional Society of Authors and Composers Quebec
    American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada
    Canadian Standards Association
    Association of Book Publishers of British Columbia
    Book Publishers Association of Alberta
    Canadian Chamber of Commerce
    Writers Guild of Canada

    [GROUP B]
    -Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists
    -Retail Council of Canada
    -Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC)
    -Literary Press Group of Canada
    -Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
    -Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
    -Ontario Council of University Libraries
    -Canadian Association of University Teachers
    -Canadian Federation of Students
    -Canadian Urban Library Council
    -Division des archives de l’Université Laval
    -Association of Newfoundland and Labrador Archives (ANLA)
    -Bell, Rogers, Shaw and TELUS
    -National Campus and Community Radio Association of Canada
    -University of Saskatchewan
    -Atlantic Provinces Library Association
    -Canada’s Privacy Community
    -Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
    -Canadian Legal Information Institute
    -Canadian University Music Society
    -Vancouver Fair Copyright Coalition
    -BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA)
    -Association for the Advancement of Science and Technical Documentation
    -Consumers Union
    -US Lions Entertainment
    -Public Interest Advocacy Centre
    -InterPARES 3 and Hampton University Institutional Repositories Research Project
    -Association of Canadian Archivists
    -Canadian Association of Educational Resource Centres for Alternate Format Materials
    -Canadian Association of Law Libraries
    -Canadian Private Copying Collective
    -Canadian Political Science Association
    -City of Vancouver Archives
    -Colleges Ontario’s Heads of Libraries & Learning Resources
    -Documentary Organization of Canada
    -Council of Nova Scotia Archives
    -Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright
    -Canadian Association of Internet Providers, a division of CATAlliance (CAIP)
    -Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA)
    -Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association (CWTA)
    -Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
    -Google
    -Third Brigade
    -Tucows
    -Bell Aliant
    -Cogeco Cable
    -EastLink
    -MTS Allstream
    -SaskTel

  83. 0_o
    Universities pay for student’s beer? Really? I better renew my student card.

  84. Access Copyright’s onus uploaded to universities
    > If you expect a book report on every opinion before you even consider engaging with it, I wish you well in the world.

    If Degen expect a usage report on every link, email, link in emails, and so forth by “Authorized Persons” (including third parties) in educational institutions for charging ludicrous fees, I wish Degen would wake up to the digital world.

    > As well, Canadian writer groups are outspoken on bad contracts, and always have been

    Good contracts and/or bad contracts are _private business dealings_ within their groups. What you and your groupies do in _private_ isn’t my concern, nor should be anyone’s concern in public. _Nobody owes you a good contract, get over it!_

    > The examples (proof!) I’ve provided here represent real, professional, working, writers in Canada – the same people who started Access Copyright — putting their own money, time and effort on the line, every day for the past 30 years or so, to work for your individual rights as a Canadian creator.

    _Students and teachers are Canadian creators. Students do not create for commercial purposes._ In fact, they’re paying to create in an academic environment. Contrarily, you and your groupies create for commercial purposes. Fair Dealing is extended to educational institutions is partly due to non commercial dealings in academic environments.

    Since when does Degen and Access Copyright’s groupies pay into any copyright collective?

    Again and again, you are no different than the music or movie cartel members who whine and whine about the artists, oh poor artists, boo hoo. Poor artists are _irrelevant to Access Copyright, by unknown power, granting themselves additional rights, where no law recognizes._ You repeatdly and deliberately ignoring the objections filed by the Canadian Library Association, the Canadian Federation of students and the Canadian Association of University Teachers. The fact the objection’s deadline was in the summer reveals plenty to your little schemes. Don’t tell me you fought for all creators in Canada, namely the students, since you’re only interested in your little elite groupies.

    > The principle behind the proposal is to collect reasonable fees for actual use.

    If it’s only that simple. Obviously you like to keep things simple in the public eye, but then hide complexities by using language of the law to your advantage in the Tariff.

    > None of your accusations about AC repertoire or its claims in the tariff proposal correspond to reality, as far as I can tell.

    It doesn’t correspond to reality because the Tariff does not list Access Copyright’s little repertoire. If Access Copyright lists its little repertoire that are subjected to pay-per-use, then everyone would know the cost of using Access Copyright’s little repertoire. To my knowledge, you nor Access Copyright has provided the list or a link to one.

    > The panic over linking and extreme increases is all out of proportion to the actual proposal and the CB process. No surprise, really, but an ongoing disappointment.

    Linking leads to extreme increases and out of proportions rights that Access Copyright illegally claim for themselves. It would seem you haven’t read the objections, but I believe you’ve read them and you’re deliberately ignoring them in the public eye for purely self-interest purposes. Your dubious schemes are clear now, infect and plague C-32, propose an objection deadline in the summer when people are away or their attention aren’t on the issue. No point hiding!

  85. Access Copyright’s onus uploaded to universities cont.
    > As much as I enjoy the odd scrimmage over here, it is really disheartening to note that the knowledge base in these comment sections is shrinking over time. For a blog apparently dedicated to increasing understanding of copyright issues, it is remarkably ineffective in that project.

    Nice little derision. I’ve quoted the Copyright Act and Supreme Court of Canada rulings several times, while Degen quoted himself and some non legal binding text from Access Copyright; then Degen says the project is ineffective? Degen, you are totally laughable!!

    The fact is every educational institution must not create the digital infrastructure to deal with Access Copyright’s illegal demands, when the onus of dealing with usage in today’s digital world falls on Access Copyright. Even the music cartel is using the internet to “compensate artists” (big joke) nowadays, so Access copyright should either create their own little secure distribution server to track usage, create _real-time_ reports, and whatever else they want to do, or relinquish their ludicrous Tariff. In other words, distribute your own work using the internet because you can benefit from _real-time_ reports, instead of forcing all educational institutions to provide you expensive reports at their costs. I am going one step further than this objection:

    Canadian Federation of students
    Canadian association of university teachers

    “46. Third, the reporting mechanism the Proposed Tariff envisions is virtually pre-
    industrial. Access Copyright indicates that it will provide “a form”, but fails to offer
    any technological tools to facilitate reporting and – to its own benefit – distribution
    of royalties. CAUT and CFS suggest that the Proposed Tariff be amended to include
    a mandatory set-aside of funds collected pursuant to this tariff for investment in and
    deployment of a web-based reporting database of Access Copyright’s repertoire and
    other works that would streamline licensees’ reporting obligations under the tariff.”
    http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/CAUT-CFS_Objection_to_Access Copyright_Tariff-2010-08-11.pdf

  86. Geist’s original blog entry “did not reject licensing, but rather noted that the combined effect of openly accessible materials, licensed databases, and fair dealing was such that the Access Copyright licence may not be necessary for many professors.” Geist went on to emphasize that “where there is a need for a specific work that is not otherwise available, it could be directly licenced with the copyright holder, thereby ensuring that the actual author receives full compensation for their work.” Is Access Copyright the best venue for direct licensing with copyright holders?
    Degen says, “A really close look at AC annual reports for the last five years shows …increased efficiency in … transactional (per-use) licensing,” and demands “Percentages, please.” Taking a really close look at AC annual reports and considering the actual percentages does not confirm Degen’s claim.
    AC’s annual reports differ from year to year in their description of transactional licences. In various annual reports, AC has selectively recorded the number of publications/articles transactionally licensed (2005-09), the number of transactional licences issued (2005-08), and the number of transactional licences requested (2002-07).
    The 2005-08 figures might seem to display increased efficiency. But what form did that increased efficiency take? E.g., one can conclude that during 2005-08 there tended to be 3 times as many publications/articles licensed as there were licenses issued. However, this is not a very informative percentage since the number of pages—which is the most relevant figure for creators, publishers, and users whom AC serves—was not recorded.
    For 2005-06, there were 40% to 50% more transactional licences requested than actual transactional licences: at this rate, a professor planning a course could count on approximately 1 miss for every 2 hits on AC’s part. But has AC been more efficient in securing transactional licences since then? Or less efficient? Again, AC’s figures provide no basis for assessing its performance throughout the past 5 years.
    As well, for 2005-06, AC made percentage comparisons of transactional licence ‘usage’ (whatever that might refer to) and transactional licence revenue. Since these 2005-06 figures do not correspond to any of the other figures AC recorded for 2005-06 and since there are no raw figures (or even bar graphs) for revenue or ‘usage’, these figures are not a basis for assessing AC’s performance throughout the past 5 years.
    In short, though AC’s records of transactional licensing might create the impression of a percentage increase in efficiency during the past 5 years, AC’s ways of reporting its transactional licensing to its creators and publishers is so inconsistent as not to instill confidence in such a sweeping claim. Maybe AC has been reporting the values of variables that best display increased efficiency preceding a particular year in order to inspire such confidence among publishers and creators via its annual reports.
    Of great importance with regard to Geist’s observation, the figures AC has recorded provide no clear basis for a professor to rely on AC to secure transactional licences for more than 2/3 of her required readings. Perhaps another organization would do a better job (and generate less overhead).

  87. Where to begin?

    First of all, the consultation took place before there was a C-32, so grouping the submissions as pro- or anti-C-32 is a neat trick indeed… emphasis on “trick.”

    Crockett’s is exactly the kind of misleading and irresponsible analysis I regularly protest against on this blog. Let’s just skip over the rather disturbing idea that someone has the time to read each and every copyright submission from the groups listed in less than a day.

    The key problem here is that one cannot take long, detailed, subtly analytical submissions and shove them into a yes/no results table. That is exactly what Dr. Geist did with his original, terribly unscholarly and rather silly report on the submissions — the one that completely ignored the quality behind the raw numbers. Crockett, you are merely repeating the folly.

    I consider all the written submissions that contain original thought and anaylis, regardless of which group they come from, to be confirmation of the value of the consultation process. And, frankly, I trust those charged with reading and analysing the submissions will take more time and read more carefully than either MG or Crockett have done. In fact, it looks to me like that is exactly what happened as C-32 was formulated.

    Instead of counting submissions, and putting them into two piles (and a conveniently indistinct third pile), the government read and analysed carefully. Good for them.

    BTW, the inclusion of the Canadian Private Copying Collective in your B (copyleft) pile of submissions is probably NOT the only laughable mistake you’ve made in this “analysis,” but it sure made me chuckle.
    On the other hand, the inclusions of the Literary Press Group and ACTRA into your copyleft column are clearly not mistakes — it looks like you actually intended to confuse and mislead with those ones. Ridiculous.

    Here’s ACTRA’s “suggestion for less restriction on fair use”:

    “It may be useful for the government to consider areas to broaden beneficially and carefully the balance in a manner that does not harm the economic interests or moral rights of creators.”

  88. I’ll admit when I make a mistake
    Degen,

    Oh, I’m sorry it offended you that I took the time to actually read the submissions (it took 2 hours and was an interesting read). Maybe while you were on the golf course, I got some work done. I suppose you’d prefer to continue pretending posters here are just shallow mimics of the ‘common folks’ wisdom.

    Yes these consultations did take place before C-32 was tabled but you also said that ‘informed, professional’ opinions were the foundation from which the government made their decisions and which the presenters were hoping would be included in upcoming legislation, you can’t have it both ways. C-32′s digital locks provision is the elephant in the room deal breaker of the agreement and really the only section in the bill that most fair use proponents disagree with. The listings in my post were categorized mainly on that point, you can disagree with my use of criteria, but nevertheless it is valid.

    Having said that I will admit when I have made a mistake, I am not completely opposed to a reasonable expansion of the media levy, it never made sense to me to charge it only on CD-ROMS, while a DVD can hold 6 times as many MP3s. ACTRA & CPCC submissions stated they would support a users right to use media however they pleased with an expanded levy. In retrospect though I would assume the levy they would request would not be at all reasonable if they follow the example of certain other collectives. So as you advise I will move them to column A.

    The Literary press group on the other had meets my criteria spot on: “Penalties for circumventing TPMs must apply only to cases of actual infringement. There is no merit in penalizing individuals who circumvent TPMs but do not distribute the unlocked materials or otherwise infringe on copyright in a fair-dealing context.”

    And they get special points for recognizing this obvious truth, “Law that cannot be practically enforced is law that will be ignored and ultimately devalued.”

    Enjoy your drinks at the greens club.

  89. Vagueness is not helpful on both sides.
    Furthermore, the point of my groupings were not to completely pigeonhole a group into one category or another, I realize that is not possible, which is why I used one main criteria (of which I did not state and I apologize for that omission). Rather, it was to counter your accusation that the “copyleft” (your own pigeonhole category) did not show up or have anything informed to say. If you would be so kind as to define that term maybe we could come to a better agreement.

  90. Crockett,

    I gracefully accept your admission of error, and accept all of your apologies, even the ones couched in petty accusations about me playing golf. (?)

    The copyleft I am referring to is a common understanding of the term encompassing various anti-copyright groups and arguments. My reference was meant specifically to mean those folks who had called for consultation from an anti-copyright bias, had as much opportunity as members of the cultural industries to take a seat at the town halls, but instead chose to stay home — and now continue to complain that they were unfairly shut out of the consultation.

    You can find many examples of that kind of complaint on this blog, beginnign with Dr. Geist’s own characterization of the Toronto town hall as a music industry town hall stacked by insiders.

  91. Darryl Moore says:

    @Degen
    WRT copyleft. It is generally just the copyright maximalists who equate this term with anti-copyright. Making this association says more about your own biases then it does about people who self identify with ‘copyleft’

    WRT the town hall meetings. I was one of the few fair-use advocates who was at the Toronto town hall, and yes it was most definitely ‘stacked’.

  92. The proof is in the pudding
    I’m not sure why there is so much emphasis on the town hall meetings? Full, informed, thoughtful submissions of various points of view were made by letter as well. Their opinions are no less valid. And a substantial amount of those submissions called for no penalties on bypassing TPM for non-infringing uses of media. Which is the only large issue for most “copyleft” thinkers, if I must use your term, in relation to C-32. To again say that they ‘didn’t show up’ is just silly.

    Now as C-32 has been tabled it has indeed many of the recommendations from the “copyleft” yet also contains the poison pill of digital locks. With that provision the bill is certainly unbalanced to the side of copyright holders.

    Now the Right Honorable Minister Moore states that those who disagree with elements of his bill are in fact “radical extremists who oppose any copyright reform WHATSOEVER” (oh, brother!). With rhetoric like that is it any wonder that people such as consumers, librarians, teachers, students, universities, archivists, internet providers, and many others fear their input fell on deaf ears?

  93. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    Phantom Royalties
    @Crockett

    Please leave the levy out of this.
    [It's the same kind of pseudo formula: 'royalties' are supposedly paid according to radio airplay, not to musicians who are independently distributing. The levy does NOT help Indie recording artists. Even if it is actually paid out (I have not heard of payouts ever being made) Mostly the Indies are not played on the radio. Some of them give away music free under creative commons license to people who might buy a CD to burn it to, some burn their own CDs they sell on demand-- so they are in fact paying the levy which would go to the radio top 40. If the levy helps anyone beyond the levy collectors, it would be the radio top 40, not the Indies. ]

    The Problem is that Mr. Degen doesn’t accept any opinion beyond his own as valid. He also doesn’t read very closely (or discards or simplifies what he disagrees with into sound bites and attempts at “subtle” derision) and I get the impression he either thinks or is trying to imply you’re saying you read all 8,000 plus submissions in a day. Myself I’ve read a bunch (but not all yet, although I hope to eventually) of the copycon submissions. There seemed a disproportionately low number of writer submissions as opposed to computer people submissions. This is reasonable because computer folks have been grappling with the copyright technical issues for much longer than writers. Most creative people don’t understand the issues anymore than most government officials.

    I’m pretty sure most people in the creative industries simply don’t understand what is happening. It doesn’t help them when so much fear-mongering, misinformation and rhetoric is bandied about by their publishers or professional organizations. Regardless, so long as foolish laws aren’t passed to cement the backward motion, over time things will even out.

    What it really seems to boil down to is that the unions/guilds are resistant to being put out of business. (surprise!) The ease of digital distribution means that it is possible to count every single use of every single digital copy. It wouldn’t even be necessary to sacrifice privacy if Access Copyright were to follow:

    @tom’s idea of setting up their own standalone network. Put their material behind a paywall and charge Universities for actual use. What could be simpler?

    I suspect Access Copyright don’t want to because it would (a) cost THEM money, (b) reduce their ‘power’ and (c) reduce their income, since I suspect there is a great deal of “phantom income” collected based on smoke and mirrors. I took a peek at Access Copyright’s member organizations and AC sponsors at least one member award. Kind of makes you wonder.

    One of my biggest problems with copyright vultures is that they want to collect even when they can’t be bothered administering (because it wouldn’t be cost effective). Lately I’ve heard of some copyright collectives forcing public venues to cough up money supposedly as royalties IN ADVANCE, on the assumption that copyright material will be used. The act that will be performing may be scrupulously using their own material and zero copyright — but they have to pay royalties because neither they or the venue have the might to stand up to the copyright bully. This is far worse than any copyright infringement because the result is suppression of culture.

  94. Hmm, I did not realize the levy did not go (or is possibly unfairly distributed) to all Canadian artists. I will have to consider my position on it further.

  95. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    Copyleft Empowers Creators
    Copyleft is not anti-copyright, any more than being left handed makes you Satan’s minion.

    Copyleft is one of the ways creators can license their own work. It can only exist in conjunction with copyright law. Saying it is anti-copyright indicates total misunderstanding of the concept.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

    First employed for software licenses (to counter proprietary software abuses)
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
    then as Creative Commons licenses available for any creative endeavor (to counter excessive copyright laws)
    http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

    A great many people license a great quantity of work for reuse online.

  96. A feudal trip
    It is no small irony that the concept of Copyright born out of the Enlightenment is now being used to bring us back to the dark age of feudalism. AC behaves as if being the owner of a property or, in this case, the middleman for property owners, gives the right to put an unnecessary burden on the users: monthly detailed reports, annual surveys, full access to the academic secure servers, obligation for the universities to keep records for six years, and on top of that, a flat fee of 45$ per student… This is the sign of an incredible arrogance that is probably based on the belief that the Board of Copyright will approve such an Orwellian scheme. The frequent references made by Degen to the supposed wisdom of the Board make me suspect the possibility of backdoor arrangements between AC and some members of the Board. This institution is certainly under intense pressure from the lobby of the collectives such as AC, and it may be difficult for this “quasi-judicial” Institution to maintain a fair balance.

    @Bob
    You wrote: “As for the suggestion that many fields don’t rely on copyright material, try English Literature (or any literature for that matter) unless you confine it to pre-1900 novels”.

    First, you should know that many departments of literature put an emphasis on canonical works of previous centuries, such as Shakespeare: in that regard most of the original works are in the public domain.

    Secondly, the copyright law in Canada covers the works for fifty years after the author’s death, not 110 years, as you suggest.

    Thirdly, many recent books of theory are already paid for by the CRKN and many articles are now in open access.

    Thus, the solution proposed by Tom is fair: let AC put its repertoire on its own server and manage itself the real usage.

  97. Returning to Geist’s original post, I agree that universities should walk away from Access Copyright. Viewed charitably, AC might be regarded in retrospect as having provided a seemingly convenient framework for assembling print coursepacks during a 20-year period of widespread copyright terror. However, history has passed this organization by.
    AC’s model was twofold: a) download the detailed record keeping of copied items onto the shoulders of the very universities from which it collects tariffs and b) distribute money in a manner that ignores the detailed information the universities have compiled. I see no reason why universities cannot ignore AC and distribute money on the basis of detailed information of the sort they have already been compiling.

  98. Darryl! — you were the guy doing the pirate impersonation at the Toronto town hall, weren’t you? Dressed in a fair copyright t-shirt? A little of the old Cap’n Hook action?

    You do know that Geist totally threw that guy under the bus in his posting about the town hall? Something about the dude’s contribution not resembling fair copyright in the least.

    Burn.

  99. Non‑exclusive licence is legal unwritten
    > Nope; instead reasonable, professional, culture workers with a real stake in protecting their rights showed up and made reasonable, professional submissions, while the copyleft stayed at home.

    I sent a submission (a long submission, not your standard one-liner,) and James Moore called me a “radical extremists”. Can you justify how James Moores’ absolutely irresponsible and uncalled for comments are unbiased favouring your little elite groupie? Who’s biased now? Who’s stacking townhalls now? James Moore prefer I shut up, and he ignored the Copyright Consultation, but the internet and this site gives me voice. Whether you think I’m quoting the law and Supreme Court of Canada rulings as juvenile and/or incoherent is for the reader to decide.

    > As to writer groups protesting rights grabs, Canadian professional associations – like PWAC, which I ran for five years – were largely responsible for all the costs (beyond pro-bono legals), behind the decade long Heather Robertson v. Thomson court class action – which went to the Supreme Court and set important writer rights precedent…You’re welcome.

    The Robertson v. Thomson Corp., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 363, 2006 SCC 43 case wasn’t considered a class action because someone didn’t read Section 13 or _utterly failed at comprehending it,_ or _decided to enter a frivolous suit._ Degen, you used “class action” where there is none to imply the ruling applies to every writers out there in every situation. This is not the case; and the case involves a _freelance writer_ have copyright power above the publisher’s copyright, when it comes to the publisher archiving the freelance writer’s work in a “fragmented” database format, but not in an “unfragmented” CD-ROM format according to the entire day’s worth of news.

    I totally agree with the dissenting Justices’ views. Fair Dealing for the CD-ROM should be the same as the databases, where technology is neutral. At the end of the day, what’s the difference between a published work in a “fragmented” database format compared to an “unfragmented” format in a CD-ROM? The articles are being published in CD-ROMs, not secured in the freelancer’s vault somewhere. Thus, all you’re getting is this

    “A non‑exclusive licence granting the right to republish an article in databases or CD‑ROMs does not need to be in writing. Under s. 13(4) and (7) of the Copyright Act, only an exclusive licence requires a written contract.”

    Degen, the hero who worked too hard for too little! Thanks a lot!
    hahahahahahahaha

    On top of that, they quoted Michael Geist in their ruling, so that says much about this site. I can’t say the same for Degen, however.

    > I suspect Access Copyright don’t want to because it would (a) cost THEM money, (b) reduce their ‘power’ and (c) reduce their income, since I suspect there is a great deal of “phantom income” collected based on smoke and mirrors.

    Laurel L. Russwurm, I totally agree with your statement. Since Access Copyright does not provide a list of works under their little repertoire, or nobody here has provdied any and I couldn’t find any, I want to show their exclusions list. If they exclude works published outside of the named countries, then that means they claim rights of works published within named countries; and they specify so. Access Copyright is not some benevolent nor small organization as Degen would have us all brainwashed to believe.

    Their distribution of monies, like any collective, is dubious and biased. These are just more reasons why Degen and Access Copyright doesn’t want to create their own little secure distribution server. The benefits of their server would eliminate all educational institutions’ cost and time that would provide better education instead. The quality of education also depend on freedom to learn and to express, and not hampered by schemes of rapid reporting, invasion of email privacy, etc. etc.

    “SCHEDULE: EXCLUSIONS LIST
    1. This Agreement Does Not Cover any of the Following Listed Categories of Works or Published Works:

    (b) Editions of Published Works published outside the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
    Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, Nigeria,
    Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland,
    United Kingdom, and the United States of America. (In other words, Published Works in the Repertoire published in
    named countries may be copied under this Agreement.)
    http://sinatra.lib.uwo.ca:8090/copyright/access/Sched_A_Exclusions_List.pdf

  100. Darryl Moore says:

    John, uh no. I did not get a chance to speak, though I would have had I had the opportunity. The pirate was certainly a gift horse to the media industry. After having stacked the room, having that guy speak, as one of the few in opposition, certainly made their positions seem reasonable, fair and popular.

    The contrasting positions between the views expressed by the live audience and the views expressed by the web audience was very interesting. While the industry worked hard to stack the live audience, it is obvious they did not put quite as much effort into doing the same with the web.

  101. Degen has degenerated.
    His posts have now reduced to blindless accusations and insults. Move along, nothing to see here.

  102. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    from copycon to privacy
    I only watched a little bit of the “Town Hall” videos and was thoroughly disgusted by the way they were stacked. Like a great many Canadians, there was no local “Town Hall” possible for me to attend. But I read about incidents where the security forces prevented people (including students and even an elected MP I think) from distributing literature outside the “meetings”.

    Still, I put in the effort and made a submission. Yet if I were given the opportunity to make a copycon submission today it would be much more “radical” because of things I learned reading copycon submissions made by other ordinary Canadians because I know much more today than I did nearly a year ago.

    @Chris-V:

    And I thought the excessively inflated rate was bad. I was not aware Access Copyright demanded all of the things you mention.

    Aside from costing post secondary education far more than a mere 1300% increase, none of what you list is reasonable. Even the Canada Revenue Agency only requires 3 years of record keeping, yet AC needs 6? All of this administration will cost schools extra money in service of putting more money into Access Copyright coffers. I’m a little confused; isn’t the justification for the existence of Access Copyright that they do this paperwork? Seems Access Copyright wants the education system to do their bidding. But the absolute worst is that they want:

    “full access to the academic secure servers”. That right there ought to be a deal breaker. That is bizarre. The whole point of secure servers is security. Whether for College/University business or faculty/staff/student projects or email protected on secure servers, I would think that none of it would be Access Copyright business. When my progeny toddles off to higher education AC should have no right at all to access to email sent via the school’s secure servers.

    I am appalled AC would even ask for this. I will charitably hope this is simply another example of their ignorance of the technological ramifications rather than something much worse. Regardless, this should not be decided by the Copyright Board but rather the Privacy Commissioner.

  103. Alright, thanks for the reasoned, completely unparanoid arguments, folks!

    I accept qwerty’s invitation to move along. I’ll take my “blindless accusations” and my apparent misunderstanding of the Supreme Court case I helped win (in my own small, humble way), and I’ll be off.

    Enjoy the small circle of agreement you have formed.

    Darryl, I don’t believe you. You’re telling me you were in a room full of copyright holders and politicians and you didn’t manage to deliver a lecture about the Statute of Anne and the buggy-whip industry? That goes against science.

  104. Ya all come back now!
    Goodbye for now John and thank you for participating, it was a lively discussion. As you have suggested it is now up to the copyright board to make a judgement on AC’s most recent tariff proposal. There are some here who would be concerned the board may have a strong bias towards the copyright industry, but I hope with all the attention AC’s proposal has generated it will encourage them to be impartial and transparent.

    I suspect we will see you around these boards again sometime, until then enjoy your Summer.

  105. Address Access Copyright’s objections before fleeing
    > His posts have now reduced to blindless accusations and insults. Move along, nothing to see here.

    qwerty, there’s everything to see here. Please don’t drive Degen away. Degen still needs to answer how Access Copyright is able to claim new rights for themselves regardless of any law. Even Degen refuses to address the objections now, Degen may do so later. If we can illustrate why Access Copyright’s demands are ludicrous and preposterous, maybe Degen will see through reason, some day. Here’s to hoping?

    > I accept qwerty’s invitation to move along. I’ll take my “blindless accusations” and my apparent misunderstanding of the Supreme Court case I helped win (in my own small, humble way), and I’ll be off.

    Sure, you’d like to run away from all of the pressure you generated. Please provide some legal facts, when dealing with legal matters, such as the Tariff!

    “For the foregoing reasons, we would _dismiss the appeal_ and allow the cross-appeal with respect to the CD-ROMs only. Taking into account all of the circumstances and the mitigated result, the parties should bear their own costs in this Court.” [64]

    Read that for yourself!! You or Heather Robinson didn’t win as you suggested, a win for all writers. All in all, Heather Robinson wanted to prevent the Publishers from publishing her 2 articles on the 2 databases and a CD-ROM formats, but she lost on CD-ROM. If you look at the context of the CD-ROM format, the Publishers could create a database of CD-ROMs and nothing would really change in terms of accessibility.

    As per the class action part, it’s clearly frivolous.

    Heather Robinson has no problems with the current online digital format, and she had some non-exclusive deal, but she tried to back out and the Justices said no partially. The Globe archived their news since 1977, but they used new technology and you didn’t like that, so you wasted time, money, and resources for basically nil. The case sets a precendent for _freelance writers, who don’t have a signed contract,_ not for people who _signed_ bad contracts. You’ve deliberately tried to mislead, but I called you on it.

    I don’t know the deal between Heather Robinson and the Globe, but that’s a private non-exclusive deal, and I don’t care for private deals or licenses because they don’t affect people publicly. If you signed away your rights with your lawyer present, then how’s that anyone’s problem? In case anyone thinks I’m laughing at Heather Robinson for basically losing the case, you misundertood. I am laughing at Degen for thinking he’s the hero and saviour of all writers, where the facts Degen has provided only and narrowly affect the very few.

    > As to writer groups protesting rights grabs, Canadian professional associations – like PWAC, which I ran for five years – were largely responsible for all the costs (beyond pro-bono legals), behind the decade long Heather Robertson v. Thomson court class action – which went to the Supreme Court and set important writer rights precedent.

    Degen’s hypocrisy is astounding. First, Degen derides Michael Geist for using Open materials as cheap price means cheap quality (without any proof,) but then Degen used pro-bono law services and basically lost the case, and finally Degen supports Access Copyright’s “rights grabs” over students. Degen, the facts are stacked against you. How do you plead?
    hahahaha

    p.s. Again, Degen, I am not here to rally support for me or garner any special attention (I prefer anonymity,) unlike Degen tries to do for Degen’s interests. I just want to see you, Degen or Access Copyright, present legal proof Access Copyright has for their “rights grabs” from students.

  106. International Knottyness & New Admiralty Law
    New Admiralty law ?

    I’m interested in learning how any collective in one country can safeguard content from being accessed extra-jurisdictionally.

    Do links and URLs float around in international waters with an assortment of legitimate and perhaps questionable proxy servers bobbing about as either navigational aides or hazards?

    If digitized or digital content is covered in a Canadian collective’s repertoire while also available and accessible in other jurisdictions – is free from the owner , is commercially available or is subject to different copyright law/terms -how is the consumption patrolled and metered in the global waters we find ourselves in today?

    Currently and presumably legally one can find as much as 20% of some books available as part of Google previews. Indeed publishers frequently provide portions and snippets from contemporary titles as samples to Amazon for their look- in- side program.

    When current collectives venture into digital waters with designs on links and other URL treasures i wonder as a practical matter if the license is enforceable.

    Well over 50% of the analog content used in Canadian higher ed originates from the US or UK . How will that be dealt with in the digital realms?

    As preparing and reading material for a class becomes increasingly complex ,will a corresponding increase in the numbers resorting to an easier route be accused of piracy ?

    this article may interest the group.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1634126