|
Wednesday September 03, 2008 |
Over the past two days, I've argued that the Internet exception for education is both unnecessary and potentially harmful. It is also so easily avoided as to be almost useless. As noted earlier, one way to avoid the exception is the use of DRM. Another is to simply place a notice on the website. Section 30.04 (4)(b) provides that the exception does not apply if:
a clearly visible notice - and not merely the copyright symbol - prohibiting that act is posted at the Internet site where the work or other subject-matter is posted or on the work or other subject-matter itself.
Section 30.04(6) says that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a clearly visible notice. While we await those regulations, a clearly visible notice may be nothing more than the words "all rights reserved." If so, CMEC and AUCC will have fought for an ill-advised exception that can be defeated with three simple words posted on the website. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday September 03, 2008 |
|
|
Tuesday September 02, 2008 |
The Internet exception is more than just unnecessary - it is harmful. First, rather than improving access, the exception will actually encourage people to take content offline or to erect barriers that limit access (including DRM). Section 30.04(3) provides that:
Subsection (1) does not apply if the work or other subject-matter - or the Internet site where it is posted - is protected by a technological measure that restricts access to the work or other subject-matter or to the Internet site.
In other words, in return for the exception, CMEC and AUCC has effectively pushed the government to include a provision that encourages creators to use DRM or restrict access to their work. Many website owners who may be entirely comfortable with non-commercial or limited educational use of their materials, may object to a new law that grants the education community unfettered (and uncompensated) usage rights. Accordingly, many sites may opt out of the exception by making their work unavailable to everyone. This is obviously a lose-lose scenario that arises directly out of the exception.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday September 02, 2008 |
|
View
|
|
|
Monday September 01, 2008 |
|
One of the most controversial aspects of Bill C-61 is the inclusion of special educational exception. The provision has split the education community, generating support from some education groups and opposition from others. The product of years of lobbying by provincial education ministers and the AUCC, the exemption at Section 30.04 (1) provides that:
Subject to subsections (2) to (5), it is not an infringement of copyright for an educational institution, or a person acting under the authority of one, to do any of the following acts for educational or training purposes in respect of a work or other subject-matter that is available through the Internet:
(a) reproduce it;
(b) communicate it to the public by telecommunication, if that public primarily consists of students of the educational institution or other persons acting under its authority;
(c) perform it in public, if that public primarily consists of students of the educational institution or other persons acting under its authority; or
(d) do any other act that is necessary for the purpose of the acts referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c).
I will discuss why the conditions render this exception virtually useless in a later post. For the moment, I want to reiterate that I do not believe that the exception is either necessary or equitable. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday September 01, 2008 |
|
View
|
|
|
Friday August 29, 2008 |
One of the great benefits of distance education and the Internet is the power to extend our traditional notions of a "student body." MIT's Open Courseware Project provides a great example [from column here]
Notwithstanding the possibilities, Bill C-61 adopts a very narrow definition of student. Section 30.01(3)(a) states that it is not an infringement:
to communicate a lesson to the public by telecommunication for educational or training purposes, if that public consists only of students who are enrolled in a course of which the lesson forms a part or of other persons acting under the authority of the educational institution;
By requiring enrollment in courses run under the authority of an educational institution, the bill excludes the emergence of MIT Open Courseware-like initiatives that provide terrific educational opportunities, but do so without requiring students to enroll. Considering an expanded definition is essential if the law is to provide real support for distance learning opportunities. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday August 29, 2008 |
|
|
