Canada's two major post-secondary student groups have both filed their comments on the copyright consultation. Both focus on many of the same issues. The Canadian Federation of Students' submission is now posted on the consultation website and it calls for:
- expanded fair dealing
- rejection of the Internet exception for education (supporting flexible fair dealing instead)
- rejection of a DMCA-style approach to anti-circumvention
- adoption of notice-and-notice
- statutory damages reform with good faith belief that the use qualified as fair dealing outside of statutory damages
- abolition of crown copyright
- moral rights inalienable in some circumstances
Meanwhile, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations touches on many of the same issues in its submission, including:
- expanded fair dealing
- if anti-circumvention legislation, preserve access for non-infringing purposes
- digital distance learning without C-61 onerous restrictions
- digital library loans without C-61 onerous restrictions
here is where the fun starts.. when students get into the act.
using skape onna g-mail for anything, anywhere insteada iphone lockups?
the market will burstthe patent bubble for us… Sony’s new ebook not withstanding.
I’ve said it before
I have problems with the idea of a “good faith” defence, for it encourages not making yourself aware of the actual rules; rather it means that you can use a claim on an Internet web page about the rules. And we all know how correct web pages are. The only time I see a “good faith” defence as being useful is where the person goes and gets proper legal advice, but the lawyer got it wrong, as they did make an effort to get correct legal advice.
I really wish that they’d also have indicated what they mean by “expanded fair dealing”. On this one I also have some concerns. For instance, they claim that C-61 gave them something like 30 days to destroy materials that were given to them covered under an education exemption once the course is done. That figure may be a bit short, but I see no particular reason why they should be allowed to hold such information for an indefinite period; I’d suggest 1 year after grad or 5 years, whichever comes first. I can see the concern; allowing them to hold the stuff forever basically gives permission to photocopy as many books as they can get their hands on while they are a student; they then use the material, obtained under an educational exemption, in a professional capacity for as long as they want.
Exemptions are a dangerous thing, they create two classes of people; those to whom the exemption applies, and those to whom it doesn’t. They also tend to make the law useless. Witness the vast number of exemptions to the DNCL.
McGill prof caught in ghostwriting scandal
Remember fake journals by Elsevier filled with paid articles?
Here is a fake article in a real journal