Search Results for "c-11" : 381

Why Universities Should Not Sign the Access Copyright – AUCC Model Licence

Copyright has emerged as a hot issue on Canadian university campuses in recent weeks as schools consider whether to sign the Access Copyright model licence negotiated with the AUCC. Several schools, including UBC, Athabasca, Windsor, and Winnipeg have already indicated that they will not sign the licence, while others (such as Queen’s, Victoria and Calgary) have reluctantly signed the letter of intent. Many groups have voiced their strong objection to the licence, including the CAUT, APLA, BCLA, MLA, CFS, and CASA. These groups represent faculty, students, and librarians – the three groups within education most affected by the model licence.

Last week, I was asked by the Association of Professors Ottawa, the University of Ottawa faculty union, for my views. I opened my remarks by emphasizing a key misconception often fueled by Access Copyright and its supporters. The question being faced by the universities is not whether to pay for copyright works. Universities, faculty and students currently spend millions of dollars every year on copyright materials and will continue to do so. The only question is whether – in addition to existing expenditures on books, licences, and in support of open access – they should also pay the $26 per student fee to Access Copyright.

I believe the answer is no for the following six key reasons:

May 24, 2012 — 10 comments — News

Del Mastro on Format Shifting

Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro offers up one of the oddest copyright analogies during the C-11 debate, likening format shifting to socks and shoes.

May 16, 2012 — 13 comments — News

Government To Impose Time Allocation on Copyright Debate

The government yesterday gave notice of time allocation on the Bill C-11 debate, which will cut short the debate over the copyright bill. The move does not come as a surprise, given the willingness to use time allocation for other bills and the Conservatives’ consistent position that it will not further amend the bill. As I’ve stated repeatedly, there is much to like in Bill C-11 including expanded fair dealing, new consumer exceptions, new rights for user generated content, the notice-and-notice approach for ISPs, and the a cap on non-commercial statutory damages (this came up during the House of Commons debate as Conservative MP Chris Alexander quoted my comment on some of the balanced provisions but omitted the criticism on digital locks). Moreover, the decision to reject demands for website blocking, notice-and-takedown, an iPod tax, and disclosure of subscriber information suggest that the bill could have been considerably worse.

However, the decision to leave the digital lock rules unchanged remains the bill’s biggest flaw and given the widespread opposition to the approach makes a mockery of Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore’s insistence that the bill reflects the public support. Yesterday, Moore defended the approach:

May 15, 2012 — 42 comments — News

Copyright Bill Back on the Agenda Next Week

The government has announced that Bill C-11, the copyright reform bill, will be back on the legislative agenda next week with the report stage and third reading set for Monday and Tuesday.

May 11, 2012 — 9 comments — News

Something for Nothing: The Non-Existent Benefit of Linking in the Access Copyright Deal

As debate over the AUCC – Access Copyright settlement spreads to campuses across the country, one of the talking points that has emerged is that the coverage of linking to content in the settlement provides some value to the education community. The model licence defines copy as:

any reproduction, in any material form whatever, including a Digital Copy, that is made by or as a consequence of any of the following activities

(k) posting a link or hyperlink to a Digital Copy.

Critics argue that this provision gives the AUCC no value as there is simply no need to license such activities. The inclusion of the provision means students will be paying something – there must some notional part of the $26 annual fee that covers this section – for nothing. Supporters of the deal, including AUCC, claim otherwise. Indeed, the AUCC FAQ has two questions and answers on point:

May 4, 2012 — 54 comments — News