A video of Sam Trosow’s recent speech on C-32 and the Access Copyright tariff proposal has now been posted to YouTube.
Post Tagged with: "access copyright"
While fairness dictates that Canadian education must object to the Access Copyright tariff proposal to ensure that students are not asked to pay for uses that the law says do not require compensation, it may be time for the post-secondary education community to ask whether it should walk away from Access Copyright altogether. Note that I am not saying that creators should go uncompensated and that education should get a free ride. I repeat that it is fair dealing, not free dealing.
Appeared in the Hill Times on August 2, 2010 as Federal Court Ruling Shows Copyright Fair Dealing Fears Greatly Exaggerated The introduction of long-awaited copyright reform legislation has generated considerable discussion among Canadians about whether the latest bill strikes the right balance. While concern over Bill C-32’s digital lock rules […]
Last week, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its much-anticipated ruling in the K-12 case, which specifically addressed fair dealing in the context of education. The ruling was a major win for Access Copyright, as the court dismissed objections from education groups on a Copyright Board of Canada ruling and paved the way for millions in compensation from school boards.
The case is notable since it demonstrates how critics of greater fair dealing flexiblity have greatly exaggerated claims of potential harm. For example, former PWAC Executive Director John Degen wrote this week that “the introduction of an overly broad exception to copyright for educational use would all but eliminate fair compensation for this established use.” Access Copyright reacted to the court victory by stating it was “bittersweet” given the C-32 changes. While there is no doubt that extending fair dealing to education (the law currently covers many educational activities under research, private study, criticism, and review) will bring more potential copying within the scope of fair dealing, this case reinforces the fact that fair dealing is a fair for all, not a free for all and that fears that the extension of categories will wipe out all revenues bear little relation to reality.