Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP

Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP

Copyright

Australia High Court Sides With ISP in Landmark Copyright Case

The Australian High Court has issued a landmark ruling that firmly sides with Internet providers over their liability and responsibility for alleged infringement on their networks. The closely watched case involves a lawsuit by the movie industry which claimed that iiNet, an Australian ISP, was liable for authorizing infringement by its subscribers. The unanimous court rejected the movie industry claims, finding that the ISP had no technical or contractual power to act. 

Read more ›

April 20, 2012 4 comments News

Note to Publishers: Your Addiction to DRM is Killing You

Mathew Ingram posts on why publishers’ emphasis on DRM is hurting the industry, not infringers. Meanwhile, the e-book price fixing lawsuits in the U.S. appear to have migrated to Canada.

Read more ›

April 19, 2012 3 comments News

Why You Should Care About the TPP

Public Knowledge has created an excellent new website on the copyright implications of the Trans Pacific Partnership. I wrote about the TPP and Canadian copyright earlier this year (here and here).

Read more ›

April 19, 2012 Comments are Disabled News

More Reaction to the AUCC – Access Copyright Deal

I posted my initial reaction to the AUCC – Access Copyright deal yesterday.  Other comments come from CAUT, Ariel Katz, Sam Trosow, Michael Ridley, and Meera Nair.

Read more ›

April 18, 2012 Comments are Disabled News

Access Copyright and AUCC Strike a Deal: What It Means for Innovation in Education

Access Copyright and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada announced an agreement yesterday on a model licence. The deal calls for a royalty payment of $26 per full time student, below the $45 Access Copyright was seeking at the Copyright Board (and below the $27.50 in the Toronto/Western deal), but well above the current rates. While the agreement is just a model that leaves it to the individual universities to decide whether to sign, it is hard to imagine that AUCC did not obtain some support from its member institutions for it before reaching agreement.

It is difficult to provide detailed comments on the agreement since the text is not yet available and the $26 figure is not based on anything more than a negotiated figure reflecting what two parties anxious to settle were willing to pay or accept. The reality is that it is primarily a product of a broken Copyright Board model that incentivizes lofty demands that set the bar higher for either a negotiated settlement or a Board rate setting exercise. It is not based on the actual value of the repertoire nor on the copying on campuses that fall outside of fair dealing, public domain, or the myriad of alternate licenses that already grants compensated access to thousand of journals and books.

Read more ›

April 17, 2012 8 comments News