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

Copyright

Access Copyright Stops Pay-Per-Use Digital Licensing

Earlier this year, Access Copyright won a Copyright Board decision that granted a new interim tariff for post-secondary education institutions. This is the first of three posts that examine the aftermath of that decision, the current economics behind Access Copyright, and the challenges the copyright collective faces over the long haul. The interim licence, which effectively sought to maintain the status quo as the copyright collective and educational institutions sort through the Access Copyright demand for a massive increase in its current tariff structure, provided the collective with a potential continued revenue stream and delayed what appeared to be a near-universal decision among Canadian universities to drop the Access Copyright licence altogether.

While some were surprised that the educational institutions did not seek judicial review of the Copyright Board decision, I suspect that many institutions came around to the view that the interim tariff was helpful in the short-term. Many institutions were facing faculty not ready to shift away from the Access Copyright licence in January 2011. The interim tariff bought them time to complete the transition. That transition now appears to begin as soon as September 2011 as universities prepare for an alternate approach based on five key sources of materials:

May 25, 2011 — 37 comments — News

Retail Council Calls for Scrapping Private Copying Levy

The Wire Report reports that the Retail Council of Canada is calling on the government to scrap the private copying levy in the aftermath of the CPCC demand to create a levy on memory cards. The CPCC’s David Basskin argues eliminating the levy would “recriminalize making private copies” but that […]

May 25, 2011 — 6 comments — News

The Cabinet Shuffle: Why a New Industry Minister May Not Mean Changed Policies or Big Delays

Yesterday’s cabinet shuffle sparked considerable discussion over the implications for digital policy issues including the digital economy strategy, telecom, copyright, and privacy (Reuters, Globe, Nowak). The changes – which see James Moore remain at Canadian Heritage but install Christian Paradis as the new Industry Minister – create a new ministerial combination that is often tasked with jointly addressing issues such as copyright and communications policy.

Tony Clement made digital policies a core part of his agenda both in terms of prioritizing the issues and using technology to actively communicate and interact with the public. Given the uncertainty of Paradis’ priorities and the need to become familiar with some complex files, it is understandable that many speculate the cabinet shuffle will slow the process of change and possibly alter the substance. I must admit that I’m not so sure. Every minister has the chance to put their own mark on departmental policies, but I suspect both the core substance of Canadian digital policy and the speed of change will remain largely unchanged.

May 19, 2011 — 9 comments — News

Is Access Copyright Claiming a Trademark in Â©?

Howard Knopf points to Access Copyright’s revised site design that includes a trademark notice on the Â© symbol. A search of the trademark database does not show an attempted registration of the Â© alone.

May 19, 2011 — 55 comments — News

UK IP Report Recommends Creating New Copyright Exceptions, Warns Against Over Regulation

The much-anticipated UK Independent Review of IP and Growth, typically referred to as the Hargreaves report, was released this morning. The report focuses on how intellectual property laws can stifle innovation and urges the UK government to enact reforms that remove legal barriers to economic growth (James Boyle, who served as expert advisor to the review, gives his take here). For example, it notes:

Because IPRs grant a form of monopoly, an overly rigid and inflexible IP framework can act as a barrier to innovation. When a firm has acquired exclusive rights over its innovative technology or content, other firms will be able to learn from that technology or see the content, but may be unable to use them for further innovation unless licensing can be agreed. IPRs can constrain third parties wishing to access or innovate on top of this protected knowledge or content, with potentially serious economic and social costs.

The report also notes that a considerable amount of IP policy is often not based on economic evidence, citing as examples the EU database directive and the extension of the term of copyright.

May 18, 2011 — 3 comments — News