massaging the message

One of the things I find most interesting about the copyright debate is seeing my position(s) defined for me by others. I read an awful lot of assertions like Degen believes such and such, and he's wrong because...

Recently, I've learned from others that I fully support Bill C-32, that I favour a late 20th Century model of creator’s rights, that I want content locked up against fair dealing, that I support censorship, and so on. Step into this debate and you could spend so much time defending yourself from ridiculous assertions, your actual opinion may never be heard.

Which, I guess, is the point.

So, yesterday I reported about Access Copyright's legal victory at the Federal Court of Appeal, and about their concern that this win for creators could be cancelled out by ill-defined changes to copyright law. I wrote "the introduction of an overly broad exception to copyright for educational use would all but eliminate fair compensation for this established use."

Bill C-32, the federal government's Act to Amend the Copyright Act does indeed contain new educational exceptions, and they are not defined as clearly as many creator groups, Access Copyright and I would prefer. If interpreted in an overly broad manner, they could provide a legal leg-up for the kind of tariff challenge Access Copyright has just finished defending. I am certainly not the only one who thinks this way. Lawyer and publishing consultant, Gary Rodrigues, writes:

"Based on an amended Copyright Act, the Ministers of Education might ask for a review [of] the new tariff before it is fully implemented."

I have mentioned my own concern about overly broad interpetation, informally, to both federal ministers responsible for C-32 (on Twitter!) and have been reasonably assured definitions will tighten up through committee work. I think that would be a great outcome, and I have hope that this recent Court of Appeal ruling will help with the tightening process.

Today, I am informed by the prominent consumer advocate, Michael Geist, that my concerns about an overly broad exception to copyright "bear little relation to reality," and that the recent Court of Appeal ruling proves I'm worrying for nothing. Well... good, then. I hope Dr. Geist advocates strongly for that interpretation at the C-32 committee.

But wait, I'm mistaken -- Dr. Geist actually wrote "fears that the extension of categories will wipe out all revenues bear little relation to reality." I see the problem. When I wrote the introduction of an overly broad exception to copyright for educational use, Dr. Geist read the extension of fair dealing categories.

Of course these two things are NOT the same, nor did I ever mean for them to be. I have called for better definition around fair dealing for a long time (in my copyright consultation submission, for instance), and am happy to talk about category extension - I think parody, for instance, is an important freedom. Yet somehow, I find myself prominently advocating a position I do not hold on this country's central site for consumer-focused copyright discussion. And this... let's call it a misunderstanding... is, I guess, how the copyright debate maintains its momentum.

Meanwhile, three comments into the discussion of my newfound opinion on Dr. Geist's blog, we find this gem:

"I just don't get the need to be compensated for ones work being used to teach kids or others. If I had a school teacher pick up my work and use it to teach kids about the world I'd be more then happy to see my work get used for free. Why the hell could you not want that?"

Clearly, concerns about overly broad exceptions to copyright are completely unfounded. I will stop worrying.

what are 3 million books worth?

That's a question the framers of Canada's Bill C-32 are going to have to ask themselves after a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision to support a 2009 tariff certified by the Copyright Board of Canada. The tariff was under review at the request of all provincial Ministers of Education (except Quebec's) and a number of individual school boards.

Access Copyright, Canada's Copyright Licensing Agency sent out a press release yesterday announcing the ruling, calling it "an important decision for rights holders not just in the education sector, but in every field of creative endeavour."

Access Copyright has shown that over 250 million pages of work are photocopied for use in the Canadian K-12 sector, an amount roughly equivalent to 3 million books. Access Copyright's Executive Director Maureen Cavan notes:

"That's 3 million books that have not been sold. As long as reproduction is compensated, creators and publishers and the thousands of knowledge workers supported by this industry can survive. Take away the compensation, and you will jeopardize a Canadian industry that provides Canadian children and their teachers with Canadian content."

On the other hand, the introduction of an overly broad exception to copyright for educational use would all but eliminate fair compensation for this established use. While happy with the Court of Appeal ruling, Access Copyright General Counsel, Roanie Levy, worries about the unintended effects of copyright amendments under C-32.

"The decision is bitter-sweet when you consider that the federal government's proposed changes to the Copyright Act could impair future compensation for reproduction of materials used in education."

250 million of anything is bound to have important economic value - even 3 million is not a figure one would ordinarily discard with the wave of a hand. Undoubtedly, the special committee on C-32 will be hearing a strong message about knowledge workers and education from the creator sector. After all, everyone else gets paid for their work in education. It would be odd, and rather expensive, if writers and publishers find themselves caught up in an exception to that rule.

Especially when the presumed reasoning behind an educational exception - providing easy and worry-free access to a large pool of creative work - is the very reasoning behind the tariff. From AC's info page on the tariff:

The tariff is designed to allow you to make copies that would not be covered by fair dealing or available through the public domain . It simplifies your job by eliminating the need to ask permission every time you want to make a copy.

The tariff provides permission to copy from a vast repertoire of commercially published books, magazines, journals and newspapers, and ensures that creators and publishers are paid when their works are copied.

vacation post

'nuff said:

T-Ball Tuesday

Thanks CityTV.

numbers coming in on digital magazines... though one important number missing (the money)

Thanks to D.B. Scott over at the Canadian Magazines blog for digging up some industry figures on magazine digital editions. I attended last months MagNet conference in Toronto, and was amazed at the number of iPads I saw casually slung in bags and on laps during the PD sessions.

A survey of digital device and media users shows some promising uptake for magazine content packaged into digital editions.


According to the (audited) survey, 22% of iPad owners already read magazines on the device and 68% plan to (presumably when their favorites go iPad-friendly digital). I concentrate on the iPad numbers because the use of apps to deliver magazine content is a promising closed system that approximates the traditional magazine experience without compromising on digital's flexibility.

Advertisers will be pleased to note that digital magazine readers respond well to ads, and 60% of them have clicked through for more information at least once.

One thing I don't see in the reported results (and am very interested in knowing) is how much of this survey represents paid digital content. Subscribers and subscription renewals are a crucial part of the revenue mix for most consumer magazines. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one wondering if digital will provide the same revenues.

BTW, for a good look at one possible digital future for Canadian magazines, have a look at Magazines Canada's Digital Newsstand. I have taken the liberty of filtering the newsstand to the literary category for you, since I know that's what you'll want to see.

reader and writer go to school

Since the government introduced Bill C-32 (An Act to Amend the Copyright Act), much attention has been paid to the anti-circumvention protections offered to technical protection measures (TPM). TPMs affect both writers and readers of digital literary content, which is why those two parts of my own personality have already had a long discussion about them (here, here and here).

But what of the other new provisions in the proposed Bill C-32? One new detail in the bill that has been getting a little less attention from commentators, both official and self-appointed, is the new educational exception, the guiding principle of which, I believe, is stated in the following passage:

29.4 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an educational institution or a person acting under its authority for the purposes of education or training on its premises to reproduce a work, or do any other necessary act, in order to display it.

There follows, in C-32, a number of new paragraphs detailing many and various controls on this educational exception, including the possibility of a rightsholder explicitly restricting educational use through a notice or a TPM. It's complicated, but there is a disturbing new bottom line for creators... many of whom are students as well.

My writer and reader hash it out a bit:


Reader - Good news -- I'm going back to school to finally get that PhD. I've been putting it off forever because of the rapidly increasing costs associated with education; but it looks now like at least one of those costs will be going down.

Writer - That DOES sound like good news. Which cost is going down? Parking on campus?

Reader - No, not parking.

Writer - Oh, is it the service fees for the library and athletics and stuff?

Reader - Uh, no, those costs are still there.

Writer - Don't tell me it's tuition. Are they dropping tuition fees?

Reader - Actually, I think tuition might be going up.

Writer - Well, I'm guessing the professors still want to be paid...

Reader - Yeah, I think they have a pretty strong union making sure of that. No, it's the materials... educational material costs are about to go way down.

Writer -... wow, you mean universities are now going to subsidize the costs of textbooks and stuff for you? That would be amazing because you can rack up a big bill on textbooks.

Reader - Actually, there's no need to subsidize the materials -- the government is going to make sure everything on the Internet can be used for free, and it even looks like universities can photocopy stuff without infringing copyright now.

Writer - So, wait, you mean if a professor wanted to teach my book, The Uninvited Guest (still in print and for sale through my publisher at good independent bookstores and through online services) to a couple hundred students, those students would not have to buy my book?

Reader - Nope, the school could buy one copy, and either photocopy or scan it and then make it available to students as "educational material." Just think, over a decade or so thousands of university and even high school students would save twenty bucks each, and would still be able to read your book. It's a win/win. Cheaper education for me, larger readership for you.

Writer - One small problem.

Reader - What's that now?

Writer - If I can't make money from my writing, you can't go back to school... no matter how much you are saving on materials.

Reader - But we've just shown how this new system will increase your readership by thousands.

Writer - Thousands of people who are not paying to own my book. That's not a very sustainable business model from my perspective.

Reader - I see your point, but you know this change in the copyright law is really meant to address the difficulty educators have in accessing works for their students.

Writer - Well, I can't speak for others, but there's nothing inaccessible about my writing. As I mentioned above, I'm still in print, and there are numerous ways to legally purchase my work.

Reader - True enough -- but, what if a prof doesn't need her students to read your whole book? What if she just wants them to read a couple pages, as a sample of fine Canadian fiction? In the past, that prof could never be sure how much she could legally use, and whether or not it was okay to photocopy it.

Writer - Actually, that's not strictly accurate. Professors and teachers have been able to work in complete confidence with regards to photocopied material for a couple of decades or more, thanks to the educational licensing efforts of Access Copyright.

Reader - Access who?

Writer - Access Copyright, the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency. A university just talks it over with AC, they come to an agreement on the amount of photocopying being done at the university, and pay for an appropriately-sized licence. Once they do that, professors and students are free to photocopy whatever they need. AC licences even cover those photocopied coursepacks professors love so much.

Reader - So, the universities pay money to Access Copyright when they photocopy your book? How does that help you?

Writer - It helps me because I AM Access Copyright. AC is a collective society made up of artists and publishers. The money collected through usage licensing is distributed fairly to the AC membership. You see, there is a completely fair, accessible and seamless process in place for educational use of copies.

Why would we change our copyright law now and destroy that process?

Reader - Well, like I said, it will make education cheaper.

Writer - I don't know, Reader, at a potential loss of thousands of sales, this great new education you're getting is looking pretty expensive to me. Are there any plans to change the laws around tuition fees and professor salaries as well?

Reader - Hmmmm, C-32 makes no mention of those things.

Writer - I've got an idea. Since we're just going to be using copies in education from now on, how about we copy the lesson plans from one year and just repeat them every year from now on? Better yet, let's get the profs to deliver one lecture, videotape it, put it up on YouTube, and just be done with the whole expectation that students attend classes.

Reader - Won't that, sort of, cheapen the whole concept of higher education.

Writer - Isn't cheapening what we're going for here?

UPDATE: The Toronto Star has published a related op-ed discussing C-32's educational exceptions.