There is a lot that is disturbing in this announcement for Canadian artists, since the interim tariff covers the work we have out there in the world, in both physical and digital form. This announcement is, in effect, stating USask's intentions to never again allow use of our work within their classrooms (beyond small sampling that would be covered by fair dealing). In other words, students at one of Canada's universities will be severely restricted in their use of specific Canadian subject matter. Even if a professor feels she absolutely must use material covered by the tariff, she will not be allowed to.
Why? I'd like to think it has to do with money, because that would be the simplest answer. But I've done the math (many times), and I know that Canadian universities currently spend a fraction of 1% of their annual budgets on copyright clearance through this Canadian tariff. In fact, these modest and reasonable clearance amounts usually make it into the mix of fees individual students pay on top of their tuition, so the effect on university budgets is null.
No, the attack on Canadian created content in Canadian post-secondary schools is being launched by ideologues, not accountants. The same folks who have for years now been advising that most classroom use of publicly available Canadian work could be interpreted as fair dealing and that current copyright licences are "arguably unnecessary" have convinced a smattering of university administrations to opt out of paying for this content.
It's easy to see what the great free-culture opt-out will mean for Canadian artists. Our work will now be shut out of classrooms (and the brains of Canadian students). But what does the opt-out look like on the ground at USask? That's the scariest question.
From the USask announcement:
Our copyright agreement with Access Copyright—an organization that oversees the process of copyright clearance, payment and licensing—will end August 31, 2011.
Course materials for the 2011/12 terms (i.e. course packs, handouts, etc.) need to be printed before August 31, 2011.
In other words, we're going to stop paying for this stuff before the fall term, so if you want it for the fall term, copy it now. Stockpiling copies of Canadian content for one last go in the classroom? Is this really in the spirit of respecting copyright?
Worse yet:
Deans, directors and department heads should keep the Access Copyright situation in mind when hiring new instructors and making appointments, in particular with appointments close to the start of the new school year that will require course materials to be assembled quickly.
Are you applying to work at USask, and do you intend to use the work of Canadian artists in your teaching? Good luck to you.
Go Huskies! Just make sure you don't teach anything about huskies, written by a Canadian.
45 comments:
I have almost always avoided attribution of motive when I have no way of knowing whether it is the case. However, in the USask instance, it seems to be an invitation to flout copyright.What instructors may do is provide their students with online links and do away with copied course packs. As long as creators and others put copyrighted works online in some searchable form, such linking will replace traditional negotiated releases.
Wow, seriously John?
"Even if a professor feels she absolutely must use material covered by the tariff, she will not be allowed to."
So A-C has a monopoly on licensing the content then, which somehow prevents the universities from negotiating directly with the publishers and authors. Pretty scary stuff, which suggests that A-C is already too powerful.
"Stockpiling copies of Canadian content for one last go in the classroom? Is this really in the spirit of respecting copyright?"
And why wouldn't it be? They pay A-C for the copies (at $0.10/page) when the copy is made, not when the students receive it. Changing acquisition systems can be quite a difficult transition. It should be expected that some profs would still need to get some material from the old system, until they figure out the new. THEY WILL STILL BE PAYING FOR EACH AND EVERY COPY! What is your problem with this?
Darryl,
In fact, AC does have a monopoly on that content, by happy, volunteer agreement of those who have given them that monopoly. That's how licensing works.
If the point of opting out of the tariff is that USask has no further need for the content, they don't help their case by stockpiling content. As content goes increasingly digital, licensing will follow and naturally move to use over copies. Everyone else understands that by now. You should join the party.
You've been commenting on this blog for years now and, honestly, you haven't written a thing that suggests to me you have the first understanding of any of my postings.
You are defending the USask decision simply because I criticized it. Except I actually read the relevant information first.
I suggest you do the same reading, and if you still want to defend USask, do so on your own incredibly well-read blog.
Your written objection of the interim tariff to the Copyright Board was laughed out of that august body, because you and the your fellow objectors clearly do not understand the tariff or the basics of copyright law. This latest comment here is more proof.
Just go read something, please. Stop writing comments here, and just read.
"In fact, AC does have a monopoly on that content, by happy, volunteer agreement of those who have given them that monopoly. That's how licensing works. "
Wow, really? So if a university approached you or your publisher wanting you use snippets of some of your books, you would have no choice but to tell them to go through A-C? I thought the only thing A-C had a true monopoly on was orphaned works, and identifiable rights holders always had the right to negotiate their own deals. My bad.
"If the point of opting out of the tariff is that USask has no further need for the content, they don't help their case by stockpiling content. As content goes increasingly digital, licensing will follow and naturally move to use over copies."
While I'm sure much content will change as a result of this, I think it is the licensing model they are looking to change. As you say the content is going increasingly digital as is the licensing model, and interestingly enough direct licensing is becoming more popular as a result. Oh, except they can't because you said A-C has a monopoly don't they. Somebody should let iCopyright.net know that they are muscling in on A-C's turf.
Your lack of ability to acknowledge that there would or should be any sort of transition stage in moving away from A-C that may necessitate "stockpiling" is just as disingenuous as anything you have criticized Geist and others for.
I wont even bother addressing the narcissism that makes you think I only criticize your posts because you wrote them rather than that they are in fact wrong.
So, Darryl, you do know what a copyright collective IS, right? Because I'd hate to think you'd comment on something when you haven't a clue what it is you're talking about. I guess it's off to Wikipedia for you again.
Yes, schools can come to me and ask to use my work... at which point I tell them to get in touch with Access Copyright. Pick up a book published in Canada sometime and check out the copyright page.
Heck, just pick up any book sometime. That'll do you wonders.
BTW, I'm commenting from just a few miles outside of the town of Deadwood in the Black Hills of South Dakota - a locale famous for having seen an illicit land and gold rush in the late 1800's that dispossessed the Native Americans of yet another parcel of land they'd been pushed to.
There's a great deal of celebratory "outlaw" culture in these parts. Lots of praise for the rugged individualism of the old west, when folks just took what they wanted because they felt it was their right to. Interestingly, the Native Americans have a different take on that whole time.
Tomorrow, it's off to the Little Bighorn battlefield to see what happened to a bunch of "users" demanding their "rights."
John, it seems all is still not well in the old US of A - land of fields, firearms & fair use ... http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/byte_rights_we_cant_afford_no_education
@John "Tomorrow, it's off to the Little Bighorn battlefield to see what happened to a bunch of "users" demanding their "rights."
John, is it really appropriate to allude the cultural devastation, the loss of life & liberty the native Americans suffered, to a few music tracks scoffed by pimple faced teenagers?
Well, we're sort of making progress I guess, despite your adolescent name calling.
So we agree it is perfectly legitimate for users to deal directly with publishers for any uses beyond 'fair dealings'
That you would refuse to do so and instead insist on tying your product to someone else's is your choice.
That USask sees better value in dealing directly with publishers is their choice. One which you seem to feel they have no right to make. That does not make them anti-artist or anti-copyright no matter how many times you try to say otherwise.
Do we also agree that your attack on their transition strategy is disingenuous at best?
Interesting that you are in S.D., one of the lowest populated states in the American union. Sort of like where you are on copyright.
I'm not a copyright expert, nor do I pretend to play one on TV, but it seems to me that USask is well within their rights to refuse the interim tariff, and maximize their use of the old tariff while they still have it.
According to the current tariff they have to pay for photocopies, so they would still be paying the tariff for the stockpiled photocopies, which is in keeping with the current law.
When the current tariff expires and they don't sign on to the new one, they will still have to negotiate some type of arrangement with content owners, even if they've chosen not to get on board with the Access Copyright blanket license.
If I may be so bold, it sounds more like educated shopping than disrespect for copyright or disrespect for Access Copyright.
Crockett,
The Georgia State story was old news when I posted about it last December (and you commented on the posting).
http://johndegen.blogspot.com/2010/12/pouncing-on-copyright-in-classroom.html
I'm hoping in the future, you can keep better track of the debate timeline. Attention to detail is not really one of the free-culture must-haves, I realize, but you should strive for it.
As well, please note I made no mention of pimply faced teenagers or music downloads in my reference to Deadwood or Little Bighorn, nor is this posting about those things. When feigning moral indignation, please try to stick to the subject of the discussion. I am glad that, at least, you sort of recognized that an analogy was being employed. It's been four years since I first wrote about Deadwood, but I like to think the analogy holds:
http://johndegen.blogspot.com/2007/12/welcome-to-deadwood-leave-your-guns-and.html
The Black Hills goldrush, and the systematic "suspension" of property rights to the owners of them thar hills is exactly how we as a society take what we want when we want it. And I find it repulsive.
Darryl -- the name I called you was... Darryl. Is that what you mean by adolescent name-calling?
As to what we can agree upon. I save my agreement for people who have done their reading. And I'm afraid looking up the population of South Dakota on Wikipedia does not really count.
BTW - Little Bighorn Battlefield? Unbelievably moving.
John, you claim I don't do my reading, know what a copyright collective is and get all my data from wikipeadia, yet you disproved nothing that I have said. You attack the messenger yet ignore the message. Studented gets it. Why don't you?
Sadly this arguing strategy of ignore and redirect is par for the course for you. Your inability to defend your position pretty much says it all.
John, for all your own talk about rights and those who take them away (little bighorn) your positions, or at least those of the tougher copyright law camp, are to the point of trampling underfoot the very basic rights of privacy & free speech so many have fought and even died for.
No one person, entity or industry can have all their desired 'rights' to the exclusion of everyone else's. In society there is always a tugging contest to determine the balance that is needed for the day. We are experiencing that now with rights holders pulling the flowers out with the weeds.
Fortunately people, and not just those darn 'free culture' folk, are starting to realize the harms created by the remedies content lobbyists are clamouring for far outweighs the benefits.
Let's face it, creators are not the major pushers of the draconian bubble, it's those who are unable or unwilling to adapt and have 'too much to loose'
Studies are showing that creative output has increased over the last decade, amidst the 'devastation' of the digital era. Even the hardest hit music industry has grown, as a whole, by an overall 5%, while the sub market of record label production has failed due to their lack of vision & innovation.
Creativity and the wealth it produces has not declined, rather it has grown & shifted. Those calling for laws to protect their failing business models to the detriment of the very creators they purport to represent are the ones who are failing the moral test, not "users" demanding their "rights".
Now rather than, once again, coming up with a creative diversion tactic or a witty smear-isms, how about discussing these claims, if I am wrong then let's hear why.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02174514963/smear-campaign-ramps-up-against-those-who-believe-free-speech-is-more-important-than-hollywoods-obsolete-business-model.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0933449895.shtml
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/file-sharing-has-weakened-copyrightand-helped-society.ars
Hmm, I just read up on the White House's new ISP/Content policing deal... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/white-house-we-win-the-future-by-making-isps-into-copyright-enforcers.ars
Apart from the possibly slippery slope it could open up, it seems like a fairly level handed approach, at least compared to the UK & France. With a deeper look being taken at the ProtectIP act and now this new legislation under everyone's belt maybe there can be more concentration on innovation and meeting the markets needs.
Seems like someone out there might be paying attention after all.
I'm still a bit skeptical but it might turn out to be a good day after all John.
Upon further reading, I still think it a reasonable approach apart from two factors:
1) Still based on an IP address so identifying an account rather than a person. That is assuming the IP address has not been spoofed which is easy.
2) With the above in mind there should be allowance to contest the notices BEFORE mitigation takes place, not just after.
I would like to see point 2 addressed but otherwise I am pleased to see an approach that addresses the issue of infringement without resorting to over broad remedies, such as disconnection (and possible blacklisting). This toned down and more reasonable approach, along with increasing innovation may actually have positive effects that everyone can benefit from.
It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, this will have on C-32 redux. A system like this in Canada could work, but I think only if we see increased innovation leading to the same access as our neighbours to the south enjoy.
Crockett,
I'm mostly offline these days, in a mountain cabin, but the odd coffee shop around here has wifi. Of course, I pay for a latte first, being someone who respects a wide spectrum of property.
I know you're searching for some sort of friendly middle ground both here and at Geist's blog, but you really need to go back to square one. It's hard (well, impossible) to take seriously the friendly mediator when he arrives at the table covered in free culture bumper stickers.
Every one of the articles you've referenced comes from the standard FC playbook. IP protectors "don't understand the technology" are "stupid" and depend on "lobbyists" to achieve unfair political influence.
You're not going to get anywhere leaning on that rhetoric. Not anywhere, that is, other than where you already are.
Darryl,
It's not my responsibility that you can't recognize factual rebuttal. I'd try to be less subtle about it, but I enjoy subtlety. Take some responsibility (for once), do the research (which means reading, I'm afraid), and you'll eventually understand.
factual rebuttal eh? What's the matter John, given up on writing fiction, and now your taking a stab at comedy? Honestly, it's a waste of time. You'll have even less luck there.
Subtlety must be what you call it when you totally ignore the point and either change the subject or attack the author or both. It's not a definition I'm use to, but I must admit, it is a tact I see a lot around here.
John, I'm glad you are finding time to get away from the throng. Sounds like a nice place you found.
I am disappointed though that you choose to continue attacking the messenger rather than speak to the issues.
Enjoy your vacation.
On another topic:
Lessig's lunacy, read this:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/lessig-propagandizing-to-high-school-students/
Interesting snippet from your link Sandy.
Lessig:"Nobody would have the incentive to fight to extend a term you would only get the benefit of 70 years after you were dead.”
Blgger:"Aside from songwriters and artists and their families, I guess."
I would be very interested to know how many in-the-trench creators really care about the fight to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years. My suspicion is that the percentage would be in the single digits. (Probably even if you restricted your survey to the professional ones.) Going further, I wonder how many would let this guide their creative career choices. My guess here is that it would be a giant goose egg. Nada, nil, zilch. Can you find even one American or European creator who will honestly say that they would not have chosen that career if copyright had remained at LIFE+50?
So does the term of copyright affect incomes creators and their heirs? Of course it does. But that does not mean they let such issues guide their career choices? No. Certainly not when copyright is already so generous to them.
So having theoretical incentive is one thing, there actually being enough there to base real creative decisions on them is quite another.
I suppose the proof will be in the pudding for us when Canada will soon be forced to extend copyright in order to ratify CETA.
The increase to life plus 70 is not what's at issue, that's the law. I think the more interesting question is how many in-the-trench creators would care about cutting the copyright term from life plus 70 to plus 50 or to a flat 14 years as Lessig has advocated.
Life plus 70. Flat 14.
Life plus 70.
14.
Such a deal.
"The increase to life plus 70 is not what's at issue, that's the law."
I hate to be the one to break it to you Mr. Castle, but Life+70 is NOT the law. At least not in this country. This will most definitely be an issue WRT ratifying the Canadian European Trade Agreement because increasing our term of copyright to Life+70 was one of the things the Europeans were asking for. The question is will the Canadian people take this expropriation of the public domain lightly?
As for your country, The fight to increase copyright from 50 to 70 years happened there less than 15 years ago. Was it driven by actual creators who by definition will never be able to enjoy the extended copyright, or my multinationals that will?
Your comment about going BACK to life+50 illustrated very well the ratchet effect of copyright law that Lessig has also talked about in the past. Copyright protection is very easy to increase. Not so easy to reduce. Therefore any effort to increase must be well thought out before it is implemented because there is no going back.
You raise a good point regarding the consideration of the protections other countries accord each other on IP and how those reciprocal protections (or lack thereof) might be linked to other issues between those countries.
By the way, does the name Hoyt Axton mean anything to you?
Your right about those reciprocal protections. It's a little like one country giving away their public roads to corporations so that they can charge tolls, then turning to their trading partners and saying "Look, these companies have a right to charge tolls to our citizens for using the public highways, you need to allow them to do the same if you want to trade with us."
Regarding Hoyt Axton, sorry I googled him and learned a bunch about him, but nothing that has anything to do with the topic of this blog. Please enlighten me.
Thanks for the link, Sandy (and Chris),
So, if the standard business model these days is 5 to 10 years, does that means Lessig Inc. will be going out of business soon? Google will be giving up its trade secrets any day now, I guess.
Surely Darryl's cogent analysis of in-the-trench creative professionals (a subject he knows absolutely nothing about but, what the heck, we submit to his lectures on it) would apply equally to in-the-trench academically supported theorists. Did Lessig enter the academy knowing that the tenure system existed and that he would be guaranteed income for life even after his work lost all relevance? Was he aware that he'd be able to add dependents to his benefits and pension, all of whom will continue to benefit from his work in the academy even after he's gone? Surely none of that was on his mind when he signed his first academic contract.
It is this naked hypocrisy in the free culture theorists that will, I hope, be their eventual downfall. High school students may appear to be a malleable audience, but I think even they can recognize when a very, very comfortably taken care of professional is talking out of his posterior on the subject of their future.
And I have to say, that is one of the least interested group of high school students I've ever seen.
Maybe the silly and stupid reasons he lost at the Supreme Court have to do with the fact that he fails even to make an interesting Star Trek reference, or that he actually attempts a Star Trek reference while formulating an argument about terms of copyright.
Well, judging by your last comment John, it would appear that at least my knowledge of creative professionals still surpasses your knowledge of business planning. No surprise there.
That said, I agree with you that my analysis would apply equally to the in-the-trench academically supported theorists too. Do you suppose we'd have more of them if they thought that their academic work would potentially be generating revenue 50, 70, or (in the case of Mexico) 100 years after they have left this world? How many people's pensions continue to pay out that long after they are dead?
It is always interesting how you manage to compare the incomparable and then call it hypocrisy.
I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate the need for life+70 years of copyright protection by presenting an American artist who would never have become one if that was not their term of copyright or the Canadian non-artist who gave up on that career path due to our measly life+50 term.
Wont someone please think of the creators!
In a related vein. We have less than six years to go until the Mouse is free in Canada. And not just the Mouse, but everything Walt Disney created before he died.
The American law extending copyright (aptly referred to as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act") was fought bitterly with the Disney company lobbying very hard to extend copyright protection retroactively. Will we get a lot of the same lobbying up here? Will it even be necessary or will the population just role over and allow this giant act of expropriation to take place?
Even if the government is successful in criminalizing my use of open source DVD players and rooting of my cell phone, the next fight is coming, and it will be on the issue of copyright extensions. Let's hope the people will be more awake for this one so we can prevent yet another act of corporate piracy. Yes, we know who the real pirates are. They live in Hollywood and they want into our living rooms and bedrooms.
@Degen "...have convinced a smattering of university administrations to opt out."
Does that smattering not include Canada's premier University of Waterloo, and a growing number of others? That must be worrisome.
@Degen "Even if a professor feels she absolutely must use material covered by the tariff, she will not be allowed to."
Unless of course AC offers transactional licences as required per the copyright board mandate. Or she gets the licence directly from the publisher or database repository.
@Degen "I'd like to think it has to do with money ... they spend a fraction of 1% of their annual budgets."
If this amount is so insignificant John, you can send 1% of your annual budget to me ;)
It's all perspective John.
How was cottage country, hope the weather was nice?
Crockett,
First of all, please don't bother to ever again try and represent yourself as the fair-minded man in the middle, attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. You've never fooled me with that shtick, but it might confuse others.
Your uncritical acceptance of the current anti-AC campaign flies the true colours of the free culture crowd. You may say you think artists and cultural workers should be compensated for their work, but you're happy to see our rights so weakened that we cannot possibly get compensation. Worse yet, you're happy to use incorrect information to justify your position.
There is no requirement from the Copyright Board that AC provide transactional licenses. No doubt you think there is such a requirement because you read some vague reference to such a thing on the Michael Geist blog.
Congratulations on continuing to get all your information from one extremely biased source instead of trying to really understand the issues.
The transactional license question is open, and I believe AC has responded in good faith and with authoritative reasoning when asked by the Copyright Board. The ravings of Katz, Knopf and Geist will also be considered by the Board and a decision issued.
Am I concerned that Waterloo has decided to opt out of the interim tariff? Yes, in exactly the same way I'm concerned about the other small number of universities who are doing so. I think the faculty and the students of these institutions are being given incorrect advice and are being exposed to pointless and painful liability by irresponsible administration reps who have, like you, gotten all their information from the free culture camp.
Look at the quotes from the Calgary decision, as reported in their student newspaper. Instead of making coursepacks - i.e. copies - the Copyright Officer (Wendy Stephens) at U of C is advising that students will simply receive links to materials since "a link is not a copy," said Stephens, "so it is always legal for us to link."
Do you honestly think such logic represents a belief that artists and creators deserve to be paid for their work? And does anyone honestly believe that the Copyright Board will buy the argument that linking to publicly available material covered by the AC tariff for course use is substantively different from handing out physical copies of that material?
The belief in that kind of a loophole end-run by none other than the Copyright Officer at a major Canadian university is the direct result of the free-culture misinformation campaign. It is shameful and deceitful and cannot be hidden behind a whitewash of pretty words about the importance of compensating artists.
As to you receiving 1% of my budget -- the suggestion reveals a fundamental ignorance about copyright law and the question at hand. Payments under the tariff represent actual use. AC provides a product which is used by universities, and they are expected to pay for it. You provide nothing of value to me. Frankly, I'm starting to think you and Darryl should pay me for the privilege of using up my comment section with your consistently incorrect blatherings.
"First of all, please don't bother to ever again try and represent yourself as the fair-minded man in the middle, attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. You've never fooled me with that shtick, but it might confuse others."
John, the problem here is only your ability to recognize a "fair-minded man in the middle". Nothing else.
"As to you receiving 1% of my budget -- the suggestion reveals a fundamental ignorance about copyright law and the question at hand. Payments under the tariff represent actual use."
Yup. Isn't it too bad that the licensing model AC really wants to employ will do away with all that silly 'actual use' stuff? But oddly will also include an increased usage tracking obligation on the part of the university. Go figure.
"And does anyone honestly believe that the Copyright Board will buy the argument that linking to publicly available material covered by the AC tariff for course use is substantively different from handing out physical copies of that material?"
I think the real question is; why, if it is publicly available, is it covered by an AC tariff? I mean I suppose technically there is nothing wrong with this but when there are legitimate alternate ways to get it, why would anyone go the tariff route?
To use an automobile analogy (which is always popular with copyright for some reason) suppose a physical facility offered free parking to automobiles, but charged school buses. Would an institution be depriving the facility of payment rightfully due to it by telling its members to use their own cars to go there rather than all going together in the school bus. I don't think so.
John, I will admit that sometimes I play things tongue in cheek but it is only in response to your extreme positions on the other side. If your own opinions, as they come across, are really as pure and true as you think then there is really no room left for debate. I will not again suggest payment but I think you need to be challenged on your own assumptions as I am in mine lest our ears only continue to be tickled.
But to the original question, are saying your by your statement of ... "Even if a professor feels she absolutely must use material covered by the tariff, she will not be allowed to."
Is it true that an item covered by the AC tariff could not be paid for by any other means?
And more importantly, if that is so, is it truly serving the interests of creators by locking their work out of Canadian universities?
I'm sorry John but I will not allow you to categorize me. I do believe creators should be paid for their work, your disbelief on that point non withstanding. You suggest I want to see your 'rights' weakened but instead I want to see them repaired. It has always been my belief that the hard positions and inflexibility of your camps views are as damaging as those of the anti-copyright crowd.
Recently on this very thread, I actually gave the RIAA credit for a somewhat reasonable plan to address file sharing infringement. Compared to their previous hard line tactics this plan I think will be seen as fair and actually produce some positive results.
The question then must be asked, with such bitter animosity between the Universities and Access copyright, is AC still the best vehicle to accomplish that? Or will they be able to adjust to the climate at hand?
You seem to blame all of AC's woes on Geist and his cabal, and there is some truth to that, but any souring of a bi-lateral relationship it is never the fault of only one partner.
Some honest self evaluation should be searched to see how and why things got to this point and what, may I even suggest, 'outside the box' solutions can be found to go forward.
Signing off from the middle of the road, once again.
On answer to your question of linking to publicly available material I would say that is a matter of the details.
First of all if an item is copyrighted, and normally would be used in a classroom then why is it being made publicly available?
Apart from that if something falls outside of fair use and is a copyrighted work, then replacing what would have previously been a compensated handout with a link I think is disingenuous.
This is why I think both parties should strive towards workable solutions rather than the confrontational mess we have today.
John, I found the article that I think you were quoting on the linking issue.
http://thegauntlet.ca/story/15583
While she does say "linking is always legal", she then goes on to say ...
The university stands ready to put in place alternative measures to ensure that we abide by copyright requirements. We believe this would cost us less than an additional $1 million [that AC is asking for], and would also avoid the other provisions of Access Copyright's new model that we find so troubling."
So it sounds like the university is not interested in sidestepping copyright use but rather to find it from a different source. This is different in substance and tone of the accusation that originally you made from the article.
Again a good reason to have debate and to hear views different than your own bias.
yet another john degen comment test
That's interesting. According to the blogger web page I still have open, my post went up faithfully at 5:22, but I don't see it here now. I'm sure it must have only been some sort of software gitch, and not any sort of hated censorship or anything. I know John does not stand for that sort of thing.
Don't worry John. You're in luck. My browser window was still open from my previous post, so it is no trouble at all to repost it for you.
----
Also interesting to note that the repost I did at 7:40 did not work either. Running a simple test from here as Anonymous did not work, but doing it again from my cell phone did. Yeah!!! If I did not know so well that John was extremely opposed to anything that smelled of censorship, I could easily draw the conclusion that that is happening here. This is a very interesting software bug.
------------------------
"First of all, please don't bother to ever again try and represent yourself as the fair-minded man in the middle, attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. You've never fooled me with that shtick, but it might confuse others."
John, the problem here is only your ability to recognize a "fair-minded man in the middle". Nothing else.
"As to you receiving 1% of my budget -- the suggestion reveals a fundamental ignorance about copyright law and the question at hand. Payments under the tariff represent actual use."
Yup. Isn't it too bad that the licensing model AC really wants to employ will do away with all that silly 'actual use' stuff? But oddly will also include an increased usage tracking obligation on the part of the university. Go figure.
"And does anyone honestly believe that the Copyright Board will buy the argument that linking to publicly available material covered by the AC tariff for course use is substantively different from handing out physical copies of that material?"
I think the real question is; why, if it is publicly available, is it covered by an AC tariff? I mean I suppose technically there is nothing wrong with this but when there are legitimate alternate ways to get it, why would anyone go the tariff route?
To use an automobile analogy (which is always popular with copyright for some reason) suppose a physical facility offered free parking to automobiles, but charged school buses. Would an institution be depriving the facility of payment rightfully due to it by telling its members to use their own cars to go there rather than all going together in the school bus. I don't think so.
Crockett and Darryl,
The abiding wrongness of all the "facts" you throw around here is exhausting. Don't you want to be correct? Just once?
So, Crockett, U of C Copyright Officer Wendy Stephens did not say what you have attributed to her. Your quote was from Provost and Vice-President Academic Alan Harrison. The very fact that Harrison says one thing and Stephens another, contradicting each other in their understanding of how copyright works in the academy should be terrifying to us all. The fact that the Gauntlet article appears to have been written by someone in Grade 4 and then not edited by anyone is in itself a sad comment on the state of our schools.
Both of you seriously need to take a Copyright 101 course - preferably not at the University of Calgary. "Publicly available" and "free" are not the same thing. You don't protect the copyright on a work by making that work unavailable. You protect it by declaring the rights you are reserving for the creator. This is usually done with a ©.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand Fact #1 about copyright. There really is nothing more to say. Go away, learn about copyright, then maybe express an opinion on it (don't feel pressured to, though - I don't need to hear more of your opinions).
Darryl,
I have no idea why your comments don't show sometimes. I don't moderate my comments at all.
It appears Blogger has added some sort of automatic SPAM filter and has been catching you up in it. Something about you, or your computer, or your online activities has convinced Blogger that you are SPAM. That definitely sounds like something you need to address on your end. Good luck with that.
"So, Crockett, U of C Copyright Officer Wendy Stephens did not say what you have attributed to her. Your quote was from Provost and Vice-President Academic Alan Harrison. The very fact that Harrison says one thing and Stephens another, contradicting each other in their understanding of how copyright works in the academy should be terrifying to us all."
Except that there is no contradiction. You only see contradiction here John because you hold fairly extremist views of your own.
Regarding getting the facts straight, I think you have quite a bit of work on that front yourself.
From your belief that if universities do not go through A-C they will not be able to get rights to anything in the A-C repertoire...
...to your belief that there is something unethical and nefarious about continuing to make use of their existing license agreement with A-C until that agreement actually expires...
...to your belief that linking to content somehow includes some sort of license obligation on the part of the linker. I know both you and A-C would like this, but that is not how the law currently stand.
Honestly John, you should get to know your subject matter before attempting to talk with any authority on it.
John, the important issue here is not the finer nuances of copyright vernacular, but the haemorrhage of AC's customer base, to the detriment of their clients.
York University, in the heart of Toronto, with 70,000+ students, is severing it's relationship. This follows Calgary, Athabasca, U of Sask, Waterloo as well as possibly UBC & Queens among others.
It is likely that many more are watching from the sidelines to see how this vanguard is going to tackle the transition, with the intention to possibly follow suit.
I pretty sure this is not what AC envisioned when it brought it's increased tariff and reporting requirements before the copyright board. Nevertheless it's where you find yourselves now.
You should consider if being inflexible is going to increase your organizations effectiveness or decimate it.
There must be a vehicle(s) to compensate creators for their works being used. I see no reason why AC cannot continue to be that body, but saying creators works cannot be made available to the classroom because they are locked into an AC tariff that nobody wants is hardly fulfilling your mandate.
If AC is going to continue to be the provider then something is going to have to change. It seems to me neither the AUCC or AC have been willing to drop their swords, it would be great if you both could swallow your ideology for a time and work this out.
Dear John,
I'm not exactly sure why you're complaining. Either USask is doing something illegal, and the copyright owner can (threaten to) sue for copyright infringement, or they're simply using the customer's right to simply not buy a product, in which case AC has nothing worth complaining about.
Also, in that last case, AC should consider reevaluating its business decision to change the tariffs.
Sorry guys, not good enough. I can't in good conscience let you continue to lecture the world about copyright through my comments section when you can't be bothered to learn how copyright works.
Understanding the difference between publicly available and free is not a "nuance of copyright vernacular," it's a fundamental piece of knowledge for any copyright discussion -- and you lack it. If you hope for any real interaction with me from here on out, I expect you to learn the fundamentals. I recognize that pretty much excludes Darryl, since he has never bothered to see a difference between a work and copies of that work.
Oh well.
Pieter,
So, it doesn't bother you that university administrations are placing restrictions on what professor's teach? Academic freedom not that important to you? No? Computer says no?
In the larger picture, Geist is twisting in the wind created by his own fevered rhetoric, and I can smell his desperation from here. His Toronto Star piece about university opt-outs is a remarkably unprincipled bit of journalistic backpedaling that, he hopes, prepares the ground for his future denial of responsibility when the tariff kicks in anyway.
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/Business/article/1029634
I've said it before, and I stand by my opinion. He has led gullible institutions down a garden path of free-culture cost reduction that will backfire on them painfully. That he now "reports" on the opt-outs as though he played no part in them himself is just flat-out unethical; and his warning of vague growing pains for those who have opted out is a remarkable bit of head-ducking.
The monorail salesman is heading out of town before the first test-drive.
http://youtu.be/jF_yLodI1CQ
Indeed there are differences between publicly available and free (open source software is a good example of this); works and copies of works; and finally between referencing a work and the work itself (think of web links here)
It is this last one you still seem to be having difficulty understanding John. You need to work on that.
You have no evidence that anyone's academic freedom is being restricted. That is pure hyperbole. Recognizing logistical difficulties in assembling new material quickly while the university is in the midst of a transition hardly qualifies.
Dear John,
AC changed their tariffs to protect academic freedom? I learn something new every day. :)
Of course academic freedom is important to me, but not at any price. Also, generally course material is determined by the schools; not by individual professors. Schools have always placed limitations on what materials can be used within the classroom.
I come from a university where course material was a binder written by the course professor and/or a book that had to be purchased. We did not use copied materials, and we did not sign up with licensing agencies like AC. Schools simply look at the licensing cost, and will make their decisions accordingly. That's their free right as a customer, and I still fail to see why you complain about them exercising that right.
Well, isn't that a fascinating bit of rationalization? Here we have Geist spinning a tale of many new avenues to information, when by the university administrations' own admission there will be restrictions on content imposed (and policed). A direct assault on academic freedom, in fact.
And so what's the new free-culture talking point? "Oh, there have always been limitations on what materials can be used within the classroom." And, "oh those are just logistical difficulties in assembling new material quickly." Or, "yeah, there will be some growing pains."
The free-culture shell game continues without shame.
I have no idea about limitations on materials. I had always thought that my prof's sourced their own material.
I don't understand how you can have an issue about 'growing pains' or 'logistical difficulties'. You yourself have called this act a 'painful liability'. The first two statements are agreeing with your general premise that making this move is not easy, but without the negative judgement or the attitude. More hyperbole I guess.
Speaking of which... How about that proof you are holding onto regarding how this is a threat to academic freedom?
So, I guess we add legal liability to the list of concepts Darryl has not grasped in this discussion.
The restrictions on academic freedom are explicit in the new copyright guidelines being published by opting-out universities (inspired by the AUCC fair dealing guidelines). If it's not covered by fair dealing, professors will not be able to use it. What more proof do you need?
Or maybe you have a different understanding of "proof."
Post a Comment