Meera Nair

Archive for the ‘Posts’ Category

Though this be method, there is madness in’t…

In Posts on October 10, 2014 at 9:38 am

This past week, news broke concerning the Harper Government’s consideration of a new exception to Canada’s Copyright Act. A benefit solely for those involved in the  creation and distribution of political advertisements, the proposal can only undermine three hundred years of statutory design on copyright law, which has progressively ensured broad language with flexibility to anonymous creators and users alike.

Reports began on October 8 from CTV and the Globe & Mail, with the CBC providing further details on October 9 (including posting the undated Cabinet presentation document). Michael Geist posted commentary on both the 8th and 9th, and copyright enthusiasts around the country are shaking their heads in disbelief and dismay.

Briefly, Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet are entertaining the thought of an exception to copyright that is only applicable to the political establishment. From the Cabinet document came this:

The exception means greater certainty for the political actors who want to use copyright content in their advertisements:
– E.g. clips from radio and television broadcast news, footage capturing a political debate or events, a newspaper or magazine article, etc.
– Could be used by all politicians and registered political parties at any level of government.

The rationale offered by the government is that politicians should be held accountable for their statements and actions, and this exception would ensure that the public is kept informed. The opposition parties see it as a thinly veiled attempt to facilitate the use of attack ads. While our Government is content to claim method, their behaviour is madness of Shakespearean proportions.

First, we already have an exception to address the use of copyrighted material; fair dealing protects unauthorized use for the purposes of research, private study, criticism, review, news reporting, parody, satire and education, provided the use is fair. Political parties should apply the law under the same constraints as all Canadians (if anything, in a more edifying manner).

Second, using published material to report or contradict political opinion is part and parcel of civil society as it exists. If a member of the political realm gives a speech, a reporter may quote from the speech. An opponent may choose to quote out of context. The audience may find such a tactic repugnant, but it is hardly new.

Third, in the copyright amendments of 2012, this same Government introduced a new exception, unofficially titled the YouTube exception which supports the creation of user-generated content. Section 29.21 is suited to the creation of both commentary and fantasy. While I find attack ads loathsome, they are creative expression and may draw upon the exception.

Fourth, the issue of moral rights is given short-shrift by this Government’s proposal. It claims that moral rights of creators would not be affected, via the logic that creators have likely waived those rights. Moral rights protect the integrity and reputation of a work and its creator respectively. Canadian law forbids allying a work to a cause if the creator objects. To blithely indicate that the Government will not suffer for misusing a work is further evidence that this government only cares about legal liability, not ethical conduct.

Fifth, this desire to embed a copyright change in an omnibus budget bill flies in the face of this Government’s own stipulation of a five year, comprehensive review cycle of the Copyright Act. If musicians and students, librarians and broadcasters must wait to plead their case until 2017, this Government must abide by the same rule.

Finally, the Government’s proposal makes curious distinctions that undermine the universality of the grant of copyright and the use of exceptions. That it is designed for a small segment of Canadians is reprehensible. So too is the manner in which genre and medium are parceled out. For instance, news articles may be used but not photographs or music. Documentaries are not eligible for mining (even though documentarians are among the greatest users of exceptions to copyright, making reciprocation only appropriate). Fictional works are also not eligible, despite fiction being a rich resource for modern commentary. Presumably though, fiction that has passed into the public domain may be drawn upon—I await the invocations of Caesar, Macbeth and Hamlet.

Canada has enjoyed ten years of jurisprudence that yielded a fair dealing regime capable of addressing all situations with flexibility, to the benefit of all Canadians. To muddy up the Copyright Act with a narrowly worded, politically-minded exception places future courts in the awkward position of having one approach when adjudicating copyright for Canadians and a separate approach when adjudicating copyright for Canadian politicians. This will not facilitate the understanding or practice of the system of copyright in Canada.

 

course packs at home and abroad

In Posts on October 5, 2014 at 8:21 pm

As I caught up on my reading, I discovered that course packs continue to make headlines. The September 17th issue of Outlook India featured “Copy This” by Gautam Bhatia; a few days later, The Varsity (University of Toronto’s student newspaper) published “After Access Copyright” by Iris Robin. Both articles speak to the continued need to probe the use of course packs with nuance.

Bhatia expertly takes readers through an ongoing dispute whereby in 2012 Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis, instigated a lawsuit against a copy shop operating at Delhi University. The alleged crime was copyright infringement in the production of course packs. (I had previously written about the suit here.) Further coverage from Spicy IP indicates that many of the excerpts reproduced fell within the quantitative measure of 10% (see here and here) that is considered fair use by American courts in the context of education. The guidance of 10% is also followed by many Canadian educational institutions.

Bhatia indicates that Indian educational institutions are being pressed to adopt blanket-licenses with respect to provision of course packs. Aware of the culture of licensing and market-superiority that was once the predominant atmosphere of copyright in North America, particularly in the United States, Bhatia writes:

Even in Canada, a country immensely richer than India, the problem has been noticed. Canadian universities initially agreed to a licensing arrangement that was pegged at a reasonable price. Once they opted in, however, the price steadily increased, until it became unsustainable.

Canadian courts have been far more sympathetic to the predicament of universities and students than their American counterparts. In two important cases, they eschewed the economic approach, identified [fair dealing] as a “user’s right”, and imposed the burden of proving direct financial damage upon the publishing houses. The publishing houses were unable to meet this challenge.

On reflection, that is hardly surprising. If students are not allowed to copy, it is not the case that they will spend ten times the money upon the original textbook. In most instances, they will simply be unable to do so. They will not buy the book at all. And if that is true in a country as rich as Canada, it is certainly true—in a much stronger sense—for one as poor as India.

Turning to The Varsity article; Robin writes that course pack fees have increased since the university moved away from its Access Copyright blanket license. On cue, representatives from writers’ organizations provided comments of the I-told-you-so variety. Whereas Lisa di Valentino considers the larger question of why and suggests: “More likely, this is an issue with communication, specifically between the library and the instructors.” Noting Robin’s coverage – that the University of Toronto  is engaging in outreach to acquaint teachers with a better understanding of copyright and case law, as well as the myriad of possibilities to reduce costs to students – di Valentino concludes with:

UofT (and other AC-less institutions) is going through a transition phase. Procedures and protocols are changing in ways that directly affect how instructors do their jobs. Copyright is not just for lawyers and librarians anymore. Copyright literacy is fast becoming a necessary element of faculty members’ toolkits.

As publishers, teachers, and students wrestle with the seeming problem of piracy (with its seeming solution of licensing), it is important to remember that copyright only applies to “substantial” reproductions of work. An insubstantial portion of a work does not qualify for protection (see Section 3.1 of Canada’s Copyright Act, or Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act). We only need to rely on exceptions such as fair dealing when the amount reproduced exceeds the insubstantial, and is not already legitimate use by other means (i.e., library-subscriptions, open-access, publicly availablility, or Creative Commons).

Fair dealing should never be summarily reduced to a measure of quantity – fair dealing can amply support reproducing 100% of a work, depending on the circumstances. However, from an administrative perspective, using a guide of 10% is prudent; the amount is not only cautious but it may not even cross the threshold of substantial. As long as teachers are aware that 10% is not the ceiling, and that fuller scrutiny via the framework offered in CCH Canadian  facilitates a legitimate decision to copy, the flexibility possible within the system of copyright will be preserved.

teachers and students, copyright and liability

In Posts on September 1, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Congress 2014 was held at Brock University this past spring; included among the customary panel discussions was a series of debates concerning copyright, fair dealing, licensing and open access. Titled Copyright and the Modern Academic, the series sought to widen discussion about the means by which information flow is facilitated in learning, teaching and research. Videos of the series are available at the Canadian Association of Learned Journals (see here) and at the Brock Video Centre (see here).

I was particularly interested in the third debate, Access Copyright—Friend or Foe, with speakers Howard Knopf and Roanie Levy. Knopf is a lawyer with Macera & Jarzyna, author of Excess Copyright, and a long-standing advocate for a more nuanced understanding of copyright and fair dealing. Levy is the Executive Director for Access Copyright, formerly General Counsel and Director of Policy & External Affairs for Access Copyright, and equally passionate about the roles of protection and licensing towards development of content. (Fuller biographies of both speakers are given approximately 5:30 minutes in.)

The arguments of Knopf and Levy were lively and thought-provoking, but what remains uppermost for me is the first issue raised from the audience at the beginning of the Q/A (at approximately 58 minutes in). It focused upon Access Copyright’s licensing terms that protect teachers and students in the context of teaching and learning, but not the subsequent behaviour of the student:

Most of us use Blackboard or Moodle; we upload links to articles, we upload articles, we create wikis, we want students to comment, we are creating a discourse community among our students asking them to critically analyze concepts or issue … It is not surprising that many times students download those articles and then those articles could now be posted on a student’s blog or on a student’s Facebook page … we all know how things move across the Internet. … I would personally find [the licensing terms] quite limiting, if I had to worry about that (emphasis mine).

Levy was reassuring that the discourse community, composed as it is of students and teachers (more broadly speaking, the educational body associated to the license) were safe within their actions. Levy was also emphatic that the educational community did not extend to the world at large: “students need to be made aware that content cannot just be shared with the entire world … sharing proprietary content that is not their own should not be encouraged.”

To which Knopf immediately stated that such sharing should be encouraged: “if what the student or professor is doing is fair dealing.”

Levy’s and Knopf’s remarks are not mutually inconsistent – quite the opposite in fact. Each statement reinforces the other. It is entirely plausible, and beneficial, for teachers to simultaneously state that piracy is undesirable and fair dealing is desirable. Discussion will, over time, encourage students to understand the nuance and care that goes into an evaluation of fair dealing. In the more immediate future, such conversation between teachers and students further exemplifies that post-secondary institutions take this matter seriously and are developing systems of good practice that amount to more than merely posting rules to a website.

Regrettably, with time running out and other questions waiting for attention, the crux of the first question was not addressed. More specifically, does a teacher have to worry about the personal conduct of a student outside the activities encouraged within class, with materials licensed at the choice of the teacher? The short answer is No.

A longer answer would suggest that in the scenario where a student’s personal behaviour is alleged as infringing, the copyright holder of the material in question might bring a complaint to the attention of the ISP providing the platform used by the student. Depending on the jurisdiction, the ISP might remove the material (under notice-and-takedown as found in American law) or forward the complaint to the student (under notice-and-notice as set within Canadian law). In neither case is the teacher involved.

An even longer answer would suggest that if anyone should insinuate that the teacher and/or university were liable, a look at CCH Canadian will quickly allay any worries. While that case is known best for its support of fair dealing, the Justices also confronted a claim that libraries were responsible for the conduct of its patrons with regard to self-serve photocopiers. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court, rejected that claim:

[E]ven if there were evidence of the photocopiers having been used to infringe copyright, the Law Society lacks sufficient control over the Great Library’s patrons to permit the conclusion that it sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. The Law Society and Great Library patrons are not in a master-servant or employer-employee relationship such that the Law Society can be said to exercise control over the patrons who might commit infringement. … Nor does the Law Society exercise control over which works the patrons choose to copy, the patron’s purposes for copying or the photocopiers themselves (para 45).

If the Supreme Court of Canada has deemed that a library is not responsible for activity conducted within its premises, with materials provided by the library and via the library’s own equipment, because of an absence of control of people, materials, or equipment, then it is illogical to suggest that a teacher is liable for activity of a student, carried out by the student’s own initiative, on a platform independent of the classroom.

Regardless of the status of the material involved (licensed, purchased, or utilized through exceptions to copyright), teachers are not implicated by personal copyright infractions of their students.

Louvain – 25 August 1914

In Posts on August 24, 2014 at 11:36 am

Librarians and historians alike may well feel somber as we approach the 100th anniversary of the Le sac de Louvain, a collective punishment meted out by German forces to the people of Louvain for seeming resistance to the German presence. Included among the sites of destruction was the library of the University of Louvain. Set ablaze the night of 25 August 1914, by the next morning its contents had been reduced to ashes.

In 2013, Mark Derez, Archivist of University Archives and Art Collection Leuven (Louvain), presented the story of that destruction, response, and reconstruction. An abbreviated version of his presentation was published in 2014 by the WWI Daily. Derez writes:

The destruction of Leuven had not been unique – in four Belgian provinces, 18,000 houses were destroyed and 5,000 Belgian civilians were killed … [But] there was an emotional element at work… Of all the atrocities committed, that which spoke most to the imagination was the devastation of the university library, for in no way could it have been considered a military target. … [This assault] produced a worldwide stream of solidarity. While the war was still on, twenty-five committees were formed in neutral and Allied countries to collect money and books.

Among those who took it upon themselves to encourage donations of books by Americans and American libraries, was Theodore Wesley Koch. A scholar of Dante, and an internationally respected librarian, Koch’s appreciation of the benefit wrought by libraries for the public was all too evident. As Librarian for the University of Michigan, he had introduced measures that allowed students to borrow books (previously only the professoriate enjoyed that privilege) and allowed public access to the periodical collection.

In a publication titled The University of Louvain and its Library, produced in London and Toronto in July 1917, Koch details the history of the university and the depth and breadth of the library’s contents. It began with a bequest of 852 volumes in 1627, “rich in history and theology,” from former student Laurent Beyerlinck. Subsequent patrons and librarians worked together through a period of nearly 300 years to amass over 250,000 items including rare manuscripts, incunabula, and university archival material beginning with the original papal bull authorizing its foundation.

Koch draws particular attention to the work of C.F. de Nelis, appointed as University Librarian in 1752, whose first act was to: “… ask the Government to require Belgian printers to send to the University Library at least one copy of every book printed by them (p.17).” (A condition that sounds very much like that included within the Statute of Anne (1710), where publishers were to remit nine copies of each book produced, “printed upon the best paper,” to various university libraries.)

The library was successfully reconstructed, inside and out. But it opened in 1928 to both acclaim and controversy. Architect Whitney Warren had sought to design not merely a modern library in neo-renaissance style, but also a war memorial replete with a bell tower whose carillon would ring forth patriotic anthems. Derez describes in detail the clash between those who sought to demilitarize the halls of learning and those who wanted the atrocities to be immortalized. So too does Matthew Battles in Library: An Unquiet History (2003). The final design and play list stopped short of overt jingoism but was memorial enough to attract unpleasant attention from Germany in the next world war. Merely 12 years after it opened, the library was once again destroyed in the 1940 shelling.

The library has since been rebuilt again to Warren’s design. Complete with its bells.

The rallying of the international library community in support of public benefit continues to this day. Preservation of our past, and preparation for our future, were prominent topics of discussion at the satellite conference and the annual conference of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) held in Strasbourg and Lyon over the past few weeks. In her opening remarks, IFLA president Sinikka Sipilä spoke of strong libraries as integral to strong societies; and emphasized that “access to information supports development by empowering people to exercise their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, learn and apply new skills and make decisions and participate in an active and engaged civil society.”

To that end, the Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development was unveiled on 18 August 2014; it calls upon Member States of the United Nations to ensure that information access, sharing, and use are incorporated in the post-2015 development agenda. Details are here; at the time of this writing, 134 organizations have given their support.

 

the $500 million tip of the TPP iceberg

In Posts on July 13, 2014 at 8:19 pm

Last week, international negotiators met in Ottawa to further discuss the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. With the usual shroud of secrecy, few details regarding agenda and outcomes were released for public consumption. Nevertheless, based on a leaked copy of the chapter relating to intellectual property, there is sufficient reason for concern with respect to copyright. As reported last week (see Electronic Frontier Foundation here, Michael Geist here, Public Knowledge here, and VICE here) Canada’s copyright regime is likely to be challenged on at least two fronts:

  • the role of internet service providers (will they remain as neutral providers or become key figures in policing the internet?)
  • copyright duration (will Canada’s life-plus-fifty term give way to life-plus-seventy?)

Geist reminds us that the TPP will touch more than copyright; Canada’s privacy and patenting regimes are also implicated. Indeed, the question of Canadian sovereignty with respect to patenting is already at risk, via Eli Lilly’s $500 million challenge to the Canadian government regarding the loss of two secondary-use patents. The means by which Eli Lilly has launched its claim is a consequence of the Investor-State Dispute (ISD) mechanism of NAFTA.

Courtesy of Dennis Lowe and National Geographic

Courtesy of Dennis Lowe and National Geographic

Our made-in-Canada copyright regime has been painstakingly crafted over ten years of deliberative thought; to watch it cast aside will be difficult. But more deleterious will be further entrenchment of the ISD mechanism through the TPP. Yet this issue has received little attention in Canada. Perhaps in part because the topic is not sexy; Investor-State Dispute sounds painfully dull. The phrase cannot be summarily equated to freedom of expression, invasion of privacy, or even the dubious claim that a hit television series could not have been made under the TPP. ISDs are constructed with arcane language that seemingly has little to do with everyday life, but they are potentially lethal as is being demonstrated by Eli Lilly.

Eli Lilly provides the bizarre spectacle of a corporation suing a government because a court decision did not favour the corporation. It has vehemently insisted that the decision of Canadian courts not to uphold two secondary-use patents is a violation of investor safeguards provided through NAFTA; specifically, those relating to minimum standard of treatment, non-discrimination, and expropriation. That the courts rejected the patents because the drugs concerned did not live up to the standard of utility set by Canadian law, was not reasonable according to Eli Lilly. To take action against Canada required contorting the ISD chapter of NAFTA, despite the fact that the chapter in question does not apply to intellectual property. The entire event would read like a lurid novel, if novels were written about intellectual property and national sovereignty.

In a report dated to March 2013, Public Citizen provides a meticulously researched account of Eli Lilly’s actions and the operation of ISDs within trade agreements. At that time, Canada was only facing a $100 million challenge (Eli Lilly has since upped the ante); even so, Public Citizen did not miss the irony at hand:

… while Canada faces an investor-state challenge from Eli Lilly, the country has joined negotiations to establish the TPP, which would expand the investor-state system further. To date, Canada alone has paid more than $155 million to foreign investors after NAFTA investor-state attacks on energy, timber, land use and toxics policies. Underlying Eli Lilly’s claim against Canada is the notion that government patent policies and actions are subject to the investor privileges provisions of the agreement.

Public Citizen observes that Eli Lilly’s actions marks the first occasion of an intellectual property challenge occurring under the auspices of NAFTA’s ISD provisions. Our previous “first”, the first challenge of any kind, does not offer much comfort, resulting as it did in a loss both monetarily and for public health. Briefly, in 1997 a ban on the gasoline additive MMT was repealed by the Canadian government in response to opposition by Ethyl Corporation, the American producer of the additive. At the time, Public Citizen wrote:

The Canadian government settled the NAFTA suit yesterday agreeing to pay Ethyl $13 million in damages and to cover the company’s legal costs. It will also proclaim publicly that MMT is “safe” in direct contradiction of the view of its national environmental protection agency.

With respect to Eli Lilly’s present action, Michael Geist and E. Richard Gold (Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University) have both indicated that the corporation’s chances of winning are slim. Notably, in a briefing session recently held in Washington DC, Gold indicates that “… no competent tribunal could rule in Eli Lilly’s favor”. We can only hope that both Geist and Gold are correct. But competence might prove a relative term; so far, arbitration tribunals have not distinguished themselves in weighing public interest (as a domestic court of law would) into the decision-making process. (Public Citizen has thoroughly documented past arbitration decisions, with added detail for some of the more egregious outcomes.) Moreover, even if Canada secures a win, that does not necessarily exclude involvement in costs.

The Washington DC briefing session was hosted by the firm of Stern, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox on 5 June 2014, with all the presentations posted online. I am hard pressed to choose a favorite but Simon Lester (Trade Policy Analyst, Cato Institute) raises the issue of Canada’s increasing involvement with ISDs. Despite some indication from the Canadian government that CETA (the impending trade deal with the European Union) will mitigate the ISD risks, Lester notes that Canada is simply trying to “tweak the language” to ensure that court decisions cannot be challenged. “…  what I have seen written is that the only changes are that no claims can be made under expropriation, but there are more avenues [of claim]… the slight tweaks that Canada wants to make are probably not enough.”

If the Canadian government is not decisively protecting sovereignty within a bilateral trade negotiation, it is unlikely that we will do better in the multi-national forum of the TPP.

There is much more that could and should be written about ISDs but, for now, Lester shall have the last word. In his presentation, he asks an important question: “Normally, the Supreme Court gets the final word. But apparently, there’s an international court system above the domestic Supreme Court system.  … Is everybody okay with that?”

 

 

 

 

 

after Marrakesh

In Posts on June 23, 2014 at 7:59 am

June 28 marks the one year anniversary of the completion of a diplomatic conference to facilitate access to published works for blind, visually impaired and print disabled people. Known as the Marrakesh Treaty, its purpose is to address the book famine that currently exists with respect to anyone of limited reading capability, by: (i) facilitating creation of appropriately formatted materials with the use of exceptions to copyright; and (ii) allowing countries to share materials, thereby reducing costs all round. Hailed as the Miracle in Marrakesh, it is the first multilateral treaty on limitations and exceptions to copyright, and gives credence to the view that negotiation among stakeholders is possible.

But no one had any expectation that the treaty would move forward smoothly. (Some of my earlier coverage is here and here). Prior to last year’s conference, Tatiana Sinodinou posted a detailed assessment of the situation; reminding us that these negotiations began more than thirty years earlier, when UNESCO and WIPO jointly created a working group to examine the possibilities for enhancing access to copyrighted material for those handicapped by visual or auditory limitations.

Sinodinou eloquently captured the tension of what lay ahead: “… The road to Marrakesh is open but is not paved with roses and the outcome of the negotiations is awaited with both hope and reservations.” Given that history, the cooperation found a year ago was worthy of attribution to the miraculous. But tangible benefit is yet to be had; the miracle may give way to mirage if concerted action is not taken.

With the treaty language adopted on 27 June 2013, delegates were invited to sign the treaty on 28 June 2013 and agree to:

… to introduce a standard set of limitations and exceptions to copyright rules in order to permit reproduction, distribution and making available of published works in formats designed to be accessible to [blind, visually impaired and print disabled persons] and to permit exchange of these works across borders by organizations that serve those beneficiaries …

Fifty-one countries immediately obliged. Over the past year, sixteen others signed. And this morning came the welcome news that Australia, Finland, Ireland and Norway have also signed.

Canada’s absence of support is glaring, particularly given the role Canada purportedly played in negotiating the treaty; see Sara Bannerman’s remarks here and Michael Geist’s remarks here.

Geist points out that Canadian law will only need minor modification and that the Federal Government could make such changes during the upcoming scheduled review of Canadian copyright law in 2017. But, he also writes:

The biggest change would likely come from the need to establish an entity that would facilitate, promote, and disseminate accessible format copies of work and exchange information with other countries about accessible works. In other words, the treaty would require Canada to invest in improving access for the blind.

Fortunately, CELA might serve that need. Officially launched on 1 April 2014, with a formal debut at the Canadian Library Association’s National Conference on 29 May 2014, the Centre for Equitable Library Access (CELA) is a non-profit organization that serves Canadians with print disabilities. Supported by the Canadian Urban Libraries Council and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, CELA already has 600 member libraries across Canada. Among the services provided by CELA are:

- A broad choice of formats including audio, braille, e-text and described video
– Access to a growing collection of over 230,000 alternate format items including books, magazines, newspapers and described videos
– A broad selection of genres: fiction, non-fiction, poetry, children’s, young adult, business, self-help, poetry and more
– A choice of delivery options: Direct download to computer, handheld devices and DAISY player; CD and braille mailed to home
– Training and expertise on accessibility

Of course, this only makes it more perplexing that our government is holding back on signing the treaty.

On a brighter note; Israel, which is not yet among the list of signatories, nevertheless amended its copyright law expressly to comply with the treaty requirements. At Israel Technology Law, Eli Greenbaum writes that the Israeli implementation exceeds the minimum standards required. (Hopefully, ratification is forthcoming quickly.) And it appears that India had planned to ratify the treaty by now; in his coverage last month for SpicyIP, Swaraj Paul Barooah writes: “G.R. Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights, has stated that the ratification is expected by the end of May, 2014.” (Perhaps the election delayed the plans, but the new Indian government intends to act quickly?)

Until twenty countries ratify the treaty, and none have done so yet, the treaty cannot have force. In a lecture given at the Berkman Center on 23 April 2014, Justin Hughes, (chief negotiator for the United States for the Marrakesh Treaty) was unequivocal that much more needs to be done:

The real policy goal, the real thing we should care about is getting educational/cultural/informational materials into the hands of persons with print disabilities. And when you sign the treaty, you haven’t succeeded.

This journey is far from over; the road did not stop at Marrakesh.

 

More reading:

Explanatory notes, courtesy of World Blind Union.
User Guide to The Marrakesh Treaty, prepared by Jonathan Band.
The 1982 WIPO/UNESCO report is available at Knowledge Ecology International.

 

Update July 1  India becomes the first country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty (dated to June 30, 2014)

 

 

 

privacy in Canada – part two

In Posts on June 1, 2014 at 7:23 pm

The current legislative situation regarding privacy confounds many Canadians, given that Prime Minister Harper and key players in his coterie have staunchly argued on the principles of privacy to dismantle past measures of data collection, even when those measures were supported by Conservative allies. Specifically, the long-form census and the long-gun registry were discarded despite opposition from prominent experts in the areas of finance and law enforcement.

In 2010, amidst a firestorm of criticism, the Prime Minister cancelled the mandatory long-form census and replaced it with an optional household survey. Objections poured forth from the provinces, municipalities, communities, businesses, educators, social advocates, health organizations, and more, including a former Bank of Canada governor.

Most telling, Munir Sheikh resigned his position as Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada, rather than acquiesce to a decision that could only damage Canadian wellbeing. Effective policy cannot be made without reliable data. (Indeed, Prime Minister Harper is likely feeling that headache now, as he tries to combat the problems of the temporary foreign worker visa program, without accurate information concerning where needs can be filled without placing Canadians at a disadvantage.)

The Prime Minister viewed the census as an intrusion into Canadian privacy, despite the rigorous controls enforced by Statistics Canada with respect to disclosure of the data. (Individual information was never revealed; only aggregate information was provided through a controlled request system.) Writing for the Progressive Economics Forum at that time, Armine Yalnizyan explored the Canadian system in detail and in comparison to other systems, and made plain that while personal data is gathered, the results are never personal. No privacy commissioner had ever seen fit to question the operations of Statistics Canada. Yet discarding the census was clearly a matter of principle, or so it must be seen. Tony Clement, then-Minister of Industry, made these remarks to the Standing Committee for Industry, Science and Technology:

Our government’s reason for replacing the mandatory census with a voluntary national survey on the long form is clear. We do not believe it is appropriate to compel Canadians to divulge extensive private and personal information.

So despite compromising effective decision making in his own government, Prime Minister Harper stood resolutely on the issue of privacy.

For those who might still have doubts, the demise of the long-gun registry offers further illustration of our Prime Minister’s formerly adamant views on privacy. A dogged six year battle (from 2006-2012) was needed to remove the registry from use. And, not content to merely end the requirement of registration, Prime Minister Harper sought to ensure that all existing data be destroyed. According to Jason Kenney, then-Minister for Citizenship and Immigration:

… we can protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and there are hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians who are legitimate firearms owners who believe that database undermines their privacy rights, and our commitment was, for that reason, to get rid of that data.

When the registry was eliminated in 2012, it was over and above the objections of Canadian law enforcement agencies. For instance, an RCMP evaluation of the registry argued that it served a vital function towards public safety:

The program is often misperceived by the media and the public as being solely a registry. The administration of this national public safety program might better be compared with a provincial Motor Vehicles Branch, which is also involved in safety training, licensing and registration and is an important resource to law enforcement. …  There continues to be public safety threats in Canada caused by both the deliberate and accidental misuse of firearms, mostly through non-restricted firearms (long guns). … Regulation of firearms provides for greater accountability for the firearm (p.17)

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police also came out forcefully in favour of the registry. Bill Blair, then head of the association, indicated that “officers use the registry up to 11,000 times a day, both to investigate and prevent crime.”

With the Prime Minister favouring a law-and-order agenda in Canada, it is more than odd that he chose to ignore the opinions of those involved in law-and-order. One can only infer that privacy reigned supreme among Prime Minister Harper’s principles and was not to be compromised, even for political gain.

Returning to current events, perhaps knowing that she would not be permitted to speak to the Standing Committee, Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian does not mince words in a letter to the Committee Chair, dated to 16 May 2014. Calling for revision of the pending legislation, she concludes with:

Canadians have a constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, including with respect to personal information held by third parties. The expansive surveillance proposals and entrenchment of sweeping immunity for digital service providers brings this right into question.

Cavoukian, along with the Canadian Bar Association and others, have encouraged the Government to separate Bill C-13 into separate pieces of legislation, one to address cyberbullying and the other for lawful access. Minister MacKay has refused such proposals; perhaps Prime Minister Harper may yet see wisdom in such a move.

Update – June 3  Jill Clayton, Elizabeth Denham and Ann Cavoukian (privacy commissioners of Alberta, BC and Ontario, respectively) ask the Standing Committee to “… postpone hearings on Bill C-13 until such a time as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada can appear and speak to this Bill …” ; their letter (dated 2 June 2014)  is available here.

Update – June 13 — a tumultuous ten days  

The contested appointment of a new privacy commissioner, with a somewhat surprising outcome, the unwillingness of the government to amend either C-13 or S-4, and a timely reminder from the Supreme Court of Canada that Canadians have an expectation of privacy, means that there will be continued pressure upon the government to reconsider its actions. With unanimity, the Justices declared: “The two circumstances relevant to determining the reasonableness of … expectation of privacy in this case are the nature of the privacy interest at stake and the statutory and contractual framework governing the ISP’s disclosure of subscriber information.”

Josh Wingrove, writing for the Globe and Mail, solicited opinion from privacy expert David Fraser; he emphasizes that this alone does not “throw out” parts of S-4 and C-13, but “… adds to the ammunition critics have had with respect to a number of the provisions.” Fraser provides ongoing analysis at his blog; among his preliminary remarks was this gem: “Contrary to the views of most police agencies and the government of Canada, this information is not innocuous phone book information but, ‘rather, it was the identity of an Internet subscriber which corresponded to particular Internet usage.'”

 

privacy in Canada – part one

In Posts on June 1, 2014 at 6:02 pm

Over the last few months, Canadians have been presented with the sobering news of breaches of privacy committed on a massive scale. The revelation of over one million requests to telecommunications’ providers for subscriber records must provoke scrutiny of this government’s treatment of privacy. Scholars and privacy organizations are concerned that our government’s current legislative program will only make such breaches easier to carry out.

Currently, there are two bills under discussion in Parliament. Bill C-13 (Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act) is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; it offers incentives for disclosure of subscriber data by providing immunity to any telecommunications company that voluntarily supplies information when requested by law enforcement agencies. Bill S-4 (Digital Privacy Act) has arrived at the Senate chambers and extends that offer of immunity to any private organization that claims to be investigating a breach of contract, or a possible breach of contract.

After his participation in discussion of C-13 with the Standing Committee on 29 May 2014, Michael Geist posted his thoughts about the meeting itself, alerting Canadians to the spectacle of a bill so intertwined with privacy, moving forward without the involvement of a single privacy commissioner. Furthermore, “… leading privacy groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and CIPPIC have all been told that there is unlikely to be spots for them at committee. … .”

Canadians may wish to know who has been permitted to speak to the Standing Committee so far. According to the records available to date, the Standing Committee began discussion of C-13 on 1 May 2014, has had six meetings so far, with one more meeting confirmed for 3 June 2014.

The first meeting was entirely given over to Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) and members of his department. Through the next five meetings, law enforcement officials and families of victims were each allocated one meeting. In the remaining three meetings, the following organizations were involved: Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, Canadian Association of University Teachers, Canadian Bar Association, Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Criminal Lawyers Association, Kids Internet Safety Alliance, and Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Interspersed among these organizations were four individuals: David Fraser,  Gregory Gilhooly, Steph Guthrie and Michael Geist.

With this weighting of participants, one might have expected testimony to be resoundly in favour of the government`s proposals. Yet the second meeting defied that expectation. The transcript for 6 May 2014 makes for interesting reading.

The witnesses of the day were representatives of Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, Steph Guthrie and David Fraser. Notably, both Guthrie and Fraser have devoted considerable effort to representing the interests of victims of cyber-assault, see here and here. If the Committee expected unqualified approbation from all three parties, the MPs were quickly disabused of that notion. All witnesses gave comprehensive statements; each witness asked that attention be brought to bear on the privacy implications of the bill.

Fraser spoke first; immunity came in for conspicuous displeasure at the end of his prepared remarks:

I find this to be gravely problematic. I think it’s a very cleverly crafted provision. We’re told that this is simply for greater certainty, but it goes beyond that. Everything we know suggests otherwise.

It says that you will not be liable for handing over any data that you’re not prohibited by law from handing over, and if you do so you’re civilly immune. Now, only the criminal law and other regulations create prohibitions against handing over information, but you can hand over information when you’re not legally prohibited and still incur civil liability. Civil liability is there for a reason. I may not be legally prohibited from accidentally driving my car into yours, but if I do that, you’re entitled to damages from that. I should be paying for the harm that is caused.

If there were an immunity provision that said you could not sue me if I did something that was not legally prohibited, that would be squelched. That would go away. So this provision, I believe, should be removed. It can’t be fixed and will only encourage overreaching by law enforcement.

In conclusion, while we don’t have Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, in front of us, that fits together with the immunity provisions. I’m concerned that the two taken together will extend the amount of information not only available to law enforcement but will extend the information available to other civil litigants and others (emphasis mine).

Fahd Alhattab, an alumnus of Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, added a plea with his request for protection of privacy:

Young people deserve to be protected from cyberbullying, but they also deserve to be protected and respected for their privacy. Now, we’re no experts on privacy, so our only recommendation on that is to encourage you to listen, obviously, to any concerns that are brought up, any considerations that are brought up, by the experts who are dealing with privacy, to make sure that we’re protecting youth from cyberbullying but we’re also protecting our children and youth and their privacy rights (emphasis mine).

On cue, Guthrie then drew attention back to the immunity offered for warrantless disclosure in C-13, noting that C-13 claims to bring scrutiny to the issue of consent in terms of cyberbullying, yet turns around and abandons consent in terms of privacy:

 Perhaps most of Bill C-13 isn’t  really about cybersexual assault, but I find it interesting that it violates some of the same privacy principles, such as freely given and specific consent. Most of us do not and would not give free and specific consent for the state to access any, and potentially all, of our data by way of our Internet service providers if we had any meaningful choice in the matter.

The consent we give is to our Internet service providers. If the police want our information because they suspect we are engaged in criminal activity, well, most of us would assume that is what search warrants are for. Bill C-13 enshrines the idea of transferable consent in law, immunizing anyone who shares our information and violates our privacy without adequate legal justification for doing so (emphasis mine).

While obviously different in many ways, the limitations on personal freedom imposed by Bill C-13  bear some striking similarities to those imposed by cybersexual assault. The state could be following us into our job interviews, on our first dates, or to the laundromat. The bill’s provisions will restrict Canadians’ ability to live life normally and comfortably because they are constantly living with the idea that the state, when they encounter it, may know intimate things about them that they didn’t consent to share. Even if they know they have done nothing wrong, they must still deal with the judgments, misperceptions, and intrusions of the state.

In the question and answer period that followed, a concerted effort by MP Bob Dechert to push Fraser into agreeing that immunity was necessary to combat the harms that have been inflicted on past victims came to naught. Dechert posed the hypothetical situation of a young woman, about to be victimized by widespread dissemination of a personal photograph thereby provoking a request from the police that an ISP should help identify the offender; Dechert asked if Fraser would advise the ISP to disclose the data:

Mr. David Fraser: In this scenario—again, I can only speak for myself—I believe there is a real harm attached to the dissemination of these sorts of images. I’ve seen first-hand the harm that they can do to a young person, and I’ve seen what they can do to an adult. My inclination would be to provide that information. That would be my impulse. I would know there might be possibly some risk in doing that, but for me, given the severity of what’s going on, this is a non-trivial matter, and my inclination would be to hand over that information.

Mr. Bob Dechert: In that circumstance, you would agree that the ISP provider should not bear any civil liability if it turns out that they were incorrect; there was no crime committed or about to be committed.

Mr. David Fraser: I wouldn’t grant them immunity.

Mr. Bob Dechert: You wouldn’t grant them immunity.

Mr. David Fraser: No. I would say that they acted in good faith and they wouldn’t be liable, but I wouldn’t grant them immunity.

Mr. Bob Dechert:  That would expose them to a lawsuit, would it not?

Mr. David Fraser: Certainly. Walking down the street exposes one to a lawsuit. There is a difference between not being liable and having immunity. Immunity is a blanket, saying that no matter what you do, nobody can raise an issue.

Immunity, of course, is only part of the problem of C-13.

There are significant concerns about the widening of data to be collected. What is benignly referred to as transmission data is not as innocuous as it sounds, despite the assurance of Minister MacKay at the first meeting on 1 May 2014:

…  the definition of transmission is narrowly defined and captures only data that relates to the act of telecommunication. The definition of transmission data is the modern equivalent of phone-call information, not what is actually contained in the conversation, and these proposals are meant to ensure consistent treatment of similar information.

Such language is, intentionally or otherwise, misleading. Turning again to Fraser’s opening remarks, he is explicit as to what transmission data entails:

With conventional telephony, transmission data refers to the number called from, the number called to, whether the call was connected, and how long that call lasted.   In the Internet context, the amount of information that’s included in the kind of out-of-band signalling information and what it reveals is dramatically different. It would include the IP address of the originating computer, the destination computer, information about the browser that’s being used, information about the computer that’s being used, information about the URL, the address being accessed, which can actually disclose content, even though the definition of transmission data is intended to exclude that.

It will also tell you what kind of communications are being done. Is it an e-mail communication? Is it an instant message? Is it peer-to-peer file sharing or otherwise? So it provides much more insight into actually what is going on than just phone number information.  An interception of transmission data would tell law enforcement agencies whether the target of surveillance was visiting a search engine, an encyclopedia site, a poker site, or a medical site. Furthermore, the data would provide greater insight into the likely physical location of the surveillance target. This is a dramatic expansion of the information that’s provided and available, compared to traditional telephone communications.

As anybody in this room knows, I expect, the way we use computers today is dramatically different from the way we used telephones 15 years ago. We use them as spellcheckers. We use them to find out facts. We use them for a much wider range of activities. With the disclosure of greater information through these transmission data orders, you’re revealing much more about an individual. Even though the definition excludes content, just the transmission data tells you a lot more about really what’s going on.

Geist raises what is perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the proceedings in “Why has the Canadian government given up on protecting our privacy?”, published by the Toronto Star on 30 May 2014. He notes: “… conservative government policies are often consistent with civil libertarian views that abhor public intrusion into the private lives of its citizens.” Our Prime Minister has shown great zeal in protecting privacy in the past.  A look back follows in privacy in Canada – part two.

 

 

 

gratitude would have been better

In Posts on May 19, 2014 at 8:11 pm

Last week, the Ottawa Citizen published an op/ed written by Blayne Haggart, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Brock University. I have crossed paths professionally with Blayne, and fully share his concern about the detriment wrought by the expansion of copyright. However, in this instance, he may have done more harm than good.

At issue is the removal of Chris Hadfield’s reworking and performance of David Bowie’s composition Space Oddity from YouTube. Readers of the Ottawa Citizen may have come away with the impression that Bowie pressured Hadfield to remove the video. Or that Bowie compelled YouTube to issue a takedown notice of the video. As reported by Joe Silver at ArsTechnica on 14 May 2014, Hadfield chose to remove the video himself, in compliance with the agreement he had made with Bowie, and that plans were underway to renew the license. This was a private matter between the two parties, and could have stayed that way.

Yet the fact that something that people liked to watch was disappearing from YouTube prompted a bewildering public outcry. Bowie’s character was impugned, without evidence that Bowie disliked Hadfield’s use of the song, or that he wished it removed from view. In fact, the contrary is more conceivable, given the very positive coverage that followed the release of the video. At that time, Simon Usborne of The Independent wrote: “David Bowie champions Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield’s ‘Space Oddity’ cover.” Over at the desk of The Telegraph, Neil McCormick wrote: “Chris Hadfield’s performance of David Bowie’s Space Oddity from space is another brilliant moment for one of the greatest comebacks in pop history.” It is quite possible that a future license is forthcoming. That we might have to wait to see the video again, should not be reason for a mass lament.

Moreover, inciting a public condemnation of copyright, on this issue, is not helpful to the larger goal of finding an appropriate balance between copyright holders and copyright users. That goal cannot be accomplished without goodwill on both sides of the negotiations. A mediating point is in the use of exceptions to copyright; exceptions allow unauthorized use of works, without having to wait for copyright’s term of protection to end. Exceptions ensure that the goal of copyright – to foster creativity – is not thwarted by the rights embedded within copyright.

Readers of this blog will know that the most prominent Canadian exception is fair dealing. With the amendments that came into force in 2012, fair dealing addresses unauthorized uses of copyrighted work for purposes of research, private study, criticism, review, news reporting, parody, satire or education, if the manner by which the use occurs is fair. As I have written before, such an evaluation is not as cryptic as it sounds; ten years ago the Supreme Court of Canada gave appropriate guidance. Since then, many people have worked very hard to educate our educators on the importance of using copyright and fair dealing appropriately. But copyright representatives still eye exceptions with askance, and try to roll back the support given to exceptions by both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Government of Canada. In the hands of a copyright lobbyist, op-eds that illustrate a lack of respect for creators and denounce copyright, only facilitate arguments for a continued expanding of rights and diminishing of exceptions.

In its current incarnation, fair dealing is the most expansive it has ever been. However, it still does not offer clear protection to new creative work, when the artist has drawn vigorously from another copyrighted work. Creative endeavor will not always suit a predefined category (see sometimes art is just art). But, a new exception provided in 2012 – section 29.21, non-commercial user-generated content – covers some of this gap. “It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one, which has been published or otherwise made available to the public, in the creation of a new work … .” This exception plays a vital role in protecting Canadians who want to play with existing creations and explore their own potential for creativity via the possibilities that digital technology provides.

Naturally, conditions apply; fortunately, those conditions invoke an analysis very similar to evaluation of fair dealing. Given that some of Bowie’s lyrics were rewritten to suit Hadfield’s situation, it is plausible that Hadfield could have argued the legitimacy of using Bowie’s work without permission, if he had posted the video at a Canadian host. But it should not surprise anyone that a noted representative of Canada, and a musician in his own right, chose to engage with a musician of iconic status and work in cooperation.

Hadfield’s memoir, An Astronaut’s Guide to Life On Earth (2013) describes the team effort that went into making the video, with Bowie’s permission being integral to the project. The outcome was stunning, garnering 10 million views within the first three days and millions more over the following year. I hope that all viewers took note of the last scene of the video; the list of acknowledgements that concludes: “With special thanks to David Bowie, NASA, ROSCOSMOS and the CSA.”

Many are the occasions when it is incumbent to publicly complain about the excesses of copyright. But this was not one of them. Taking our cue from Chris Hadfield, “Thank You” would have been more appropriate.

Update — June 13  Making more music; Chris Hadfield with Emm Gryner.

Update — June 28  The Ottawa Citizen issues an apology to David Bowie (dated 20 June 2014).

 

 

 

rewriting history

In Posts on March 23, 2014 at 8:22 pm

On 11 March 2014, the Canadian Copyright Institute (CCI) released their policy paper titled A Fair and Better Way Forward, which details the Institute’s interpretation of the last two years’ of fair dealing activity. The Institute calls for dialogue with the educational community, expressly to return to the prior climate of collective licensing in Canada. Obligingly, the Institute has even scripted the dialogue; it begins with the statement “The CMEC/AUCC/ACCC guidelines are unacceptable to Canadian creators and publishers,” and ends with “The final step would be to implement [revised] guidelines through a collective licensing agreement.”

In his blog post of 14 March 2014, Michael Geist expertly discredits CCI’s interpretation of history and points out the emptiness of their not-so-veiled threats against the educational community. Readers who are tired of this subject (as I am) likely hoped that discussion of the paper would end. Regrettably, that did not happen; on 20 March 2014, Quill and Quire gave further support to the paper through an interview with Jaqueline Hushion (chair of CCI). Hushion voiced her disappointment that the paper has not received much attention from educational institutions, that efforts to “make positive, useful contact with any one or more of the three major education [organizations] in order to see if we could open a dialogue” were unsuccessful.

The premise of CCI’s paper, and Hushion’s interview, is that current challenges for the publishing sector of Canada began with the legislative expansion of fair dealing in 2010, and, Education v. Access Copyright (2012) – a Supreme Court decision that confirmed that some copying carried out in schools is fair dealing. (It must be emphasized that this decision was made without reliance upon the expanded ambit of fair dealing). According to CCI, these two factors: “… did not eliminate the need for collective licensing in educational institutions. Nor do they justify copying practices that will have a devastating impact on the market for published materials (p.2).” These two sentences invite exploration.

If I may begin with the second sentence, strictly speaking, it is irrelevant. It is not incumbent upon the education sector to prop up the publishing sector by making unnecessary payment for materials. As I have written before, this does not mean that educational institutions are not paying for copyrighted material, they are only ensuring that payments are not made in duplicate. Such a propping up would be a reprehensible waste of taxpayers’ money and the tuition dollars scraped together by students and their families. However, for a moment, let us assume that such waste is the correct course of action. CCI does not present credible evidence as to the “devastating impact.” Which is not surprising as this is not the first instance where rights holders have painted a picture of devastation without support. In Education v. Access Copyright (2012), the Supreme Court of Canada was unimpressed by this tactic:

Access Copyright pointed out that textbook sales had shrunk over 30 percent in 20 years. However, as noted by the Coalition, there was no evidence that this decline was linked to photocopying done by teachers. Moreover, it noted there were several other factors that were likely to have contributed to the decline in sales, such as the adoption of semester teaching, a decrease in registrations, the longer lifespan of textbooks, increased use of the Internet and other electronic tools, and more resource-based learning (para. 33).

Returning to the first sentence–regarding the cause of the elimination of collective licensing–I agree. Neither the expansion of fair dealing nor the Supreme Court decision is responsible. That claim to fame, goes primarily to Access Copyright.

It was not that long ago when educational institutions were quite complacent about their licensing agreements with Access Copyright. As I described two years ago, the educational market became reserved for Access Copyright, with no real protest from institutions. A relatively inexpensive and easy-to-administer deal, coupled with seeming assurances of safety, made collective licensing an attractive proposition. And Canadian universities were extremely timid in their approach with fair dealing (as I noted a few weeks ago, even the CCH Canadian decision of 2004 did not bring forward pronounced engagement with fair dealing.) The heightened focus upon fair dealing came only after a startling move by Access Copyright.

Readers may remember the summer of 2010, when Access Copyright proposed a 1300% increase in the royalty rate of the university license agreements. Along with expectation of heightened fees came demands for more rights (including for linking to material – a claim not supported by law and later rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada), no exclusion for fair dealing (despite the presence of such an exclusion in earlier licenses), and invasive surveillance of university activity. (Howard Knopf provided detailed coverage, see here.)

Shortly thereafter, Michael Geist wrote:

  … education must self-assess to determine whether it actually needs these licences or whether individual licences with the authors (or copyright holder) where needed makes more sense.  … How many courses rely heavily on recently published research that is available under open access?  How many courses limit materials primarily to textbooks that are purchased by students and not copied?  How many rely on works found in databases that are licenced separately? …

Three and a half years later, many post-secondary institutions have carried out such self-assessment and are using their resources wisely. Students may receive instruction through licensed material (paid directly to the individual provider), open-access content, publicly available materials, and through use of all exceptions available to Canadians under the Copyright Act of Canada.

CCI’s stated disappointment at the lack of engagement from the educational community is not likely to bring about a thaw in relations. The community has simply run out of patience in the wake of threats, tariff applications, one lawsuit, and incessant attempts to rewrite history.

Just some of last year’s activity on this subject:

April 2013: Access Copyright announces legal action. Michael Geist responds with a detailed analysis of how ill-conceived the action is.

September 2013: Howard Knopf covers Access Copyright’s statement of claim to the Copyright Board for a post-secondary tariff. Through the work of Graham Reynolds, I indicate that the Copyright Board was no longer something Access Copyright should take for granted. (I also took the opportunity to remind the collective’s membership that their administration was gambling with the members’ money.)

Also in September 2013, my take on the object of tension; namely the AUCC guidelines. It spanned two entries; see here and here.

December 2013: Access Copyright announces its disappointment concerning the continued trend to abstain from collective licensing. Michael Geist reminds us that collective licensing is no longer good value. My reminder was that Canadian universities were long overdue in recognizing that copyright is a set of limited rights. (I also took umbrage at the campaign of fear conducted by Access Copyright.)

December 2013: The Association of Canadian Publishers releases a Statement of Principles on Fair Dealing in Education.

February 2014: Howard Knopf provides clarification regarding ACP’s [Mis]Statement of Principles.

February 2014: Michael Geist reports that the Copyright Board has posed challenging questions to Access Copyright with respect to the proposed tariff.  The Board also offered a much-needed reminder; as copyright does not apply to insubstantial amounts of copying, fair dealing addresses substantial copying.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers