Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Canadian Universities Have One Week To Stop A Disastrous Copyright Licensing Deal

from the ridiculous-demands dept

Canada's universities are on the verge of accepting a copyright licensing deal that flies in the face of all reason, agreeing to pay higher fees for the clearance of all sorts of new digital rights—including some that don't actually exist—despite a major Supreme Court ruling and a fast-approaching copyright reform bill which both suggest they shouldn't need to make a deal at all. The organization that represents the schools is now attempting to rush through a scheme that harms educators, students and taxpayers by forcing its members to sign on immediately or face retroactive penalties, and unless there's a much-needed last-minute push from the public, this disastrous agreement is a done deal. The outcome has baffled some Canadian lawyers and professors who have followed the story for years.

In 2004, Canada's Supreme Court issued a unanimous judgement in a dispute between legal publishers and a law library that changed the shape of copyright in Canada. The decision in CCH Canada Ltd. vs Law Society Of Upper Canada (pdf link) explored the limits of fair dealing (the Canadian analog of fair use) as it pertains to research, establishing several key principles that are strongly in favor of open access to information. The court stated that the term "research", which is explicitly included as fair dealing under Canadian copyright law, should be broadly interpreted and is not limited to private or non-commercial endeavours—and that if a facility's general purpose qualifies as research, it is protected under fair dealing even if some people might use the facility to infringe. It was a landmark ruling that, of course, provoked the ire of every collection society and copyright industry player in the country.

But for Canadian universities and public schools, it should have been a windfall. For years they had been paying a per-student fee to the collection society Access Copyright (previously CanCopy) for rights clearance on all the routine xeroxing and other copying that is a part of education. After the CCH ruling, most or all of that qualified as fair dealing, and the schools were in a position to negotiate much lower fees or just stop paying them altogether. Instead, the opposite happened—the schools ended up paying more.

To understand how this is possible, you have to know how the process works. The Copyright Board of Canada has the legal authority to impose copyright tariffs. When Access Copyright wants more money, they go to the board and request a ridiculously high tariff—then negotiate a voluntary rate with the schools, somewhere in between the current fee and the requested tariff. If the schools can get a rate that is lower than the requested tariff, they declare victory—even though they could have presented a much better and more effective fair dealing argument to the board, doubly so following the CCH ruling.

The K-12 public schools were the first to fall and be forced to retroactively accept a higher rate, the burden of which ultimately falls on taxpayers and students. Then, in 2010, Access Copyright moved against the universities, filing for a $45 per-student tariff after the old deal ($3.38/student plus ten cents per page for course packs) expired. Not only that, but by the end of the year they had managed to get the Copyright Board to approve an interim tariff to impose on the universities before reaching a final agreement or determination. A bunch of schools opted out, and started trying to clear their own rights without going through Access Copyright. At this point, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada was in the perfect position to go to the board and assert their fair dealing rights. Not only would they have the backing of the CCH ruling and its generous "research" provisions, they could point to Canada's soon-to-be-passed copyright reform bill, which as currently written will specifically add "education" to the definition of fair dealing.

For some reason, apart from a few minor objections as the board continued to make procedural rulings against them, they haven't fought back very hard, or at least not very effectively—and the process has been dragging on and on. They entered into preliminary negotiations with Access Copyright at the beginning of this year, but then suddenly something completely unexpected happened: at the end of January, the University of Toronto and Western University announced that they had cut their own deal with the collection society at $27.50 per student. Again, they declared victory because it was lower than the proposed $45—a laughable figure that the Copyright Board never would have granted. The capitulation of two major universities took the already-meager wind out of the AUCC's sails, and now they've negotiated an ever-so-slightly better (but still, in the big picture, very bad) rate for universities and colleges across Canada.

In addition to the rates that went up when they should have gone down, there are plenty of other problems with both deals. Howard Knopf, a Canadian copyright lawyer, points out that Access Copyright is charging for ridiculous rights that don't even exist, such as hyperlinking and displaying documents on a screen. University of Toronto law professor Ariel Katz, another outspoken critic of the deal, highlights several onerous provisions that will seriously interfere with the ability of professors to do their job:

Or consider s. 4(c): “Copies of Repertoire Works shall not be stored or indexed with the intention of creating a library of Published Works, except as permitted by this agreement as part of a Course Collection.” I don’t know when was the last time the people who negotiated these license agreements conducted academic research, but I’m happy to break the news that since the photocopier appeared on campus (and perhaps earlier than that) copying works (such as journal articles), and storing them “with the intention of creating a library” has been integral to the researcher’s life. Some of us annotate these copies, occasionally at least, and those who are better organized employ various methods for cataloging and indexing their collections. Believe it or not, some academics keep not only collections of photocopies but also collections of materials in electronic format called “pdf”. Yes, we sometimes do weird things up there in the ivory tower. Moreover–and I hope you’re ready for the shocking news–it has even been brought to my attention that some Canadian researchers use programs like Zotero, RefWorks, EndNotes, among others, in order to index those files for easy search, retrieval, and other seditious purposes. The agreements seem to prohibit that. Is this the best possible outcome? Really?

Or what would you say about the following gems, such as s. 5(a): “Digital Copies of Repertoire Works shall not be transmitted to, posted or uploaded to, or stored on any computer network other than a Secure Network”, and 5(b:) “Digital Copies of Repertoire Works stored on Secure Networks shall be made available and accessible only to Authorized Persons segregated by individual Course of Study”?

These prohibition seem benign enough until your read the definitions. A Secure Network is defined as: “a network that is operated by the Licensee [i.e., the licensed university, not the Authorized Person, AK], or for and subject to the control of the Licensee (such as a network hosted by a third party and/or accessible through a web interface) and which is only accessible by an Authorized Person who is approved by the Licensee by means of a process of authentication which, at the time of login, identifies the user as an Authorized Person, whether by user name and password or by some other equally secure method.”

Knopf believes many schools are going to be completely blindsided by the details of the agreement—but they may not have the time or resources to do anything about it. The AUCC is letting Access Copyright pressure the universities and colleges to agree now with what it brazenly dubs a "limited time offer".

Believe it or not, there’s a "Limited Time Offer of Discounted Pricing on Retroactive Payments" (which Prof. Ariel Katz suggests is “an offer than can’t be refused”), that demands virtually immediate agreement in order to mitigate losses. According to AUCC President Davidson:
Access Copyright has agreed that the best retroactivity discounts available to universities will be available those that indicate in writing to Access before May 1, 2012 that they expects to sign the licence, and then actually sign before June 30, 2102 [sic]. While you need to indicate your intent to sign the licence by May 1, you may still reconsider your options after that date, and you could choose to delay signing (in which case the discount will be lower), or not sign at all. (highlight added)
However, among other things, it’s not at all clear: how this “”Limited Time Offer” will work; and, why it is so limited in time and so urgent?

Nor is it clear what AC means when it says that those who “advise Access Copyright in writing of their intention to sign the Model License by no later than May 1, 2012, and sign by no later than June 30, 2012, pay no retroactive payments.” What does “intention to sign” mean? What happens if the university changes its mind?

May 1st is seriously really soon. It is only a week away. What exactly is the emergency?

The emergency, of course, is that if Canadian universities wake up to what's happening and have time to actually look at this deal, they might realize how bad it is for everyone other than Access Copyright. Nobody is entirely sure just how and why the AUCC, University of Toronto and Western have failed to put up a meaningful fight. Though time is short, critics like Knopf believe there may still be a chance for a hail-mary pass to stop this deal in its tracks. Some may think this is quibbling over a meaningless figure—a few bucks per student—but that misses the big picture. A deal like this represents a massive and completely unjustified transfer of wealth from one class (students, who we we want to support for the good of the entire nation and economy) to another (publishers, who are asserting rights they don't even have). It also adds fuel to the copyright industry's ongoing campaign to minimize and ultimately reverse the effects of the CCH ruling, and to scale back all the good parts of the copyright reform bill—two things that must not be allowed to happen. Canada's copyright laws are far from perfect, but they have been moving in very progressive directions lately, with a strong emphasis on user rights—and Canadian universities should be harnessing that momentum, not working against it.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    vegetaman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:29pm

    Well, of course!

    May 1st is seriously really soon. It is only a week away. What exactly is the emergency?

    Somebody might think twice about the decision they're making, rather than stepping off the cliff to a terrible licensing deal just because they had to make a snap judgment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:55pm

    Sometimes university presidents and boards act more like lemmings than intelligent human beings.

    Yes, I know the lemmings running off cliffs is a myth, but the analogy still holds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    zippy, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:07pm

    Access Copyright, like all collection agencies, must be destroyed. That is the proper method for dealing with parasites. You don't negotiate with leeches, you burn them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:13pm

    Re:

    qiuck, buy all the salt you can find, corner the market, fast

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    The Moondoggie, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:25pm

    Facepalm

    Access Copyright is charging for ridiculous rights that don't even exist, such as hyperlinking and displaying documents on a screen.

    Haven't we heard of this before? Why can't people understand that referring to a work, by the way of links, ISN'T CHARGABLE AND ISN'T IN VIOLATION OF ANY COPYRIGHT trash!?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Marchetto, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:18pm

    AUCC/AC

    At my university, the $26/student yearly charge would pay for a dozen professors' salaries and benefits annually. What would be more useful to Canadian education: a dozen professors teaching and doing research every year, or paying AC for books and periodicals for which my university already pays annual licensing fees? Shame on AUCC's President, Paul Davidson, who not only was Executive Director of the Association of Canadian Publishers but was also Vice-President of Stoddart Publishing from 1999 to 2002, when Stoddart applied for creditor protection. Maybe he'll manage to run Canada's universities into the ground. As well, AUCC's counsel, Glen Bloom, argued against fair dealing in the landmark LSUC v CCH case at the Supreme Court and subsequently argued against fair dealing in the SOCAN 'previews' case, also at the Supreme Court (while supposedly arguing the opposite for AUCC and against AC at the Copyright Board). Which side is Bloom on? Whose interests does AUCC support?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Ian (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:25pm

    Canada's copyright laws are far from perfect, but they have been moving in very progressive directions lately, with a strong emphasis on user rights—and Canadian universities should be harnessing that momentum, not working against it.

    Seriously?

    The direction they're likely to go in the near future is to create a 'DRM right' for publishers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 4:04am

    Wow. That's a classic scamming technique - pressure people with "limited time offer" deals. For anyone who's seen The Real Hustle, they'll know what I'm talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 6:18am

    Re:

    The digital locks provision of the copyright reform bill is, indeed, a low point. But many of the other provisions - especially the solidification of fair dealing, with the addition of explicit exceptions for education and non-commercial user-generated content - are very, very good, and build on the awesome ruling in CCH which declared fair dealing a "user right" as opposed to a mere "defense" like fair use in the states.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 6:21am

    This copyright tarriff and similar proposals to charge all ISP customers a flat rate for piracy lead to the British style of paying for television. You pay an annual fee and you can copy all you want. I'm surprised to hear the collection agencies advocating for these kinds of fees.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:28am

    Is Access Copyright in the Insurance Business?

    The definition of insurance in the Ontario legislation is:

    “insurance” means the undertaking by one person to indemnify another person against loss or liability for loss in respect of a certain risk or peril to which the object of the insurance may be exposed, or to pay a sum of money or other thing of value upon the happening of a certain event, and includes life insurance
    http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2012/04/is-access-copyright-in-insurance.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:52am

    They have one week to stop it or the world ends! It ends, that is for sure... at least Marcus seems to think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    r, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 8:29am

    "a massive and completely unjustified transfer of wealth from one class (students, who we we want to support for the good of the entire nation and economy) to another"

    And this is happening from more than one direction. Students should go on strike like they are doing in Québec (which I support completely). Everything will be taken from you if you don't stand up and say "enough!" to the bullies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re:

    Having new "rights" doesn't help if you can't actually use them due to DRM... oh, sorry, in Canada's Bill C-11 we have "TPMs" -- which extend manufacturer controls beyond digital. This will make speciality screw drivers currently used to refurbish/recycle computers by non-profit computer recycling depots illegal

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 11:45am

    What can we do about it?

    As the parent of a U of T student O want to know where I can complain?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Lexa, Apr 27th, 2012 @ 10:44am

    STOP the Canadian university copyright disaster NOW on facebook

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Helga, Jun 5th, 2012 @ 6:32am

    Unnecessariness of the license

    The really striking thing is that the a license allows to copy only 10-20% of each text - or one whole chapter. Such a license might be unnecessary, because educators are already permitted to copy approximately that amount without a license under existing Canadian law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This