Outdated Compulsory Licensing Means Australian Schools Must Pay Millions To Use Free Internet Materials

from the it's-broken,-let's-fix-it dept

Recently we wrote about how copyright rules designed for an analog age were causing problems when transposed without modification to the digital world. Here's another example, this time from Australia, where the Brisbane Times' site reports on an increasingly difficult situation in education as a result of outdated copyright approaches:

Schools spend almost [AU]$56 million [US$59 million] a year under a compulsory licence to copy material such as books and journals without permission from the copyright owner. But an unintended consequence of the licence means schools also pay millions for internet material that the website owners never intended to charge for
The problem is that there are strict rules that schools must follow when teachers duplicate material -- rules that were designed for a world where practically every page copied had to be paid for. However, the inflexibilities of the scheme mean that these are now being applied even when teachers print or save freely-available materials from the Internet, or ask students to do the same for homework.

A "best estimate" for the scale of the problem is around $8 million, and as the Internet becomes an increasingly important resource for schools, things are only going to get worse:

These costs were likely to increase as the national broadband network was rolled out and might ''eventually become prohibitive'', [the National Copyright Unit's director] said.
Fortunately, the Australian Law Reform Commission is holding an inquiry into copyright and the digital economy currently, so there is hope that its recommendations will include a radical overhaul of the compulsory licensing system for schools. Given copyright's three-hundred-year-old machinery, it's unlikely to be the only area that requires such action.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, compulsory licenses, copyright, education


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    PaulT (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 4:54am

    Re:

    "Yeah. This is the sort of thing Mike pokes holes in all the time. Why run it?"

    Because the problem exists regardless of the size of the estimate, and there's no other data currently available? Since the estimate isn't the entire basis of the claims being made, why is it not right to run the story?

    "You understand that this sort of licensing is really better than the options, such as schools just using whatever and then getting sued later."

    If only there were some middle ground between "licence everything" and "sue everybody"...

    "It's like a tax on blank media - it's a way to pay for stuff without having to go through the process every time for small amounts."

    Tax on blank media is also unfair and often targets people who use it for things that are not covered by the tax. It benefits legacy players while penalising new and independent usage. I'd support getting rid of that as well.

    It's only a way to "pay for stuff" that needs paying for. If increasing amounts of usage are for things that aren't covered by that payment, why is it not right to question the need for that payment itself?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.