ms_atoz: (Default)

Dear Jean-Yves Leduc and Leslie Weir,
Thank you for your time in presenting the developing situation with respect to copyright, over the course of meetings held with the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) in April and May 2012.

Following discussions with you and having consulted with members and experts of our university community, we encourage the university to operate independently and not sign the recent copyright model licence as negotiated between the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) and Access Copyright.

Read more at the original link: http://www.apuo.uottawa.ca/Info/2012-05-30_APUO_Position_Copyright.pdf
 

ms_atoz: (Default)

The Association of Canadian Community Colleges has just struck a deal with Access Copyright. It is similar to the AUCC deal - with one big difference. It’s for $10 per student per year and not $26 as per AUCC and $27.50 as per UofT/UWO. Here’s the model license.

So why the difference? AC has suddenly and conveniently determined that “Although we have little data regarding digital copying on campuses, historical coursepack usage data indicates that universities copy 2.6 times more than colleges.”

This appears to justify why the ACCC license is for $10 and the AUCCC model license is for $26. But is there any evidence to support either figure?

Read more at the original link: http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2012/05/accc-reaches-model-license-deal-with.html
ms_atoz: (Default)
Michael Geist provides solid reasons why universities and colleges should avoid this agreement.

Copyright has emerged as a hot issue on Canadian university campuses in recent weeks as schools consider whether to sign the Access Copyright model licence negotiated with the AUCC.  Several schools, including UBC, Athabasca, Windsor, and Winnipeg have already indicated that they will not sign the licence, while others (such as Queen's, Victoria and Calgary) have reluctantly signed the letter of intent. Many groups have voiced their strong objection to the licence, including the CAUT, APLA, BCLA, MLA, CFS, and CASA. These groups represent faculty, students, and librarians - the three groups within education most affected by the model licence.

Last week, I was asked by the Association of Professors Ottawa, the University of Ottawa faculty union, for my views. I opened my remarks by emphasizing a key misconception often fueled by Access Copyright and its supporters. The question being faced by the universities is not whether to pay for copyright works. Universities, faculty and students currently spend millions of dollars every year on copyright materials and will continue to do so. The only question is whether - in addition to existing expenditures on books, licences, and in support of open access - they should also pay the $26 per student fee to Access Copyright. 

I believe the answer is no for the following six key reasons:

Read more at the original link: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6507/125/
ms_atoz: (Default)

Dr. Seuss story accused of having a political agenda, barred from classroom

A school in B.C. investigates the potential political undertones of ‘Yertle the Turtle’

Al Ravenna/World Telegram & Sun/

Ted Geisel (a.k.a. Dr. Seuss)

By Jillian Eugenios

TODAY.com contributor

updated 4/26/2012 3:28:21 PM ET 2012-04-26T19:28:21

Is there a child around who doesn’t know green eggs are an especially delicious with ham, whether they’re eaten in a boat or in a house, with a goat or with a mouse?

Dr. Seuss books, a staple of childhood, have incited recent scrutiny for their apparent political undertones. The Prince Rupert School District in British Columbia, Canada is alleging that a certain Dr. Seuss quote is unfit for children due to its vaguely disguised political messaging meant to promote unrest and incite rebellion.

Read more at the original link: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47193483/ns/today-books/

ms_atoz: (Default)

Wonders never cease. Here's a letter from  the International Publishers Association (possibly inspired by some Canadian sources?), suggesting that Canada may face a WTO challenge over the fair dealing provisions in Bill C-11. HT to Michael Geist.

This is simply absurd. The fair dealing provisions of Bill C-11 are less permissive than those of the USA, which explicitly allows for multiple copies for classroom use.

Once again, here's the USA provision - which has been there since 1976:
 17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

Read more at the original link: http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2012/04/three-step-test-red-herring-is-starting.html