Canadian Copyright Group Sending Huge Bills To Schools For Daring To Teach Kids With Photocopies
from the can't-educate-unless-you-pay-up dept
A recent ruling by the Copyright Board of Canada has changed how much schools had to pay for copying educational materials, such as textbooks, newspapers and magazines. Michael Geist lets us know that collections group Access Copyright, apparently wasted little time before sending bills that reached hundreds of thousands of dollars to various school districts. Apparently, you can't educate kids unless you pay up.
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: canada, copyright, photocopies, schools
Companies: access copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh...
The only way this could be more infuriatingly funny would be if they pulled out a "Think of the children" defense of their actions, just to round out the absurdity....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
...but of course the publishers will ask us to ... "think of the children what sort of quality education can you get from FREE text book!"
...and we all know what poor quality educations come out of MIT ... sarcasm
here are a couple links in case you are interested ...
Google Search on - MIT educational resources
MIT K-12
MIT Open Course ware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
Wonder how much the real authors will get from this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
There are no new damages, there are no damages at all. It's a problem that is only a problem because someone finally saw some dollar signs and wants as much of it as they can get. They see the music industry making grabs at everybody, and now its time for book publishers to try to get some for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
It is the artists who actually create the content. Most often the owners of copyright are the ones actually distributing copies of a contracted artists work, making themselves middle men basically. The internet has made the very lucrative position of middle man obsolete and this is why the various industries are so afraid, lashing out at everyone in a feeble effort to hold onto a legacy that was never destined to last forever.
True or false: if the recording industry were to cease making their eye popping profits year after year, music would cease to exist, correct?
True or false: if the movie industry were to cease making their eye popping profits year after year, movies would cease to exist, correct?
True or false: if the print industry were to cease making their profits year after year, the written word would cease to exist, correct?
True or false: if the software industry were to cease making their profits year after year, programs and video games would cease to exist, correct?
Based on your logic the answer would be true to all of those questions, but anyone with half a brain and an iota of common sense will tell you that the answer is false, not just on a intellectual level but an instinctual one as well.
The days of getting rich and powerful by simply acting as gate keepers to the process of duplication may coming to an end but that doesn't mean culture will suddenly end as some believe. If anything, culture will more than likely thrive once unshackled and shine more brightly that it has in ages.
Personally I'm looking forward to a world where formulaic carbon copy entertainment no longer exists and everyone actually has to have real talent again, where the only way to get noticed is by offering something truly unique just like how it used to be prior to the 20th century. It's all about separating the wheat from the chaff. Nobody deserves to be rich simply because they feel entitled. Those with talent and true passion for their craft will be successful and those that don't will have to be part of the rat race just like the rest of us, the natural way it's meant to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
Think of the uneducated midget consumers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
After all, educating photo-pirating teachers is more important than educating kids!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh...
I like, no, LOVE the way you think, and have forwarded this to my senator.
In the future I totally recommend you avoid use of the word 'kids'. People get all weepy and idealistic talking about things so closely tied to organic nature.
Can we re-educate our uneducated midget consumers? YES! WE! CAN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drop 'em!
All we need is a netbook for each child and WiFi hubs on school grounds. We can access thorough information on any topic that teachers can approve on websites for free. We can access newspaper and magazine articles for free. I am certain that the cost of maintaining a WiFi connection would be peanuts when compared with the costs of textbooks that are "Edition" changes with little change happens besides the art on the cover. Sadly, the schools will in turn, go to the government and get more money to pay these copyright collectors. And the government will gladly increase your taxes...you know...'for the children.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drop 'em!
I never had that happen to me in elementary/high school ... it was more like using 15 year old textbooks which talked about the cold war in the present tense. (around year 1998)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drop 'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open source educational books
It is a reality for many already and it cost a lot less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides, I thought there was an exemption for education. Maybe that's just US or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open source educational books
Wikipedia also have a lot of info about it.
And if people are not familiar with it they should see the TED talk "Richard Baraniuk on open-source learning" that explains a lot and is responsible for the Connexions project(I think).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open source educational books
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland
Clarington Catholic District School Board
That will learn the Copyright Board of Canada ... GRIN ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright laws have little to no chance of changing.
If they won't change the laws and in fact are trying to make them more obnoxious is up to us people to change how we do things, if they want to create little castle around themselves let them. Just use and promote open ideas and they will have to bulge at some point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
WOW funny how his ramblings wouldn't exist if his advertisers pulled out... And funny thing is most of the advertisers also depend heavily of their patents to protect them...
WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
What writers and musicians? Mike discusses copyright collectives like RIAA and Access Copyright, both of whom represent publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
I'm not sure why you continue to have so much trouble understanding this, despite the fact that many of us here on the site have spent a great deal of time patiently explaining this to you.
So now mikee is not just saying that musicians should not be paid for their work, but writers too....
I have never said that content creators should not get paid for their work. Why do you think we spend so much time posting about smart business models that help content creators get paid?
WOW funny how his ramblings wouldn't exist if his advertisers pulled out..
This site existed for 7 years before we had any advertisers at all.
Advertising revenue on this site represents a tiny fraction of our revenue.
But, separately, how much could you possibly miss the point by? Yes, we survive on revenue (mostly not from advertisers, but that's besides the point). But we get that revenue by providing a useful service that companies want to pay for -- not by having the gov't force people to pay us.
You really do understand the difference, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So now it's not just musicians that need to take it up the ass
My English Grammar is affected by this, but nothing more. I do not speak with an accent, nor am I even able to carry on a simple conversation in Russian. I would be lucky to be able to ask for directions at bes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid system.
So now schools will have to spend tax payers money to defend themselves from a potentially liable claim.
I really really hate blanket lawsuits... if they do not at least some reasonable proof of the copyright infringement then they can not proceed. Failure to do so does not show due diligence on part of their legal teams so they should all be disbarred for going on a fishing expedition. Doing against tax based institutions should carry even larger penalties.
Yes many some of those in the blanket lawsuit are in fact guilty and should pay... but the lawyers should ethically be required have just cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Do Not Copy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Propaganda
I bet the schools couldn't make (free) copies of the materials, since they're covered under copyright, and I don't see them paying extra for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Michial Thompson:
See the last viral video to hit YouTube.
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the linked article a bit more closely. In this instance, the schools have been negotiating with the copyright board for some time. A public trustee says she felt that the negotiated rate was better than what the schools would originally have had to pay. She also admitted that no one at the public school boards expected to not have to pay. The article mentions the public board itself generally paying out a sum of $90K, suggesting this tariff existed before the negotiations, though the article really doesn't say for certain or whether the scope of the tariff was expanded.
Out of context, the sums seem enormous. In context, they may still be a burden to schools, but maybe not as outrageous, especially since the lump sums are the retroactive fees for the past few years while the new tariff rate was being hammered out.
This is definitely a case where I wished that Prof. Geist had skipped his usual laconic posting style and giving us some more commentary to put this story into a better context so if there is an issue to act on, we do so over the correct one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
School Copyrights
PAY UP you don't need know stinking education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is what it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is what it is
Your comment was stated with such trollitude that it went of the charts on trollchter scale in such a trolltastic trolly way that I troll troll troll.
.....troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is what it is
Keep practicing young Jedi, you'll get there eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is what it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is what it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of date technology
Furthermore if the copy machine producers failed to do so, they should be fined for each unauthorized copy made with their machine. Let's not put blame where it does not belong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of date technology
YYYYYYYYESSS! Finally someone gets it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of date technology
Some copy machines already have such technology in them, to a limited extent.
I used to work for Canon, doing tech support for various products, including copiers. Many of them had anti-counterfeiting tech built in to prevent duplication of money and security paper (stocks, bonds and such). Depending on the particular machine, some would just mangle the output to be illegible, up to locking the machine up until it was serviced by a technician that could remove the lock.
Not just the million dollar machines had this. The tech had worked its way down some sub-$1000 copiers a few years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming soon...copy machine taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coming soon...copy machine taxes
These publishers are the same conniving creeps that change a couple of chapters (in very minor ways) and demand schools pay full price for the 'new' edition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coming soon...copy machine taxes
What about a sarcasm tax since sarcasm is a concept I have a patent on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wot no paperless business model ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My point is
If a school chooses to use a piece of education material that requires the student to write in it, then the parents should purchase that material as part of that kids school supplies. That's just a part of the expense of having a kid in the first place.
WHY should a copyright holder be forced to accept a discounted price for the use of material which they sold?
You claim it's wrong to expect fans to pay for music and the musician should find ways to make money without charging for the music. Now you have a publisher that has establisvhd a value for the material being published and you expect that publisher to take less than that value just because its a school using it?
What's the value of an education? Why shouldn't the education material be paid for?
Hipocracy runs rampant on this site. You sit and slam copyrights and patents but prey upon vendors that make their living with it. You slam corporations for charging too much yet put no value into R&D. You claim musiciand don't get paid for the sale of their music but offer no value to the industry promoting their fame.
Sad mikee, but exactly what would you do if someone decided to mirror this site and strip all your advertising off? Would you then file copyright infringement agains them? My guess is yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My point is
Uhm... People have asked Mike this before and he has answered that he doesn't care. You must be new here.
"WHY should a copyright holder be forced to accept a discounted price for the use of material which they sold?"
First of all, the government nor society owes anyone a monopoly on anything. If society is to grant a monopoly on things it should ONLY be granted to the extent that it helps out society. Current intellectual property laws harm society far more than it helps society. The publisher only get a copyright because society grants it, not because society OWES it. If someone doesn't like it s/he can stop making stuff, but others will be glad to create works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My point is
If a school chooses to use a piece of education material that requires the student to write in it, then the parents should purchase that material as part of that kids school supplies. That's just a part of the expense of having a kid in the first place.
WHY should a copyright holder be forced to accept a discounted price for the use of material which they sold?
You claim it's wrong to expect fans to pay for music and the musician should find ways to make money without charging for the music. Now you have a publisher that has establisvhd a value for the material being published and you expect that publisher to take less than that value just because its a school using it?
What's the value of an education? Why shouldn't the education material be paid for?
Hipocracy runs rampant on this site. You sit and slam copyrights and patents but prey upon vendors that make their living with it. You slam corporations for charging too much yet put no value into R&D. You claim musiciand don't get paid for the sale of their music but offer no value to the industry promoting their fame.
Sad mikee, but exactly what would you do if someone decided to mirror this site and strip all your advertising off? Would you then file copyright infringement agains them? My guess is yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My point is
Do not pass GO, proceed to JAIL.
Perhaps you might slow down, take a deep breath and try and understand the issues presented both in relation to this topic and the myriad of others on this site. NOBODY is advocating content creators/providers not be paid. What we are advocating is the abuse and absurdities perpetuated upon us by "Content Providers" who continue to demand to be paid over and over and over and over and over and over for the same material.
Given your inability to even articulate a coherent thought on this site, you might benefit from a better educational experience - perhaps with open source textbooks???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My point is
"What we are advocating against is..."
FAIL Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My point is
Actually, the government is doing no such thing. Copyright is not a natural right such as property of physical objects. In this case, the government is stepping in to restrict the use of our ideas and property in order to grant a monopoly to some people. Right now, the government is preventing me from in the privacy of my own house playing music over my speakers unless I went and paid some amount of money to some person.
"What's the value of an education? Why shouldn't the education material be paid for?"
The point is not that education materials should not be paid for. The point is that if I purchased a book and a photocopying machine, what gives the government the right to come into my house and prevent me from using MY property? If I purchased a CD, what gives the government the right to come into MY house and tell me how I am allowed to use MY CD and MY computer?
What you need to understand is that copyright is an intrusive form of government intervention in our private and economic lives. Limiting its influence is not a new form of government intervention. It is allowing nature to take its course without giving publishers and musicians a handout. Copyright is the ultimate form of protect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My point is
"My point here is simple. Why do schools have the right to copy any copyright material at all???? The material should be purchased PERIOD."
Well, namely because they're allowed to under the provision of fair use. From the page linked below, which is from a Yale University site (hey, I hear they're super duper smart and stuff), "This "fair use" exception to copyright has been defined as use of the copyrighted work "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...". That seems pretty clear cut to me: if you're using copyrighted material for the purpose of education in the classroom, make as many photocopies as you like.
http://www.cls.yale.edu/page.asp?file=2/170
"WHY should a copyright holder be forced to accept a discounted price for the use of material which they sold?"
Well, that's a fair question, though I think it's answered by Fair Use in the betterment of society as a whole, but let's turn your question around: Why should parents be subjected to school board mandated curriculum that forces them to purchase copyright material when we have compulsory education laws mixed with public schooling? This smacks of the RIAA insistance that radio stations MUST pay them to play music, oh and they MUST play that music, too.
"What's the value of an education? Why shouldn't the education material be paid for?"
Well, in the matter of public education, the answer to the first question is "invaluable, but priced at FREE!", and the answer to the second question is somewhat more detailed, but I think that "because the founding fathers said so" shall suffice for now. If you don't understand why public education should be FREE! and how that should affect the price of educational material, well then I don't know boss, you're a tad nutty.
"Hipocracy runs rampant on this site."
Word, sister!
"You sit and slam copyrights and patents but prey upon vendors that make their living with it."
Oh, you meant us. Well, that doesn't seem like hippocracy to me, that seems like two sides of the same coin, though as someone who despises hippocracy I'd be willing to listen to an explanation of what you meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My point is
Please, pull your head out from under the rocks and start thinking.
As to your question: 'Sad mikee, but exactly what would you do if someone decided to mirror this site and strip all your advertising off? Would you then file copyright infringement agains them? My guess is yes.'
Mike has stated numerous times that people can copy his material. Why would he do that? Because people will still know where it came from. That can't be hidden, even if the one doing the copying doesn't cite sources, or *gasp!* claims they wrote it, themselves. Please, if you're going to troll, be good at it? Because you aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My point is
By which you appear to mean both wrong and uninformed. Which is odd, because you've been commenting on this site for a while now, and these points have been raised to you in the past.
Why do schools have the right to copy any copyright material at all????
Because they purchased the originals and they purchased a photocopier, and thus they have the right to make a copy.
So for the government to step in and remotely even have a say in forcing the copyright holder to allow the copy is just as wrong.
Um. But that's not what's happening.
If a school chooses to use a piece of education material that requires the student to write in it, then the parents should purchase that material as part of that kids school supplies. That's just a part of the expense of having a kid in the first place.
So, you honestly think that we should make educating our children more expensive for no reason other than that you can't think of a smart business model for content creators?
WHY should a copyright holder be forced to accept a discounted price for the use of material which they sold?
No one is saying that. Honestly, could you try reading before spewing?
You claim it's wrong to expect fans to pay for music and the musician should find ways to make money without charging for the music. Now you have a publisher that has establisvhd a value for the material being published and you expect that publisher to take less than that value just because its a school using it?
No. All we're saying is that they should focus on business models that work. Not "take less than that value," but put in place a business model that is more effective.
No one has a right to get paid. You only have a right to try to put forth a business model that works.
What's the value of an education? Why shouldn't the education material be paid for?
Let's try this one more time: they get paid if they put in place a smart business model.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend.
Hipocracy runs rampant on this site. You sit and slam copyrights and patents but prey upon vendors that make their living with it.
Huh? Excuse me? How do I "prey" on anyone?
You slam corporations for charging too much yet put no value into R&D.
Huh? I put tremendous value in R&D. What makes you think I don't?!?
You claim musiciand don't get paid for the sale of their music but offer no value to the industry promoting their fame.
Huh? We've discussed numerous business models that show musicians doing much *better* by giving away their music for free and embracing other business models.
Sad mikee, but exactly what would you do if someone decided to mirror this site and strip all your advertising off? Would you then file copyright infringement agains them? My guess is yes.
You are a confused person. Which part of *we don't make our money from advertising* did you not understand?
Even better, try READING for once: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
There are plenty of sites that copy us and strip out the advertising, and that's great. If you want to, go ahead and do it. Read that post where we explain why it's dumb, but go ahead. It only helps us, because we put in place a business model that makes us *better off* when you do that.
That's all we're suggesting here: that content creators learn to put in place those types of business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before they start billing you for talking about something in a book?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how long it'll be before someone comes up with the argument "But the human brain is basically a copying machine, so therefore, letting students read our material is essentially allowing them to make a copy illegally."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
call me crazy
God-emperor Leto II forbid we come up with a sane way of paying the people who make school books a fair price without the possibility of restrictions or other nonsense like a photocopy tax. Logic? Rationale? Other things that make sense to a non-douche-bag? NOOOOO!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How bad can it get?
There must be more that this criminal is doing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the photocopier salesmen...
Just as little Tommy has a right to learn - despite the fact he forgot his textbook or his parents can't afford it - or even that his class is overcrowded and the school hasn't got enough to go around!
In my mind, educational books that are used and required for teaching the curriculum should be paid for with a set fee per year - plus printing costs... not profit per book!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if no one at the school copies anything?
What if no one at the school copies anything?
What if the school does not possess a copy machine?
Is there a provision in this Access Copyright proposal which addresses the possibility that a school might not have access to a copy machine and therefore not be subject to their demands?
No - I didn't think so. And therefore they are not being honest about their motives. Big suprise there huh. Same thing has been said about the draconian blank CD tax.
s As we all are well aware, the only use for a blank CD is to copy music. No one would ever use them to store their own data. In a similar fashion, the only use for a copy machine in a school is to make copies of books, mags, etc. It would never be used for making copies of a report card, or attendance records. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mertz
The most likely reason for the high cost of the books in the first place is the fact that they are copied and reused time and time again so the publishers are compensating with higher per unit costs with this knowledge in hand.
Using the excuse that the parents cannot afford the books is pretty lame when the same parents have a 3 pack a day habit of cigarettes, or a case of beer a day habit etc....
The education is free, the least the parent can do is put down the beer a couple days a week and spend the money on the materials their kids use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mertz
"The most likely reason for the high cost of the books in the first place is the fact that they are copied and reused time and time again so the publishers are compensating with higher per unit costs with this knowledge in hand."
I would enjoy seeing one shred of evidence that backs that claim up. What makes that reason "the most likely"? Honestly, do you have any idea how much money the majority of textbook publishers are making? In the below article for instance, the culprit identified is the USED BOOKS Market, not photocopying at all, that is responsible for the high cost of textbooks. And if you want to outlaw the used books market, well best of luck to you.
"Using the excuse that the parents cannot afford the books is pretty lame when the same parents have a 3 pack a day habit of cigarettes, or a case of beer a day habit etc...."
You're really going to try to equate every parent that can't afford what we've already agreed are relatively high textbook prices with those addicted to nicotine and alcohol? Are you truly that dumb and arrogant?
It's probably worth mentioning that since many of the textbook publishers were bought up by megacorps throughout the world, many textbooks are supplied by companies that are ALSO supplying cigarettes, like Riga Holdings for instance.
"The education is free, the least the parent can do is put down the beer a couple days a week and spend the money on the materials their kids use."
Two points that should be addressed. First, if the education that is free REQUIRES a book that is not, then guess what? That education is no longer free.
Secondly, your continuing insistence that anyone who can't afford these high cost textbooks is smoking 3 packs a day or drinking a case of beer a day is IDIOTIC, ELITIST, and ARROGANT on a level that rivals some Hollywood types that think because people know them, and that they have money, that they have any business telling me about religion or world events.
I was trying to be level before, but you're an arrogant ass Michial.
Cheers. Here's to hoping any wealt you have immediately disappears and you can't eat (well, you would be able to, but you must have a 3 pack and case of beer a day habit).
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mertz
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1712
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mertz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok so they want to charge more for the book as it is being copied and then they want to charge for copies as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]