More Canadian Universities Opt Out Of Access Copyright's Skyrocketing Tariffs

from the unfair-'deals'-are-paving-the-way-for-an-explosion-of-'fair-dealing& dept

Following up on the University of Calgary's decision to drop Access Copyright after 1,300% rate increase, Michael Geist has compiled a still-growing list of Canadian colleges who have decided to opt-out of Acess Copyright's increasingly expensive service.

As of July 29th, the list looks like this:

1. Columbia Bible College (BC)
2. Royal Roads University (BC)
3. Quest University (BC)
4. University of Calgary (AB)
5. Lethbridge College (AB)
6. University of Alberta (AB)
7. Mount Royal University (AB)
8. Portage College (AB)
9. Athabasca University (AB)
10. NorQuest College (AB)
11. University of Manitoba (MB)
12. University of Saskatchewan (SK)
13. University of Regina (SK)
14. University of Guelph (ON)
15. Queens University (ON)
16. University of Waterloo (ON)
17. University of Windsor (ON)
18. York University (ON)
19. Carleton University (ON)
20. Holland College (PEI)
21. University of PEI (PEI)
22. University of New Brunswick (NB)
23. Memorial University (NL)
24. Mount Saint Vincent University (NS)
25. Acadia University (NS)
26. Dalhousie University (NS)

As Geist points out, this is going to hit Access Copyright hard:

The current list includes 14 of the 25 biggest Canadian universities (as measured by the number of students).

Looks like Access Copyright is going to have to swiftly familiarize itself with an economic truism, one that most politicians seem unable to comprehend: If you tax something (and that's really what this is -- an arbitrary fee that enables Access Copyright to stay solvent enough to ask for more arbitrary fees), you get less of it.

This sort of misguided thinking rarely troubles businesses that provide products and services. These businesses are (usually) at the mercy of the customers who help determine, via "vote by wallet," what they can charge for their products. However, entities like royalty collection services and governments somehow still feel that they can increase their fees in order to increase their total income, despite repeated evidence to the contrary.

Ask New York City how that huge cigarette tax is working out for them. It's increased the per-pack fee so much that smokers are becoming amateur bootleggers. How about you, Chicago? Slapped a nickel-per-bottle tax on bottled water, did you? Enjoy watching all those extra nickels roll right out to the suburbs. How's that "tax the hell out of Amazon" plan coming along, various states? Null set?

Same thing here. By asking for more (much more), Access Copyright is pricing itself right out of the market. At this point its balance sheets are going to need a complete overhaul. This short-sighted plan most likely led to irrational exuberance at the AC offices, but once everyone sobers up (and that list of universities is pretty sobering), they're going to find that a 1,300% fee increase is going to do some particularly ugly things to the bottom line.

Even worse, this tariff is supposed to benefit the many writers, artists, etc. that Access Copyright represents. So, through no fault of their own, these "represented" artists are going to see diminishing returns on their investment in copyright. Whoever came up with the "skyrocketing tariff" plan needs to be removed from their position posthaste. (Unless Access Copyright is taking suggestions from mailroom clerks or that one guy at the end of the bar, in which case no further action is necessary. Or wise.) Sooner or later, the practice of increasing fees to offset dwindling revenue catches up with businesses like these and they end up fading away, trying desperately to multiply by zero.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, universities
Companies: access copyright

University Of Calgary Refusing To Pay Access Copyright Any More

from the breaking-out-of-the-stranglehold dept

We've written a bunch about Canadian copyright collecting society Access Copyright, which gets universities to pay up for a license to cover people photocopying educational material. The organization doesn't really distribute very much of its money to content creators and yet it's been seeking a massive 1,300% increase in fees -- and Access Copyright claims that even if professors just link to copyrighted content, they have to clear that through Access Copyright.

Not everyone believes that's the case. The University of Calgary has said that the new fees are way too high, and it will no longer use Access Copyright at all. Instead, it will seek to clear any copyrights directly, when needed, or otherwise encourage professors to link to material online that students can use. It will be interesting to see if Access Copyright challenges the university for doing so. How much do you want to bet that Access Copyright will now be snooping around, looking for a professor who fails to properly clear a photocopy somewhere.

Update: Looks like York University is about to do the same thing.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, university of calgary
Companies: access copyright

Did Less Than 10% Of Access Copyright's Income Go To Authors Last Year?

from the for-the-authors! dept

Access Copyright, the copyright collection society that collects money from universities for people copying written works, has been somewhat controversial. Even putting aside its silly attempt to claim a trademark on the © symbol, it's also been looking to increase its fees massively (over 1,000% in some cases). Michael Geist has been digging in on some of the numbers behind Access Copyright (something the non-profit does not make easy, since it appears to obfuscate the money flow), and appears to have worked out that less than 10% of the money it brings in goes to authors. You can read his methodology at the link, where there are some important caveats, including some money that's being held back until the results of a lawsuit are worked out. However, it does seem quite eye opening to find out that the group brought in $33.7 million last year, and only about $3.1 million of that went to authors directly, while $8.7 million went to administrative expenses. Kinda makes you wonder who Access Copyright is really representing.

Filed Under: authors, canada, copyright
Companies: access copyright

Access Copyright Claims Trademark On The Copyright Symbol

from the you-have-to-be-kidding-me dept

Okay. This is just insane. Via Howard Knopf, we learn that Canadian copyright licensing agency Access Copyright is claiming to hold the trademark on the classic copyright symbol: ©. You can see it in their new website: While there are three TMs in the image, at least two of them (top logo and in the righthand column) appear to be on the copyright symbol itself. You can see one directly here: Are they serious? I mean, I recognize that maximalists believe strongly in copyright, patents and trademarks together... but it still seems insane that a group like Access Copyright would make a totally ridiculous trademark claim on the © symbol.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, copyright symbol, trademark
Companies: access copyright

Access Copyright Trying To Stifle Objections To 1,300% Increase In Copying Fees for Students

from the can't-have-objections,-can-we? dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how Access Copyright, the Canadian collection society that collects copyright fees from universities (who pass it on to their students) for people using photocopiers, wanted to increase its fees more than 1,300% from a few dollars to $45 per university student. It also would cover copying in areas that Access Copyright has absolutely no mandate over -- including things like web links to copyrighted material. That original post was based on Howard Knopf calling attention to the issue, with a short deadline for people to submit objections.

Eventually 101 objections were registered, but the lawyer for Access Copyright is saying that 99 of the 101 should be relegated to lesser status since they don't really count as they're not "prospective users," but just "affected parties." That, of course, is a distinction without a difference. As Knopf notes in response to this, most of the "affected parties" AC wishes to minimize are students & teachers who will be even more directly affected by this policy change than the university organizations that AC deems worthy of objecting fully.

Even more troubling is the implied threat in the letter to objectors. Knopf explains:

On a rather ominous note, AC also sets forth what amounts to a direct threat to objectors and interveners, namely that "Finally, it is important, in our view, that all potential objectors and interveners understand that their participation means that Access Copyright will have the right to pursue any useful information that they may possess in pursuing this tariff through the interrogatory process of otherwise". (emphasis by AC, not HK).

Certain major collectives have successfully used the interrogatory process to drive away well intentioned and legitimate objectors ranging from individuals to major corporations (i.e. Archamault and Canoe, which are part of Québecor) by demanding answers to intrusive and arguably irrelevant questions. See here and here.

It's really a shame that AC would make that sort of implied threat to try to scare off objectors.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, objections
Companies: access copyright

Access Copyright Wants $45 From Every University Student For Copying & Even Linking To Copyright Works

from the linking? dept

One of the biggest problems we have with various collection societies is that, even if they're put in place for all the best reasons and run by folks with the best of intentions, over time they seem to have an insatiable appetite to grow and expand what they cover and the things they want to demand money for. We've seen it over and over again, with things like ASCAP demanding performance fees for ringtones or SOCAN (in Canada) claiming that 30-second song previews required a separate license (ASCAP tried that too...).

Sometimes these landgrabs reach absolutely ridiculous levels. Take, for example, the Canadian group Access Copyright, which charges students a copyright levy for photocopying documents. Right now, it apparently collects a few dollars per student, plus some per copy fee, that gets distributed to copyright holders. Howard Knopf, who is a member of Access Copyright, is horrified to note that the group is now asking to increase its fees by more than 1,300% to $45 per university student. Even though Knopf would conceivably get more money from this, he notes that this is a really, really bad idea. Not only is it ridiculously high, but Access Copyright wants it to cover some things over which it clearly has no rights whatsoever, including website links to copyrighted material:

Incredibly, the tariff defines a "copy" to include "posting a link or hyperlink to Digital Copy". So, that would presumably include any website with copyrighted material. For example, take this blog -- please! AC apparently expects to be paid whenever a professor posts a link on his or her website to my blog, or Michael Geist's blog or the Globe and Mail or eBay. That is simply absurd.

Merely linking does not create liability.... Linking requires neither permission nor payment. The Copyright Board should not even consider the issue of "linking", because it is not covered by copyright law. This issue is a non-starter and should be eliminated as soon as possible by the Copyright Board before a lot of time and money is wasted on it.

The same for "displaying" a copy on a computer. How, precisely, is one supposed to read anything otherwise? The concept of "display" does not occur in the Copyright Act, other than in connection with dry erase boards.

Knopf also notes that many of the other areas Access Copyright is seeking to use to cover with this exorbitant $45 fee includes areas that are clearly covered by fair dealing exceptions in Canadian copyright law, and for which there should be no fee paid whatsoever. The whole thing is clearly a landgrab for cash, and even though he might technically get bigger payouts from it himself, Knopf recognizes how ridiculous the whole thing is, and is suggesting people file comments expressing their displeasure with the plan. Comments are apparently due by this Wednesday, so if you're a Canadian, hurry up and make your voices heard. Knopf has the details of how to file your comments on his site.

Filed Under: access copyright, canada, copyright
Companies: access copyright

Copyright Holders Shutting Down University Copy Shops; Libraries Need To Worry About Photocopier Infringement

from the librarians-beware dept

It looks like copyright holders, in their non-stop effort to make themselves look even more evil, are now aggressively going after university copy shops. Up in Canada, Access Copyright hasn't just won a legal dispute against a Toronto copy shop, but has gleefully seized the photocopiers from the shop. Then, not all that far away in Eastern Michigan, a court found a copy shop to be directly liable for copies made by students. As the post at the Exclusive Rights blog explains, you would expect the copy shop to be liable for secondary infringement, rather than directly liable... but not in this case. And that's problematic for a variety of reasons. Even the publishers in question didn't seem to think they had a chance on direct liability, and only mentioned it in one sentence, while most of the complaint focused on secondary liability. So why is this a problem?

The reason this matters is that to find someone to be liable under secondary infringement (contributory liability), a plaintiff must show that the defendant had knowledge or reason to have knowledge of the direct infringement. This is one of the two mechanisms, along with fair use, that shields libraries from liability if they keep a copy machine by their shelves. If an entity can be directly liable for providing and maintaining a copy machine, and taking payment for copies made on the machine, then libraries have lost a not insignificant shield.

So, watch out librarians. You may have just acquired a bunch of liability. Look out for copyright holders stopping by to seize your photocopiers. Update: The author of that original post, Shourin Sen, has added an update, to take into account questions some people raised concerning 17 USC 118(f) which provides a special exemption for libraries -- but notes that those safe harbors could be under attack as well.

Filed Under: canada, copy shops, copyright, liability, libraries, photocopiers
Companies: access copyright

Access Copyright Says That There Should Be Less Fair Use

from the let's-not-listen-to-our-customers dept

Access Copyright, a Canadian copyright collections agency that has already positioned the discussions on copyright reform in Canada as a war against consumers, has had its submission to the government on the topic published, and it's really quite stunning in that it says that "fair dealing" (the Canadian version of fair use) is already too broad and needs to be greatly restricted. But the really stunning statement from the filing is the following:

Access Copyright submits that good public policy should not be dictated by legalizing common public practices.

Actually, it seems that's the very definition of good public policy. You know what bad public policy is? Destroying basic consumer rights and criminalizing basic consumer behavior because some obsolete organization can't figure out a way to adjust its business model.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, fair dealing, fair use
Companies: access copyright

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.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, photocopies, schools
Companies: access copyright

Canadian Copyright Organization: This Is War Against Consumers

from the you-want-to-know-your-problem? dept

Wow. One of the key points in William Patry's excellent new book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars (on which we'll have more soon -- and a signed copy of which is available in our Techdirt Book Club) is that the big defenders of stronger and stronger copyrights have taken and twisted the semantics around copyright issues to make it sound like a "war." It's a "battle" to "protect your property" against "pirates" who want to "steal" it. They're using rhetoric to turn what is effectively a business model issue into something like a crusade that has nothing to do with reasoned arguments about how to actually "promote the progress" (the key reason for copyright).

I can't think of anything that demonstrates this twisted language any better than how Access Copyright (a licensing agency in Canada) has offered up a call to arms to get its members to fight back against those darn "users" who are looking to destroy copyright (thanks Rob!). As you hopefully know, Canada has been hosting a consultation about new copyright laws, and folks like Michael Geist have done a great job getting the public involved in the discussion. If you look at the submissions, the vast majority are in favor of protecting important user rights -- key points that have been missing from previous attempts to update copyright law in Canada.

Now, a reasonable discussion on these issues might look at the different trade-offs and such in granting these rights, but that's not what Access Copyright is doing. Instead, it screams out that the debate is being "dominated by individuals who do not agree you should get fair compensation for digital and other reproductions of your works." Of course, nothing is further from the truth. I don't know anyone who doesn't think that creators should get fair compensation -- but we feel they need to earn that by putting in place a good business model where people hand over money willingly. Instead, many who can only look to the past, want to pretend that if they just put in place stronger copyright laws, all the amazing things that new technologies allow will magically go away, and people will just start paying again. This is a fantasy.

But rather than deal with reality, Access Copyright, presents it as "us vs. them" with "them" outnumbering "us." The most stunning statement of all:

It's a simple fact that users outnumber us. But Canadian users involved in the online debate are so adept at leveraging the internet and social networks to their advantage, there's a danger that your voices as Canadian creators and publishers will be drowned out by the chatter.

Think about that fact for a second. Access Copyright is talking about customers here. The people who actually determine the real value of whatever content creators make. And Access Copyright is flat-out insulting them, by making them out to be an unruly mob that content creators need to fight. Copyright is supposed to be about what's best for society as a whole, in encouraging the production of more works. It should be a win-win situation. But here Access Copyright is stating flat-out that the desires of users to protect their own rights is somehow something that needs to be forcibly denied.

If you want to understand why these industries are dying, the evidence is right here. When you treat your customers as the enemy, don't be surprised if they go away. It's not because of "piracy" or "the internet." It's because these content creators are treating their best customers as anything but customers.

And, of course, Access Copyright peppers its call for participation with false claims about these unruly "users" trying to stop them from getting paid:

It's only right, it's only fair. Creators need to get paid.

Sounds good, right? Except no one is saying they shouldn't get paid, so this is a total strawman. The question is just about how these laws should work to protect user rights, and how to make sure the laws actually live up to their key point: which is to act as incentive, not as some sort of welfare system or crutch for those too uncreative to come up with business models that recognize the role of abundance in a market.

Copyright isn't a war. It's not us vs. them. It's about creating a system where society is best off and key incentives are in place to create more content. Our own complaints against those who push for stronger copyrights aren't about an "us vs. them" attitude. We've been quite happy to cheer on smart moves by those who have made mistakes before. Our only concerns are that the end result should be the best for everyone. Not a small group of folks trying to protect an old business model.

Apparently, Access Copyright thinks the laws are just for them.

Filed Under: canada, copyright
Companies: access copyright