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.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

78 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

63 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Staples Sued By Canadian Writers And Publishers For Photocopying Books

from the had-to-happen-at-some-point dept

Michael Geist points us to the news that Access Copyright, an organization representing approximately 9,000 Canadian publishers and writers has sued Staples/Business Depot for copyright infringement over photocopying done at the stores in Canada. They're asking for $10 million, which Geist notes is "the largest lawsuit ever launched over copyright infringement of published works in Canada." For photocopying books in stores? Are book publishers really worried about the photocopier menace? Hopefully there's more to this claim than just the fact that people can photocopy passages from a book at Staples. It's pretty difficult to believe that this practice is widespread enough to cause any serious harm to publishers or writers. If it's just about people copying an occasional passage, as Geist notes, a previous lawsuit against libraries had found that the libraries weren't responsible and that "fair dealing" (similar to fair use in the states) shouldn't be constrained. Sure, if Staples were somehow copying books and selling the photocopies out the back you could make an argument that it's an issue, but if people are just using the photocopier in the store to copy parts of a book for personal reasons, it's hard to see the rationale here.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..