From: Heather Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:35:03 -0700
T
Thanks to the pointer, Sean.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers points to the numerous
problems with this model license.
http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=1079&lang=1

Highlights:

Fees - we should be looking for decreases, not steep increases.

The definition of linking as copying should concern us all. As CAUT
points out, it is inexplicable that AUCC signed this.

Paying for existing rights - this license requires payment for
existing rights under fair dealing, as well as rights that we have
paid for through our electronic licenses.

Surveillance: "the survey instruments will require intrusive
monitoring of professors, librarians, researchers and students."

Comments: Canadian universities should not sign this license.
Advocates of fair copyright in other countries can help us out by
pointing out how foolish it is to sign.

best,

Heather Morrison
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:56 AM
Subject: AUCC and Access Copyright
To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Michael Geist calls the agreement just minted by the Associated
Universities and Colleges Canada and the Access Copyright collective
license "The most expensive copyright insurance policy in Canadian
history."

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1165965--geist-the-most-expensive-copyright-insurance-policy-in-canadian-history

Can Heather or any of the other Canadians on the list give any insight
into this policy and what it means?  If Geist is correct, it appears
to be a boondoggle for the copyright lobby with little upside for the
institutions paying the fees.  At $26 per student it sounded like a
good deal, but the agreement evidently doesn't replace the other
subscriptions they already pay for - it just provides, as he puts it,
some insurance against getting sued.  To make matters worse, it seems
like many of the practices it licenses would be fair use under current
laws and several others would be covered under the new laws.  What
would be the rationale for agreeing to these terms? Is this as unusual
as Geist seems to think?

Thanks,
Sean