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