Bill C-32 (Canada’s copyright reform act) – response from an open access advocate

This is a copy of my response to the consultation on Bill C-32, Canada’s copyright reform act. Details and links to other responses can be found on Michael Geist’s blog. Comments are due by January 31.

Speaking as a scholarly author/creator, student, teacher, and librarian, here are my comments on what I see as the most critical aspects to consider with Bill C-32.

DIGITAL LOCKS AND PROTECTION OF DIGITAL LOCKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PREVENTING ILLEGAL USE OF MATERIAL

As Bill C-32 stands, circumvention of digital locks would be illegal, even if the use of the material is perfectly legal (e.g., private copying, making works accessible to the print disabled). This is a deeply troubling provision. There is no protection at all for authors such as myself who share our work freely on the Internet. What is to stop someone from putting a lock in between my work and those who would like to read it? My point is that if there are to be any provisions regarding digital locks, these should limit placing locks which circumvent legal use. If anyone places a lock on work that I have made freely available, the law should protect my right to share, and my reader’s right to have the lock removed.

Facilitating legal use should be REQUIRED, not just permitted. Selling digitally locked down materials that effectively prevent use by the print disabled is a practice that deserves to be outlawed, not protected!

FAIR DEALING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES JUST MAKES SENSE

Canada is far behind other countries such as the U.S. when it comes to sharing material for educational purposes. Canada’s educational systems spend a great deal of money on materials covered by copyright, and this will not change with expanded fair dealing. It is in the best interests of creators to support education; without basic literacy, for example, there would be little need for written material of any kind.

COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THE EXPANDING NUMBERS OF CREATORS WHO PREFER TO SHARE WORKS FREELY
As a typical scholarly author, I write works in order to contribute to advancing the world’s knowledge, and the ideal for me is to share my works freely, for example through my institutional repository:
http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/79/items-by-author?author=Morrison%2C+Heather
and my scholarly blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

Like many in today’s society, I have contributed Creative Commons licensed photos for free sharing to flickr, and occasionally participate in free collaborative services such as the Open Access Directory and Wikipedia.

As a prolific author / creator, what I would like to see is:

  • a guarantee that works which I have made freely available will remain freely available
  • elimination of automatic copyright (no copyright without registration)
  • elimination of Crown Copyright; replace this with a requirement for open access to government-funded work
  • shorter copyright periods, e.g. 14 years with one extension (and this not automatic)
  • make it possible to place work directly into the public domain

Many thanks for the opportunity to participate. I will post a copy of this response to my blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

best,

Heather G. Morrison
Doctoral Candidate
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
hgmorris at sfu dot ca

Bill C-32 (Canada’s copyright reform act) – response from an open access advocate

This is a copy of my response to the consultation on Bill C-32, Canada’s copyright reform act. Details and links to other responses can be found on Michael Geist’s blog. Comments are due by January 31.

Speaking as a scholarly author/creator, student, teacher, and librarian, here are my comments on what I see as the most critical aspects to consider with Bill C-32.

DIGITAL LOCKS AND PROTECTION OF DIGITAL LOCKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PREVENTING ILLEGAL USE OF MATERIAL

As Bill C-32 stands, circumvention of digital locks would be illegal, even if the use of the material is perfectly legal (e.g., private copying, making works accessible to the print disabled). This is a deeply troubling provision. There is no protection at all for authors such as myself who share our work freely on the Internet. What is to stop someone from putting a lock in between my work and those who would like to read it? My point is that if there are to be any provisions regarding digital locks, these should limit placing locks which circumvent legal use. If anyone places a lock on work that I have made freely available, the law should protect my right to share, and my reader’s right to have the lock removed.

Facilitating legal use should be REQUIRED, not just permitted. Selling digitally locked down materials that effectively prevent use by the print disabled is a practice that deserves to be outlawed, not protected!

FAIR DEALING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES JUST MAKES SENSE

Canada is far behind other countries such as the U.S. when it comes to sharing material for educational purposes. Canada’s educational systems spend a great deal of money on materials covered by copyright, and this will not change with expanded fair dealing. It is in the best interests of creators to support education; without basic literacy, for example, there would be little need for written material of any kind.

COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THE EXPANDING NUMBERS OF CREATORS WHO PREFER TO SHARE WORKS FREELY
As a typical scholarly author, I write works in order to contribute to advancing the world’s knowledge, and the ideal for me is to share my works freely, for example through my institutional repository:
http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/79/items-by-author?author=Morrison%2C+Heather
and my scholarly blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

Like many in today’s society, I have contributed Creative Commons licensed photos for free sharing to flickr, and occasionally participate in free collaborative services such as the Open Access Directory and Wikipedia.

As a prolific author / creator, what I would like to see is:

  • a guarantee that works which I have made freely available will remain freely available
  • elimination of automatic copyright (no copyright without registration)
  • elimination of Crown Copyright; replace this with a requirement for open access to government-funded work
  • shorter copyright periods, e.g. 14 years with one extension (and this not automatic)
  • make it possible to place work directly into the public domain

Many thanks for the opportunity to participate. I will post a copy of this response to my blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

best,

Heather G. Morrison
Doctoral Candidate
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
hgmorris at sfu dot ca

Bill C-32 (Canada’s copyright reform act) – response from an open access advocate

This is a copy of my response to the consultation on Bill C-32, Canada’s copyright reform act. Details and links to other responses can be found on Michael Geist’s blog. Comments are due by January 31.

Speaking as a scholarly author/creator, student, teacher, and librarian, here are my comments on what I see as the most critical aspects to consider with Bill C-32.

DIGITAL LOCKS AND PROTECTION OF DIGITAL LOCKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PREVENTING ILLEGAL USE OF MATERIAL

As Bill C-32 stands, circumvention of digital locks would be illegal, even if the use of the material is perfectly legal (e.g., private copying, making works accessible to the print disabled). This is a deeply troubling provision. There is no protection at all for authors such as myself who share our work freely on the Internet. What is to stop someone from putting a lock in between my work and those who would like to read it? My point is that if there are to be any provisions regarding digital locks, these should limit placing locks which circumvent legal use. If anyone places a lock on work that I have made freely available, the law should protect my right to share, and my reader’s right to have the lock removed.

Facilitating legal use should be REQUIRED, not just permitted. Selling digitally locked down materials that effectively prevent use by the print disabled is a practice that deserves to be outlawed, not protected!

FAIR DEALING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES JUST MAKES SENSE

Canada is far behind other countries such as the U.S. when it comes to sharing material for educational purposes. Canada’s educational systems spend a great deal of money on materials covered by copyright, and this will not change with expanded fair dealing. It is in the best interests of creators to support education; without basic literacy, for example, there would be little need for written material of any kind.

COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THE EXPANDING NUMBERS OF CREATORS WHO PREFER TO SHARE WORKS FREELY
As a typical scholarly author, I write works in order to contribute to advancing the world’s knowledge, and the ideal for me is to share my works freely, for example through my institutional repository:
http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/79/items-by-author?author=Morrison%2C+Heather
and my scholarly blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

Like many in today’s society, I have contributed Creative Commons licensed photos for free sharing to flickr, and occasionally participate in free collaborative services such as the Open Access Directory and Wikipedia.

As a prolific author / creator, what I would like to see is:

  • a guarantee that works which I have made freely available will remain freely available
  • elimination of automatic copyright (no copyright without registration)
  • elimination of Crown Copyright; replace this with a requirement for open access to government-funded work
  • shorter copyright periods, e.g. 14 years with one extension (and this not automatic)
  • make it possible to place work directly into the public domain

Many thanks for the opportunity to participate. I will post a copy of this response to my blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

best,

Heather G. Morrison
Doctoral Candidate
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
hgmorris at sfu dot ca

Bill C-32 (Canada’s copyright reform act) – response from an open access advocate

This is a copy of my response to the consultation on Bill C-32, Canada’s copyright reform act. Details and links to other responses can be found on Michael Geist’s blog. Comments are due by January 31.

Speaking as a scholarly author/creator, student, teacher, and librarian, here are my comments on what I see as the most critical aspects to consider with Bill C-32.

DIGITAL LOCKS AND PROTECTION OF DIGITAL LOCKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PREVENTING ILLEGAL USE OF MATERIAL

As Bill C-32 stands, circumvention of digital locks would be illegal, even if the use of the material is perfectly legal (e.g., private copying, making works accessible to the print disabled). This is a deeply troubling provision. There is no protection at all for authors such as myself who share our work freely on the Internet. What is to stop someone from putting a lock in between my work and those who would like to read it? My point is that if there are to be any provisions regarding digital locks, these should limit placing locks which circumvent legal use. If anyone places a lock on work that I have made freely available, the law should protect my right to share, and my reader’s right to have the lock removed.

Facilitating legal use should be REQUIRED, not just permitted. Selling digitally locked down materials that effectively prevent use by the print disabled is a practice that deserves to be outlawed, not protected!

FAIR DEALING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES JUST MAKES SENSE

Canada is far behind other countries such as the U.S. when it comes to sharing material for educational purposes. Canada’s educational systems spend a great deal of money on materials covered by copyright, and this will not change with expanded fair dealing. It is in the best interests of creators to support education; without basic literacy, for example, there would be little need for written material of any kind.

COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THE EXPANDING NUMBERS OF CREATORS WHO PREFER TO SHARE WORKS FREELY
As a typical scholarly author, I write works in order to contribute to advancing the world’s knowledge, and the ideal for me is to share my works freely, for example through my institutional repository:
http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/79/items-by-author?author=Morrison%2C+Heather
and my scholarly blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

Like many in today’s society, I have contributed Creative Commons licensed photos for free sharing to flickr, and occasionally participate in free collaborative services such as the Open Access Directory and Wikipedia.

As a prolific author / creator, what I would like to see is:

  • a guarantee that works which I have made freely available will remain freely available
  • elimination of automatic copyright (no copyright without registration)
  • elimination of Crown Copyright; replace this with a requirement for open access to government-funded work
  • shorter copyright periods, e.g. 14 years with one extension (and this not automatic)
  • make it possible to place work directly into the public domain

Many thanks for the opportunity to participate. I will post a copy of this response to my blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

best,

Heather G. Morrison
Doctoral Candidate
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
hgmorris at sfu dot ca

Bill C-32 (Canada’s copyright reform act) – response from an open access advocate

This is a copy of my response to the consultation on Bill C-32, Canada’s copyright reform act. Details and links to other responses can be found on Michael Geist’s blog. Comments are due by January 31.

Speaking as a scholarly author/creator, student, teacher, and librarian, here are my comments on what I see as the most critical aspects to consider with Bill C-32.

DIGITAL LOCKS AND PROTECTION OF DIGITAL LOCKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PREVENTING ILLEGAL USE OF MATERIAL

As Bill C-32 stands, circumvention of digital locks would be illegal, even if the use of the material is perfectly legal (e.g., private copying, making works accessible to the print disabled). This is a deeply troubling provision. There is no protection at all for authors such as myself who share our work freely on the Internet. What is to stop someone from putting a lock in between my work and those who would like to read it? My point is that if there are to be any provisions regarding digital locks, these should limit placing locks which circumvent legal use. If anyone places a lock on work that I have made freely available, the law should protect my right to share, and my reader’s right to have the lock removed.

Facilitating legal use should be REQUIRED, not just permitted. Selling digitally locked down materials that effectively prevent use by the print disabled is a practice that deserves to be outlawed, not protected!

FAIR DEALING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES JUST MAKES SENSE

Canada is far behind other countries such as the U.S. when it comes to sharing material for educational purposes. Canada’s educational systems spend a great deal of money on materials covered by copyright, and this will not change with expanded fair dealing. It is in the best interests of creators to support education; without basic literacy, for example, there would be little need for written material of any kind.

COPYRIGHT LAW SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THE EXPANDING NUMBERS OF CREATORS WHO PREFER TO SHARE WORKS FREELY
As a typical scholarly author, I write works in order to contribute to advancing the world’s knowledge, and the ideal for me is to share my works freely, for example through my institutional repository:
http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/79/items-by-author?author=Morrison%2C+Heather
and my scholarly blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

Like many in today’s society, I have contributed Creative Commons licensed photos for free sharing to flickr, and occasionally participate in free collaborative services such as the Open Access Directory and Wikipedia.

As a prolific author / creator, what I would like to see is:

  • a guarantee that works which I have made freely available will remain freely available
  • elimination of automatic copyright (no copyright without registration)
  • elimination of Crown Copyright; replace this with a requirement for open access to government-funded work
  • shorter copyright periods, e.g. 14 years with one extension (and this not automatic)
  • make it possible to place work directly into the public domain

Many thanks for the opportunity to participate. I will post a copy of this response to my blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

best,

Heather G. Morrison
Doctoral Candidate
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
hgmorris at sfu dot ca

Backing out of HINARI

Ed: Laura Janneck is currently in a Harvard Affiliated Emergency Medicine Residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.  She has been a leading student voice within the Open Access movement and was involved in the founding of the Right to Research Coalition.

One of the areas in which open access can make a substantial impact is in the field of international medicine and public health. It is the nature of medical science that what is applicable in one corner of the globe is applicable anywhere. A drug that reduces blood pressure will work on human beings from France as well as Zambia. Despite this potential for the global application of medical science, many challenges arise in the implementation, from funding the purchase of medications, to creating supply chains, and training health care workers. One of the most basic challenges is simply disseminating knowledge of these medical advances to the practitioners that may use it. What use is a new treatment for malaria if most doctors treating malaria don’t know about it? Knowledge is also necessary to modify such technologies to resource poor settings. Will an HIV drug developed in New York work as effectively for undernourished refugees in Liberia? Such a question is best asked and answered by those whose patients are undernourished refugees in Liberia. If medical science is to be applicable to the poorest and sickest people on earth, their health care providers need access to that science.

One attempt to address this need has been HINARI: the Health Inter-Network for Access to Research Initiative. This program, started by WHO in 2002, was a means by which health care practitioners and academics in poor countries could access many leading biomedical and public health journals. The program has many flaws. It limits access to workers only with certain institutional affiliations, thus excluding many rural and community-based practitioners. It also excludes researchers in middle-income countries such as India and Indonesia who, despite their higher national GDP, are generally themselves impoverished by first-world standards, and can far from afford journal subscriptions. Despite these criticisms, HINARI has been successful in enabling scholars around the world to learn and implement new medical technologies, and inform their own research and development.

But on January 11, 2011, an article in the British Medical Journal announced that five major publishers would withdraw free access to more than 2500 of their health and biomedical online journals from HINARI in Bangladesh. The explanation given was that publishers were establishing “active sales” in the country.

The global health community responded with understandable outrage and anxiety. And while the BMJ article was the first major publicity of such pull-outs, the phenomenon is not new and is not limited to Bangladesh. Correspondences from researchers in Nigeria and Kenya reveal that publishers have been pulling access to their journals from other countries for years.

The motivations of the publishers are apparently profit-driven. If sales of subscriptions are possible in a developing country, they will withdraw free access in order to force researchers to purchase subscriptions. Correspondences to HINARI users have stated: “Please note that one of the conditions of HINARI, the publishers have the right to protect their existing business, and may choose not offer their journals to countries where they have significant sales or local sales agents” (email correspondence). The consequence is the removal of access for an entire nation’s researchers, so that a handful of wealthy libraries or institutions, likely limited to the major cities, may pay for subscriptions and increase the publishers’ bottom lines.

Researchers and health care providers affected by these changes responded quickly criticizing the change, as did editors of some of the journals that were pulled. In response to this outrage, most of the publishers have begun to reverse their decision and reinstate access to their journals in Bangladesh. Despite this small success thanks to the vigilance of the global health community, the underlying issue is far from resolved. Many international scholars have taken this as a wake-up call to push forward the open access movement. They recognize that HINARI is not a sustainable solution to the information access problem. This will hasten the call for all who publish research to publish in open access journals, and for the global health community to revolutionize the way academic information is published. Producers and consumers of academic research must work together toward long-term open access solutions. Only then will producers of research be able to ensure that their work is disseminated, and consumers will be able to utilize the fruits of their labors to heal the world’s destitute sick.

Tags:

developing world,

HINARI,

medical students

World’s largest medical student organization joins Right to Research Coalition

For immediate release
January 19, 2011

For more information, contact:

Nick Shockey
Director, Right to Research Coalition
+01 202 296 2296
nick [at] arl [dot] org 

Margot Weggemans
Liaison Officer for Medical Education Issues, International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA)
+31 6 52020717
lme [at] ifmsa [dot] org

World’s largest medical student organization throws weight behind Open Access; Student-led Right to Research Coalition now represents nearly 7 million students internationally

WASHINGTON DC, USA and AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS – In a move that demonstrates the building global momentum for student commitment to Open Access, the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) today announced its membership in the Right to Research Coalition, an international alliance of undergraduate and graduate student organizations that promotes a more open scholarly publishing system through advocacy and education.           

Based in Amsterdam, IFMSA is one of the world’s leading student organizations, representing over 1.2 million medical students, and aims to serve medical students all over the world.  Starting this month, IFMSA will begin working with the coalition’s 30 other member organizations to promote a more open scholarly publishing system by educating students about Open Access and advocating for policies that expand access to the results of research.

“We fully support the initiative of the Right to Research Coalition and the tenets of the Student Statement on the Right to Research,” said Chijioke Kaduru, IFMSA’s President.  “We believe that Open Access to research will positively benefit all aspects of health care; it will improve the knowledge of health care workers, researchers and medical students by making crucial information easy to access. Open Access will also improve and democratize medical education by expanding access to research articles so crucial to students’ training, strengthening the IFMSA vision of equity for medical students worldwide.  We look forward to working with the Right to Research Coalition and its other members to improve access to research and make Open Access to the full scholarly record a reality.”

Founded in 2009, the Right to Research Coalition has expanded rapidly into an international alliance of student organizations representing a wide variety of disciplines.  With IFMSA, the members of the Right to Research Coalition now represent nearly 7 million students throughout the world and continue to grow as a powerful force in expanding access to research.

“IFMSA brings a real global presence to our coalition,” said Nick Shockey, Director of the Right to Research Coalition.  “Students in every corner of the globe are affected by limited access to research.  We hope to expand our membership to reflect the global importance of Open Access and to help forge a global solution.  We’re excited to begin collaborating with IFMSA on this issue of such importance to both medical and non-medical students alike.”

 


 

About IFMSA 

IFMSA is an independent, non-governmental and non-political federation of medical students’ associations throughout the world. In 2010, IFMSA consists of national medical student associations in 97 countries on six continents.  IFMSA’s members represent around 1,200,000 medical students worldwide.

Since 1951, IFMSA has been run for and by medical students on a non-profit basis. Officially recognized as a Non Governmental Organization within the United Nations’ system, it is recognized by the World Health Organization as the international forum for medical students.  IFMSA is registered as a charitable organization in the Netherlands.

http://www.ifmsa.org
 

About the Right to Research Coalition 

Founded by students in the summer of 2009, the Right to Research Coalition is an international alliance of 31 undergraduate and graduate student organizations, representing nearly 7 million students, that promotes a more open scholarly publishing system.  The Right to Research Coalition believes that no student should be denied access to the scholarly articles they need, because they or their institution cannot afford access.  The coalition works to educate the next generation of scholars and researchers about Open Access and to advocate for policies at the campus, national, and international levels that expand access to the results of research.

http://www.righttoresearch.org

Tags:

medical students,

,

R2RC expansion

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.

Access Copyright Insanity – Possible Solutions?

Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright collective, is asking for an absolutely ludicrous tariff increase (about a tenfold increase from about $3.5 to $35 per post-secondary student), at the same time that they are looking for increased restrictions (no linking please!) and paperwork (e.g. having students sign a form saying that they are in fact a student, and using the work for their studies). This is all on top of libraries paying top dollar for the content, by the way.

Some possible solutions that libraries might want to consider:

  • Ask Access Copyright for a complete list of members / works covered. Don’t buy any of their stuff. Who doesn’t have way too much to read as it is? Besides, this will filter out anyone so out of touch that they think forbidding hyperlinking on the internet makes sense.
  • If you MUST buy their stuff, set up a separate site on your website for this material, appropriately labelled – perhaps with an icon including a hefty lock and chain and/or wording to the effect, USE THIS LOCKED DOWN MATERIAL AT YOUR OWN LEGAL PERIL.
  • Send Access Copyright a bill for about 10 times what they think you should pay them. This actually does make sense for a university library; think of how many faculty and students are creators, particularly of works in the academic library. Why are WE paying THEM at all, anyway?

Another thought: if Access Copyright members have issues with people reading and citing their work, what will this do to the Open Access Citation Impact Advantage? My prediction is that this will increase the difference.

On the plus side, we should all be grateful to Access Copyright for demands that so obviously show the lunacy of lock-down in academia that faculty members are now flocking to solutions such as Open Educational Resources.