Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Canada's Copyright Laws affect me greatly as an Educator in this Country.
Currently, Canada's classrooms are a revune generation stream for copyright holders. Educators must pay for "public performance rights" when showing materials in our classrooms. Why, in this age, when government funding for education is strained and stretched beyond belief, would we still expect our education dollars to be spent on copyright?
In the United States, there is a blanket "fair-use" clause that allows educators to use materials (Videos, Pictures, Music, Books, Poems, Websites, and all other "media") without having to pay for enormous copyright fees.
Educators are not charging students admission to the classroom, we are not 'profiting' from using these materials, we are educating the future of this country!
There should be special exemptions for educators to be able to use the cultural artificats and materials to help create and expose our future generations to be successful and aware of the world they will inherit.
Please, consider the roles of educators and how better and more balanced copyright laws can be used to help our strained eduction system.
graham [2009-07-20 16:54] Comment ID: 30 Reply to: 19
I agree with most what you are saying, especially how backwards it is that public education dollars are going to pay for copyright fees just so that the next generation can learn. However, I think that the fair dealing issue was solved by a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004. If fair dealing is kept and enshrined according to this ruling we do not need a special exception for the education community.
The ruling states (the below is taken from a Canadian Federation of Students position paper on Copyright available on their website: www.cfs-fcee.ca ):
"… Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively."
The court ruled that the actual fair dealing categories of research and private study need to be given a broad and liberal interpretation. In addition to broadening the scope of the fair-dealing categories and allowing it to be performed by an intermediary (a library for example), the Court also confirmed the list of factors that should guide a finding of fair dealing:
- the purpose of the use;
- the character of the dealing;
- the amount of the dealing;
- alternatives to the dealing;
- the nature of the original work; and
- the effect of the dealing on the work
The Supreme Court's recognition of a new copyright doctrine based on users' rights and the need for careful balancing of interests between the rights of owners and users now needs to be enshrined in the Copyright Act.
This open-ended approach serves the interests of students, teachers, librarians, and administrators; as well as other life-long learners who aren't affiliated with an institution. This general approach would avoid having to ask for special exceptions for educational institutions that are not available to the general public.
Asking for special institutional-based exemptions is the approach that was taken in the last round of copyright reform in 1997. It resulted in a complicated, and not very useful, set of narrow privileges for educational institutions. Unfortunately, this approach is still being pushed by groups representing a narrow band of university and college stakeholders: administrators. Seeking further special exemptions that are not available to the general public is a fundamentally flawed strategy.
The better option is an expanded and open-ended definition in the Act of fair dealing that reflects the principles laid out in the Supreme Court judgement.
matt.bouchard [2009-07-27 18:26] Comment ID: 997 Reply to: 30
Fantastic post. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
rod dawson [2009-08-05 16:26] Comment ID: 1351 Reply to: 30
If producers of copyright material are to be deprived of their just due that is tantamount to robbery.
Should starving people be entitled to go into a super market and take food from the shelves.
I am 81 years old and working part time because my copy right earnings do not pay sufficient to supply the bare necessities.
Few if any teachers have to work past retirement age.
rakey [2009-07-20 18:50] Comment ID: 43 Reply to: 19
Did teachers and educators forget how to write? Can teachers and educators not contact authors?
I have been contacted by a book publisher in Quebec and have given FREE USAGE rights to that publisher to use my photos. In return I received a free copy of the textbook and use it as a tearsheet.
This is how it should be done. I am all for helping education but the author should know how and when their works are used. It should be up to the original author how and when their work is used and in what form.
amueller [2009-07-21 12:22] Comment ID: 192 Reply to: 43
I applaud you allowing your works to be used in the education system and in your case the communication lines and proper procudure worked wonderfully!
However, it is a very differnet situation out there when trying to get permission from creators to use their work.
Many times, the authors, rights-holders, and creators cannot be found or contacted for permissions. Their contact info is simply not available. Or the "Canadian distributor" for an international author does not have the ability to grant permissions for use in Canada!
It is nowhere as simple as you posit to find, gain and grant permissions for usage in the classroom. I've waited for weeks and weeks for a response from an author, and never heard back.
It is not a reliable and consistent strategy that educators can adopt to address this issue.
We should have the rights to use it, and then awknowledge and inform the author and creator if they are available and contactable!
rakey [2009-07-21 17:44] Comment ID: 264 Reply to: 192
I agree with you where the author's permission is unattainable. I also allow educational use as long as due credit is given either in a small text blurb under or beside the image or in a bibliography. As long as those reading have some way of contacting me.
Some of us love those tearsheets with our name tagged on as they validate our work.
I'm not so much against you using it educationally as I am about blatant usage by others with complete disregard for the author.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-22 11:18] Comment ID: 395 Reply to: 264
In terms of due credit, Fair Dealing requires as a minimum what you suggest here, so your wishes are pretty well in line with the law. Most schools have very strict guidelines regarding plagarism, and failure to cite sources is a clear cut case of that.
What educators are looking for is clear rules from copyright law to dictate how they can use things, and in such a way that they can cover their asses as simply as possible. Fair Dealing works fairly well in this regard. The problem most educators have with these new proposals (prohibitions on cracking DRM, for example) is that they allow owners of content to lock them out of their legal rights (see comments elsewhere here about the Supreme Court and Fair Dealing). Given the shear volume of material used in education, asking permission for each instance of use would make use impossible.
Imagine that some of your images became seen as seminal works of photography (I would hope someday you'll be that lucky), and are added into the curriculum at art schools across the country. As an artist, would you want to evaluate and approve that many applications? As an educator, would you want to submit requests for every image used in a course? Even if there were rights clearing-houses for this, could you guarantee that every artist you wanted to use was a member? And of course there's the question - what if they're nowhere to be found?
Gordon Martin [2009-07-22 23:41] Comment ID: 590 Reply to: 192
I have to agree with everything you've said. I don't know what resources exist for contacting publishers or authors, but I've always felt there should be some system in place for registering the enforcement wishes of the owner of a copyright. We should be able to look up the ISBN number or something and know under what circumstances the work can be used or to where fees can be directed. It is not practical to expect every rights holder to have to have a dialog with every individual who has a need. There needs to be an autonomous system to handle this for everyone - I should think the government could play a useful role here. Let's not punish people for violating copyrights, but rather assist people to abide by them.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-21 21:36] Comment ID: 314 Reply to: 43
Sorry Rakey, on this one I'll have to disagree, and I think in your own case you're comparing apples and oranges.
Your arrangement was between you and Your Publisher, who has a Commercial Interest in using your work.
An individual teacher using your work in a handout or a student using it to support an assignment are different fish entirely.
According to this ruling, educational use (defined as non-commercial use in an accademic setting) is Fair Dealing and an individual's Right under copyright law.
I applaud you for letting your work be used accademically, and from the sounds of it both you and the publisher received benefit from this exchange. It's not the same thing though.
matt.bouchard [2009-07-23 12:50] Comment ID: 654 Reply to: 43
Great idea. Let's have everyone contact you personally. That's a good use of everyone's time. First, educators should just get a blanket exemption. At worst, it's free marketing for the creator.
If you don't agree to that, why not do it like a corporation? If my MinuteBook is not updated and I'm sued, the people suing me can't get ahold of me to let me know I'm being sued. If they can't reach me, I automatically lose. Do the same with creators. There is a registry for copyrighted works, simply add a contact for usage queries. If the person on the other end of that phone/email/letter cannot grant usage or cannot be reached, the applicant gains usage automatically. Copyright protection should not come down to legitimate users being lost in a pile of useless correspondence. Copyright was intended to ensure that creators were paid for their creations. It was not intended to make works inaccessible.
rakey [2009-07-23 22:30] Comment ID: 718 Reply to: 654
Wait.. So you don't believe it is a good use of YOUR time to have to contact me to use my photos but I should give up MY time used in creating the piece and not get the respect of an attempted contact? That's twisted logic and nothing but self-serving.
If you are worried about being sued by copyright holders, maybe you should think about that BEFORE publishing, not afterward.
Copyright law should not dictate how a work can or cannot be used based on inaccessibilty of the author of the work unless they are deceased. I can just see it now, "I didn't see a reply from them so I went ahead and used the author's work," only to find that the mail was hijacked by an overzealous spam filter.. LOL
As for accessibility, playing Devil's advocate here.. if you loosen copyright too much, those very works to which you want to gain accessibility may be even more inaccessible as artists will, in some case, not post their work for fear of copyright law not protecting their interests. So my advice is be careful what you wish for.
matt.bouchard [2009-07-27 18:22] Comment ID: 992 Reply to: 718
First, thanks for replying. Second, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not actually putting my time over yours, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you shouldn't be paid or respected for your work. I'm a content creator too, and I like to get paid and respected! However, the current system of contact is HEAVILY weighted with responsibility on the part of the copyright users (as opposed to the copyright holders). All I'm suggesting is to balance that responsibility. At the moment, what's the cost to the holder if they can't be reached? Nothing. What's the cost to the user? Could be quite high. In any case, it will be higher than nothing. Why not normalize the system, simplify contact, and balance responsibility? I have been in several situations where I spent months tracking down a copyright holder to use one page of a book. After finally getting down to the right person who actually has the ability to decide, I get a no. If I could have either a) gotten to the right person sooner, or b) gotten the no sooner, I would have been a lot happier. This is not an isolated case. This happens ALL THE TIME. Particularly with those of us that work with educational institutions that want to maintain best practices and ask creators even in cases where they are not legally obliged to.
Further, most of Canada's laws are about what's "reasonable". Even if all my law dreams come true, I doubt that a judge would find one unanswered email as reasonable grounds to pursue damaging copyright infringement.
As for accessibility, yours is an argument I've heard many times. Oh no, if we don't pay our artists, they won't produce anything! In answer, I point to the open source programming community. Content creators, get a real job (using your creator skills or not, depending on marketability) to feed and cloth you and yours, then create your magic in your spare time and share it free with the world. Certainly, creators will argue that they do their best work when they don't have to worry about feeding their families. I've got news for you, that's true of everyone. Why should creators in particular mediums get a free pass? Where are the open source artists? Why not create a GPL for your creation? If you use it to make your life better, no charge. If you use it to make money, you pay. But I'm rambling again.
I'm argument hacking here, sorry about that. I think the original point here was about educators. As a creator, why wouldn't you want educators to use your stuff?
meikipp [2009-07-24 22:11] Comment ID: 860 Reply to: 43
Years ago I contacted a publisher for permission to use more than would be considered fair dealing of a book… and this permission was granted. I think many people assume that in this current climate of excessive copyright such permission would no longer be granted.
markcobham [2009-07-21 08:24] Comment ID: 155 Reply to: 19
Supporters of education deserve to be paid just as teachers deserve to be paid.
Educators often make the argument that they are not profiting from education, and then conclude that education supporters (authors, publishers, software developers, others) should not profit from education. They don't seem to notice that they are paid for their teaching services, and that it therefore makes sense for developers and copyright holders to be able to make a living as well, and be paid for their services.
The other frequent argument that is made is that because education budgets are strained that the business community should provide educational services for free. Educators don't see that if a fair wage is not paid for educational resources and services that there will be no Canadian content developed. Canadian schools can indeed get whatever is on the net for free, however it will likely not fit our Canadian curricula, and there will be no Canadian stories, no Canadian voices. The "strained budgets" argument is an argument that runs counter to the development of resources supporting Canadian culture.
amueller [2009-07-21 12:03] Comment ID: 187 Reply to: 155
I think you raise some good points in your response, but I would argue, that artists never, ever create in a vacuum. All works created today are derivative, based and influenced on previous stories, works, and aspects of the world, society and communities within which we all live.
Going all the way back to the ancient greeks and their plays they wrote and performed, all artisitic works have been influenced in some way on previous versions.
Shakespeare borrowed from Boccacio and Chaucer, who borrowed from artists previous to them. Rock music was based on early blues, all movies today owe homage and influence to directors from the past who created new narratives, techniques and tools.
Even a few years ago, someone tried to copyright "hot yoga", even though yoga has been around for thousands of years!
So, just because you can apply and get a copyright for your so called "original" works, does that mean that the artist and creator owe nothing back to the community and society within which they create? Without the society and marketplace in which to sell their works, which is based on influences and previous works of this society and community there would be no opportunities to even share and create their art.
So, in my view, allowing the educators of this country to use the collective artisitic works of this country and the Canadian 'canon' is the least these artists can do to show appreciation and to acknowldge that they could not have created their works without the past and present society in which they live and create.
Also, to address your point of why would people create Canadian works if the education system is not going to pay for any copyrights for it? Then why is the US eductation system's blanket fair-use clause for their educators not killing their entertainment industry?
Because the education sector is a small part of the profit revenue stream of these artists. They appreciate the exposure to a new audience that the educators provide them. In many cases students will go and purchase the works for their own library and private use if they enjoy it! I think that you are wrong to think that an educational fair-use clause will kill any canadian content generation.
Students and educators are not mass-copiers, nor distributors. We expose and educate using these materials and works once, not over and over again.
Using these works and materials in a classroom does not take away possible profits and motivations for artists to create. In fact, it creates the opposite. A chance for the artists to find new audiences and fans of their work.
Protect Canada's classrooms from exhorbitant fees and locks on materials! Share the knowledge and art of our world with the next generation!
markcobham [2009-07-21 13:11] Comment ID: 202 Reply to: 187
At the heart of your argument is the belief that everything should be shared and free. If that is so, then why would organizations such as Univerities, for-profit organizations and others spend millions on, say, educational research without a reasonable expectation that it will be valued later on. It might happen, but not in Canada - such research will be carried out in places that place a value on such research. By creatin an environment in Canada where the rights of creators as well as users are valued, we support culture, industry, and education.
yuanqi [2009-08-05 15:35] Comment ID: 1343 Reply to: 202
Actually, most of our scientific advances could not be obtained without the free sharing of knowledge that you have argued against. All scientific discoveries are based on previous works. Authors of the studies published in scientific journals do not receive a single cent in royalties for their decades of hard work, but this has not hindered the advancement of science. The same principle actually apply to all other areas of creativity. Which artist, musician, film maker or author can claim that they are not indebted to their predecessors?
TommY [2009-07-21 10:06] Comment ID: 163 Reply to: 19
That all sounds well and good but what about people who write and create materials, whether produced specifically for education or for the trade market, that teachers find valuable for classroom use? Just because my book is enjoyed by young readers AND supports the curriculum, do you feel that I should not be compensated when you decide to use it in your classroom?
Years ago, I worked as a sales rep for an educational publisher. That publisher spent a ton of money creating a new language arts program that catered specifically to the needs and requests of the school boards of each particular province. When I went into one school to introduce and try to sell the program to the principal, he looked me right in the eye and said, "All of our textbook budget this year is going towards buying a new photocopier." In other words, he was planning to steal, by copying, what he needed in the classrooms.
There has to be some middle ground. We cannot lose sight of the creators and producers in this whole debate.
amueller [2009-07-21 12:14] Comment ID: 190 Reply to: 163
People who produce and create materials specifically for the education market are very noble and provide a great service for the educators of this country.
I agree, they need to be provided a decent living to support their needs as they work to help educate the next generation of students.
However, as you are well aware working in the industry, each province has different expectations and learning outcomes, each district has different goals and expectations and each school and department has different needs and expectations.
So, how can a publisher of educational materials create works and tools that meet all these needs? They can't!
And how did they create these materials? By using guidelines, learning outcomes, Prescribed learning outcomes, and Integrated Resource Packages created and provided by the Ministry of Education!
So, do these producers and creators owe anything to the materials and people that they borrowed from to create their works?
Did they interview and consult any educators in the classrooms to see what their needs were?
Does a business get to profit from producing materials for an audience that they used and mined in creating that work? Is there no compensation for access and the time and effort and energy that the education system provided to the business to help them create this tool?
I think these are all very good questions and are an important starting point for this debate.
Education systems are not funded to support private business. 90% of educational materials are produced in-house and created by certified and educated professionals who know and work within the system. Those are who should be supported better!
Freetard [2009-07-22 17:55] Comment ID: 504 Reply to: 190
And don't forget that very few teachers are using lesson plans from a box. Most teachers (I work in a public District) I know have spent years building their own lesson plans from materials they collected that support the expected learning outcomes. Some of the materials were written by educational companies (textbook publishers such as Pearson, etc), and some were produced for the general market, and incorporated into classrooms by the teachers. With the sheer volume of new media being produced, the options for educational use (and copyright infringement) are enormous. The law needs to be changed to reflect that situation, and to allow for unimpeded Fair Dealing uses. Nothing should be allowed to trump Fair Dealing, whether it's DRM or a printed EULA, or an Access Copyright "License". If I want to use a clip from a popular movie, the studio should not be allowed to prohibit that or make it illegal for me to rip that clip out and use it in my classroom.
diana cruchley [2009-07-21 17:35] Comment ID: 261 Reply to: 19
For years, as head of a media centre in a school district, I oversaw each school paying what I considered to be a "ransom" to be allowed to show rented videos in the classroom. At one time two Canadian companies with the "rights for public viewing" charged school districts an exorbitant fee to send you an "education" version (exactly the same but in their box) - let's imagine about $200 for a $25 video. Then they said to themselves, "Wait a minute. We don't even have to actually send anything. We can just charge them a "per pupil rate" and they can then rent the films or buy them to show to their class as long as they have paid us the fee - annually.
In the United States, Stephen Spielberg considers he has made enough money that he doesn't have to charge schools an additional "public viewing" fee for his films. Why do Canadians have to pay it?
The Canadian companies simply have the rights to these films and then charge us an extortionate fee (that the Americans don't have to pay) for the same films. In addition, they add ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE..they don't even send you the video, just the rights. It is so frustrating in Canada that we are constantly being cheated…(think of the car situation when the dollar went to par)…and nobody does anything about it.
It's disgraceful. If we need to protect Canadian film, all of us are fine on paying a fee…but not for American materials when Americans don't even want such a fee. A few Canadian companies have gotten rich off the straightened circumstances of schools and the fact that some government "moron"
allowed a special clause in our legislation that a school is a "public viewing" and we've never done ANYTHING to change the situation.
Russell McOrmond [2009-07-22 19:03] Comment ID: 526 Reply to: 19
I agree that Canadian law should be enhanced by adopting a "fair use" regime to move beyond our limited "fair dealings" regime. This modernisation should clarify that educators and librarians can "step into the shoes" of their students/patrons and exercise on behalf of their students/patrons any of the rights they have. (Including making multiple copies of printed material for classroom use, etc).
I do not believe that there should be "special exemptions" for educators or educational institutions for a number of reasons.
a) The classroom is the last place we should have "special rules" which apply within the classroom which do not apply outside the classroom. This will only induce additional infringement by students outside the classroom and in the rest of their lives, confusing them as to what is and is not lawful.
b) Education is a lifelong process that is not confined to specifically chartered educational institutions. Limits to copyright should not be limited to these institutions, but apply to anyone carrying out specific types of activities whether they are at home or in the classroom.
Students shouldn't be trained to infringe copyright simply because they do school work at home. Institutional exceptions should be removed from a modern Canadian Copyright Act.
c) The money issue is one that everyone has, and is not unique to education. We as a society should be adequately funding all aspects of education, and not cutting budgets in ways that harm students, educators or creators. Educators should spend their time lobbying for improvements in educational budgets, not copyright exemptions.
d) The educational sector has internal problems that can only be solved internally. These are not copyright issues, and shouldn't be solved in copyright law. Exemptions only make the problem worse by discouraging the education sector from solving these problems.
The vast majority of costs relate to textbooks is the ongoing use of outdated publishing methods. Add to this the photocopying fees ($5.16 per FTE - full time equivalent of a student), where the vast majority of photocopying fees also go to old-economy textbook publishers. The educational sectors in other jurisdictions have opted for an Open Access publishing approach where money is put to paying the authors/editors of the material such that the results are liberally licensed to allow royalty-free sharing and enhancement. The educational sector could nearly eradicate the photocopy fees and the bulk of textbook costs by adopting Open Access methods. The barriers are not in copyright law, but within the sector itself. In some cases it is fellow educators who want the textbook royalty cheques on top of their salaries (more of a union/employment agreement issue than a copyright one).
Creativity has a zero marginal cost to the producer, meaning that the first one takes all the resources and there is no additional costs for "the next copy". The educational sector really needs to harness the nature of knowledge, otherwise it will continue to toss educational budgets to unnecessary old-economy educational publishers.
cndcitizen [2009-07-22 19:13] Comment ID: 532 Reply to: 526
I don't know where you are going here, but education systems using material for education purposes should be exempt. I am not a teacher or an educator but if my kids wanted to put a presentation together for their class on whoever the latest artist is for creative work day then they should be allowed…
Government and Education exemtions are a basic for any new law.
wingfdeb [2009-07-27 09:39] Comment ID: 955 Reply to: 19
Thank you Aaron. When reviewing education and copyright, I hope that consideration will be given to education at all levels, from schools to workplaces. As an educator in a public sector workplace (healthcare), I struggle with copyright issues regularly as education in our workplace is a necessity for the health,welfare and safety of our population.
Alexandre Enkerli [2009-07-30 12:27] Comment ID: 1150 Reply to: 19
While I certainly agree that there should be wider exemptions (and fairer protection) in education, I personally wouldn't be so quick as to use the United States as a model of educational use of copyrighted material. I have taught at several academic institutions in the United States and though there are some occasions in which fair use exemptions are useful in educational contexts, the chilling effects of overly broad copyright legislation are felt as much there as here in Canada.
RobfromCalgary [2009-07-31 18:03] Comment ID: 1230 Reply to: 19
Actually if you read the Copyright Act, it isn't clear whether a classroom viewing of a video is a public performance or not? Because the law is unclear and because school boards, universities and colleges don't want to get sued, they require public performance rights. An institution that allowed itself to get sued would clarify the law in the courts, but it is understandable that no institution wants to take the risks involved with that.
Section 29.5 of the Copyright Act should be amended to add a clause making it clear that classroom viewings (and distance education) are not public performances.
Our universities and colleges compete directly with American institutions. We have a hard time competing when they pay $19.95 for a DVD and a Canadian university has to pay $300.00 to include public performance or classroom performances.
skycat [2009-08-01 08:06] Comment ID: 1249 Reply to: 19
This new copyright law deeply affects immigrated Canadians, My family watches, reads, and listens to our home country content; And it will not be fair for people who pay for their internet and be blocked because its not Canadian content. There's already enough Canadian content on the web I would be an article on CNN and have an AD Telus Mobility on the top for example.
I think you can't control the internet its world wide with imposing this type of law its telling the world we are afraid of globalization.
mmbuckle [2009-08-05 11:02] Comment ID: 1324 Reply to: 19
I am also an educator, (elementary), and am getting increasingly tired of dodging the mines in the copyright minefield. I hope that the area of education will be considered as a special case, and that the new legislation will both provide reasonable recompense to creators of material, and will allow us to get on with the business of education without feeling stifled at every turn. My grade two students don't understand, for example, why they can bring in a storybook from home which I can then read out loud to the whole class, but if they offer to bring in a video, I can't show that legally. I have to say that I don't understand that either. We are a much more visual society now, and we desperately need the freedom to make use of visual resources.
jberland [2009-08-05 11:13] Comment ID: 1326 Reply to: 1324
I agree -- we need a robust "fair use" clause that makes it possible to show films or television clips, or distribute readings to students formally enrolled in educational institutions, without having to worry about being arrested or charging exorbitant fees for the right to read assigned materials.
Steve L [2009-08-05 15:56] Comment ID: 1345 Reply to: 19
I completely agree that educators should not pay copyright fees at all. Education should not be under the control of business interests, leading it to be either limited or guided by those whose main concern is personal profit.
rod dawson [2009-08-05 16:14] Comment ID: 1348 Reply to: 1345
Yes and I as a writer was continually challenged by "don't you want the children to be educated." Yes I do but I was lucky to earn $15,000 a year while the same teacher wanting my material free would be earning between over $40,000 a year up to more than $70,000
Steve L [2009-08-06 03:35] Comment ID: 1372 Reply to: 1348
I think it depends whether profit is made from using copyrighted material, how much material by a writer is used, and whether a writer is given credit. The use in a course of one or two copied articles by a particular writer does not profit a teacher or a school, and it doesn't seem a significant reliance upon a particular writer's work. If a teacher photocopies these articles for students, I think that should not be considered wrong. Neither should it be wrong for individuals to copy articles from print media or the Internet for private reading. However, obviously it should be illegal to make copies of whole textbooks, to use a writer's copied articles as the basis of a whole course without compensating the writer, to profit from using a writer's material without paying royalties, to use such material without crediting the writer for it, or to claim credit for someone else's written work. I do not mean that educators should be free from all concern about copyright.
Nevertheless, information should be as freely available to people as possible without threatening the livelihoods of writers. Access should not be strictly limited to those who can afford to pay for it. At some point, it is like the Hugh Grant character in "About a Boy" wanting royalties from carol singers every time they sing his father's song. A certain amount of income from written work should be expected from certain sources (e.g., from the sale of print media), but I think it is oppressive to expect income from every use that is made of something.
I also think that writers should be paid higher royalties by publishers and get a greater share of profits from films, but that is another issue.
stefan [2009-09-06 07:50] Comment ID: 2273 Reply to: 19
even as a creator, i think your point is well taken. education is a different ballgame that loading your private mp3 player with music from questionable sources.
still, i would like to know what you consider 'enormous copyright fees'. not being an educator myself, that would probably be qute enlightening for everyone who is reading your comment.