Stationers

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

On Dec 3, I appeared before the House of Common’s Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as part of the statutory review of the Copyright Act. Here is my written testimony: Good afternoon. My name is Ariel Katz. I am a law professor at the University of Toronto, where I hold the Innovation Chair Electronic Commerce. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. In my comments today, I would like to focus on dispelling some of the misinformation about the application of copyright law and fair dealing in the educational sector.

Antitrust / Competition Law, Blog, Copyright, Stationers

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) has requested me to prepare a Report in connection with the application by the FairPlay Coalition to the CRTC and its proposed website-blocking mechanism. PIAC asked me to assess the Applicants’ claims in light of the best available theoretical and empirical evidence. More specifically, to determine whether the academic literature and the Application itself substantiate the alleged harms of piracy and the efficacy and benefits of the proposed website blocking remedy. If you’d like to read my Report, here it is. If you’d like to read only the introduction and the conclusion, keep reading.

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Two weeks ago, Justice Phelan of the Federal Court handed Access Copyright a huge victory in its lawsuit against York University.[1] I have followed the case closely and read the parties’ submissions and I have been constantly concerned that York risked snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened. The good news is that many of the Court’s fundamental findings rest on very loose foundations, that I am confident that York’s loss is only temporary, and that if York appeals the decision and handles the appeal appropriately, most, if not all, of the Court’s major findings …

Access Copyright v. York University: An Anatomy of a Predictable But Avoidable Loss Read more →

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Earlier today, Australia’s Productivity Commission released its long-awaited Inquiry Report on Intellectual Property Arrangements. The Productivity Commission was set up by statute to provide the Australian Government independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues, in order to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community. The lengthy report and its recommendations should be of interest to many readers of this blog. With respect to copyright, one of the Commission’s main areas of study was whether Australia should adopt an open and flexible fair use regime and abandon …

Productivity Commission: Tales of the Widespread Demise of Canadian Publishers are Just That Read more →

Antitrust / Competition Law, Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Tagged with , , , ,

Yesterday, McGill’s Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and I filed a joint Intervener Factum in the CBC v SODRAC case before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court granted us leave to intervene with respect to the question of whether tariffs that the Copyright Board approved can be imposed on users. In the decision below, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) held that a collective management organization (“CMO”) can ask the Board to approve a licensing scheme and then impose it on users. If correct, such users then have no choice other than to deal with the CMO, and must, as …

Why Tariffs Aren’t Mandatory: Now the Factum Read more →

Antitrust / Competition Law, Blog, Copyright, Stationers

Authors Alliance recently joined a coalition of research, science, and education organizations that called on the Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) to withdraw a set of New Model Licenses for purportedly “open access” publishing. Beyond the flaws in those Model Licenses, the STM move raises some potentially serious antitrust issues. In other words, by adopting these set of model licenses and recommending that their members adopt them, STM and its member publishers might have broken the law. This is problematic for authors who write to be read, and who deserve a competitive publishing environment that allows them …

STM’s “Open Access” Licenses: Extend, Embrace, and Extinguish Read more →

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Tagged with ,

On May 29, 2014 the Quill & Quire published an article with the sensational title “Why the loss of Access Copyright royalties could be devastating for educational publishers”, which advances the thesis and leads the reader to the supposedly inescapable conclusion that the decision of many educational institutions to sever their ties with Access Copyright has already wreaked havoc with publishers and will continue to be. This is a second of a series of posts in which why these thesis and conclusions do not hold up to scrutiny.