Michael Geist Blog

York University Will Not Sign The Access Copyright Model Licence

Michael Geist — Wed, 30 May 2012 08:30:45 +0100

York University has become the latest university to announce that it will not sign the Access Copyright model licence negotiated by AUCC. The announcement came on the same day that Access Copyright unveiled a model licence with the Association of Community Colleges of Canada (ACCC) for $10 per student, far below the $26 student fee negotiated by AUCC.

Dutch Parliament Votes Against ACTA Ratification

Michael Geist — Wed, 30 May 2012 08:24:29 +0100

The Dutch Parliament has voted against ratifying the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, reaching its decision without waiting for the outcome of the upcoming European Parliament vote.

Access Copyright's Diminishing Repertoire: Why a Growing Repertoire Offers Decreasing Value

Michael Geist — Tue, 29 May 2012 08:51:10 +0100

As Canadian universities continue to debate whether to sign the Access Copyright model licence, one of the copyright collective's chief arguments in favour of the deal is access to what it describes as "an ever-growing repertoire of books, journals, newspapers, etc.". Yet the reality is that while the number of works within the repertoire may be growing, the works being copied under the Access Copyright licence is almost certainly declining, thereby diminishing its value for potential licensees, such as universities.

How is this possible when the relative size of the Access Copyright repertoire keeps growing?

There are two reasons. First, Section 20 of the model licence makes it clear that it only kicks in if the use of the work does not otherwise fall within an exception under the Copyright Act or is subject to alternate licensing arrangement, such as database site licences or open access. As I argued in my post on why universities should not sign the licence, these alternatives represent a growing percentage of copying that takes place within universities. Moreover, once Bill C-11 becomes law, the percentage will grow further as the education-specific exceptions take effect.

Given the trajectory of open access growth, the continual growth of materials available through site licences, and posting of materials online (subject to a Bill C-11 exception), newer materials frequently fall outside the Access Copyright licence. In other words, the size of the Access Copyright repertoire may be growing, but a sizable percentage of the new works are available through alternative means and therefore do not require an Access Copyright licence.

The one area where the Access Copyright licence might theoretically offer some value would be for older materials that are not readily available in digital form (and not typically available under open access or site licences). But according to Access Copyright itself, older works are not likely to be copied under its licences. In its 2012 Payback FAQ to authors, the collective asks authors to only list works published within the last 20 years, noting:

Q. Why are you only asking for works published within the last 20 years?

A. Our statistical analysis of copying data shows that works published more than 20 years ago are unlikely to be copied under our licences.

This admission from Access Copyright shows how its repertoire is declining in value for licensees even as its size increases. A growing percentage of newer materials are available by alternative means, while the older materials may not be subject to an alternate licence, but they are unlikely to be copied. Over the coming years, the Access Copyright squeeze is only going to grow as the entire repertoire of materials likely to be copied - the materials published within the last 20 years - are all published in the digital/Internet era and available through alternative means. This unfolding scenario helps explain why Access Copyright jumped at the chance for a huge increase in fees that come with the model licence and why it is the wrong deal at the wrong time for universities.

European ACTA Negotiation Documents Leak

Michael Geist — Tue, 29 May 2012 08:44:13 +0100

EDRi has posted four unredacted ACTA documents that provide insight into four of the ACTA negotiation rounds - Paris, Rabat, Seoul, and Guadalajara. The documents highlight the disagreement over ACTA transparency and concerns with the U.S. position on the Internet chapter.

Conclusion of Copyright Debate Leaves Many What Ifs...

Michael Geist — Mon, 28 May 2012 08:40:04 +0100

The decade-long Canadian copyright reform debate is nearing a conclusion as the government is slated to hold the third and final reading for Bill C-11 this week. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that with a majority in both the House of Commons and Senate, the Conservatives are likely to pass the bill before Parliament takes a break for the summer.

The imminent passage of the bill is already being heralded as win for creators, consumers, and businesses. There is certainly much to like - expanded fair dealing, new consumer exceptions, caps on liability to prevent multi-million dollar lawsuits against consumers, and a balanced approach to liability for Internet providers among them. Moreover, the rejection of draconian provisions demanded by some lobby groups such as website blocking or penalizing Internet users with threats of lost access is a positive development.

Yet for many copyright watchers, the bill falls just short, providing a classic example of what could have been…

What if the government had not rejected concerns from groups representing the blind, who warned that the bill's digital lock rules will make it more difficult for Canadians with perceptual disabilities to access digital content?

What if the government had not rejected requests from leading cable companies such as Rogers and Shaw, who fear that the bill will block their ability to introduce network PVRs into the Canadian market and restrict innovative cloud-based computer services?

What if the government had not rejected requests from the Documentary Organization of Canada for a specific digital lock exception for documentary film making, given that U.S. film makers benefit from such an exception and that Canadians will be placed at a competitive disadvantage?

What if the government had not rejected requests from many Canadian library associations, who argued that new digital inter-library loans provisions are unusable in light of requirements to establish onerous restrictions limiting the use of works?

What if the government had not rejected proposed amendments from NDP, Liberal and Green Party MPs to add flexibility to the digital lock rules so that concerns that the approach trumps fair dealing and education rights could be addressed?

What if the government had not rejected concerns from teachers, who lamented new distance learning provisions that include requirements to destroy lessons 30 days after a course concludes?

What if the government had followed the lead of innovative economies such as South Korea and Israel, which both recently adopted U.S.-style fair use rules that are often credited with forming the copyright engine behind cutting-edge business models?

What if the government had not rejected an amendment to require labeling of digital locks so that consumers would have advance warning of the restrictions that come with the products they purchase?

What if the government had not rejected a proposal from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences to eliminate crown copyright and give a boost to its open government data initiative?

What if the government had not rejected a plan raised by Project Gutenberg to create a legal safe harbour provision for the use of works where the copyright owner is unknown, thereby increasing digitization of Canadian materials?

What if the government had not rejected the advice of provincial ministers of education who called for an expansion of fair dealing to cover copies for classroom use as is the case in the U.S.?

What if the government had not rejected the Retail Council of Canada's recommendation to eliminate the iPod tax and thus avoid a hearing later this year on extending the private copying levy to microSD cards?

No bill is ever perfect and Bill C-11 is no exception. Yet as the government touts its success in navigating the challenging copyright waters to pass a bill after multiple false starts, it might temper its enthusiasm by recognizing that provisions that lock out the blind, create disadvantageous barriers for creators and educators, and stifle innovation are not a cause for celebration.

Industry Canada Publishes Study on WiFi and Radio Frequency Exposure

Michael Geist — Mon, 28 May 2012 08:38:00 +0100

Industry Canada has quietly published a study measuring radio frequency exposure from WiFi devices. The study finds that exposure rates are many times lower than recommended levels by Health Canada.

The Government's "10,000 Consultations" on Copyright

Michael Geist — Fri, 25 May 2012 08:50:49 +0100

Last week's House of Commons copyright debate on Bill C-11 included a curious comment from Industry Minister Christian Paradis, who, in trying to demonstrate the amount of debate that went into the bill, stated that "more than 10,000 consultations have been held across Canada." The "10,000 consultations" claim made it onto the Hill Times front page article on the bill titled "House Set to Pass Controversial Copyright Bill Next Week, After 10,000 Consultations."

The problem with the "10,000 consultations" claim is that it isn't entirely accurate. Paradis is likely combining the total responses to the 2009 copyright consultation (just over 8,300) with submissions or witnesses to the Bill C-32/C-11 legislative committees (roughly 300). Throw in the two town hall meetings and private meetings with stakeholders and you might come close to 10,000. However, if Paradis is relying on comments and submissions from the public to the government, the 10,000 figure massively understates the public response. During the same debate, Liberal MP Geoff Regan indicated that his office received over 80,000 emailed submissions over the past several months alone. Three weeks after the introduction of Bill C-61, Industry Canada received tens of thousands of actual letters. When you combine the additional MP meetings, thousands of letters and emails to MPs, the number of submissions on this copyright bill is at least 10 times the Paradis estimate.

More relevant is the content of those submissions. As part of the 2009 copyright consultation, opposition to the digital lock approach found in Bill C-61 was the number one issue, yet the government rejected the views of thousands of Canadians who called for a more balanced, flexible approach. Similarly, the Bill C-32/C-11 committee consistently heard from business groups, creator associations, consumer groups, and education representatives, who all opposed the digital lock approach in the bill. More recently, Regan told the House of Commons that the most of the 80,000 emailed submissions also opposed the digital lock approach.

Given the consistent opposition to the digital lock approach, both the NDP and Liberals proposed numerous amendments to the digital lock rules, all of which were defeated. Those were followed by further digital lock amendments proposed by the Green Party's Elizabeth May, which were also defeated.

Paradis and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore (who in the same Hill Times article is quoted as inaccurately saying that Canadian copyright has not been changed for 22 years) may point to the large number of Canadians that participated in the copyright debate over the past few years, but it is more accurate to acknowledge the large number of Canadians whose views the government rejected in adopting a digital lock approach in which the voice of one consultation - that with the United States - proved more influential than anything tens of thousands of Canadians had to say.

India Passes Digital Lock Rules That Link Circumvention to Copyright Infringement

Michael Geist — Fri, 25 May 2012 08:48:18 +0100

India's two Houses of Parliament passed copyright reform legislation this month that includes digital lock provisions. The Indian approach is very similar to what dozens of groups recommended for Canada as it links circumvention to copyright infringement. The new Indian digital lock rules state:

65A. (1) Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from,—

(a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:

Pranesh Prakash offers detailed analysis of the bill and the digital lock provisions.

Why Universities Should Not Sign the Access Copyright - AUCC Model Licence

Michael Geist — Thu, 24 May 2012 05:19:14 +0100

Copyright has emerged as a hot issue on Canadian university campuses in recent weeks as schools consider whether to sign the Access Copyright model licence negotiated with the AUCC. Several schools, including UBC, Athabasca, Windsor, and Winnipeg have already indicated that they will not sign the licence, while others (such as Queen's, Victoria and Calgary) have reluctantly signed the letter of intent. Many groups have voiced their strong objection to the licence, including the CAUT, APLA, BCLA, MLA, CFS, and CASA. These groups represent faculty, students, and librarians - the three groups within education most affected by the model licence.

Last week, I was asked by the Association of Professors Ottawa, the University of Ottawa faculty union, for my views. I opened my remarks by emphasizing a key misconception often fueled by Access Copyright and its supporters. The question being faced by the universities is not whether to pay for copyright works. Universities, faculty and students currently spend millions of dollars every year on copyright materials and will continue to do so. The only question is whether - in addition to existing expenditures on books, licences, and in support of open access - they should also pay the $26 per student fee to Access Copyright.

I believe the answer is no for the following six key reasons:

1.   The Licence is Unnecessary

As many have pointed out, the universities already pay for access to a wide range of materials that likely cover the majority of copyrighted materials used on campus. Campus wide electronic database licences offer access to thousands of journals and electronic books that can be incorporated directly into electronic coursepacks. Universities pay millions of dollars for these licences with the money flowing to database companies, publishers, and authors. For example, last year the Canadian Research Knowledge Network alone spent over $96 million in content licences that offer access to millions of articles to 900,000 students and researchers at 75 universities across the country.

Moreover, open access licensing, where research publications are freely available online, constitutes a growing percentage of published research (some estimate it at 30 percent of all scholarly research), with thousands of open access journals and hundreds of thousands of articles posted directly by the researchers themselves. As Cory Doctorow might say, there will never be less work available under open access than there is today.

Add public domain works, fair dealing, hundreds of millions spent on textbooks, and pay-per-use licences for the remaining works and an Access Copyright licence simply becomes unnecessary.

2.   The Licence Does Not Adequately Account for Bill C-11

One of the primary concerns with the Access Copyright model licence is the failure to account for forthcoming changes to Canadian copyright law under Bill C-11. The bill seems likely to become law by the summer and it includes several important provisions for Canadian education institutions.

First, the expansion of fair dealing to include a new category of education expands the scope of permitted copying without the need for permission or compensation. While the new education category will not mean that all copying on university campuses is covered by fair dealing (as some in the publishing community have misleadingly claimed), it will obviously include some educational copying that may not have been covered by research or private study.

Second, the inclusion of an exception for publicly available materials on the Internet covers the content found on millions of websites that can now be communicated and reproduced by educational institutions without the need for permission or compensation. The provision states:

30.04 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), it is not an infringement of copyright for an educational institution, or a person acting under the authority of one, to do any of the following acts for educational or training purposes in respect of a work or other subject-matter that is available through the Internet:

(a) reproduce it;
(b) communicate it to the public by telecommunication, if that public primarily consists of students of the educational institution or other persons acting under its authority;
(c) perform it in public, if that public primarily consists of students of the educational institution or other persons acting under its authority; or
(d) do any other act that is necessary for the purpose of the acts referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c).

The subsections that follow create several conditions, including attribution, the absence of a digital lock, and the absence of a clear opt-out notification (that is more than just a copyright notice). As I noted in an earlier post, this provision is certainly applicable to linking to online content and will also cover many other online materials used in the classroom.

Third, the non-commercial user generated content provision may also prove relevant for some electronic casebooks that incorporate materials to create a new work for non-commercial purposes. The UGC provision (Section 29.21) includes four conditions including an analysis of "substantial adverse effect", but the provision may allow for the development of new materials where the evidence suggests that the new works do not substantially adversely affect the original works.

Fourth, the bill establishes a technology-neutral approach for the reproduction of materials for display purposes. The current law is limited to manual reproduction or on an overhead projector. With Bill C-11, the provision applies to any display technology:

It is not an infringement of copyright for an educational institution or a person acting under its authority for the purposes of education or training on its premises to reproduce a work, or do any other necessary act, in order to display it.

There are limits to this exception (it applies where the work is not commercially available in a medium that is appropriate for the purpose referred to in the exception), but it still may cover uses that Access Copyright would prefer to licence. For example, concerns about the inclusion of copyright-materials in powerpoint presentations may be covered by the new display provision.

Fifth, the digital inter-library loans provision, while restrictive, will open the door to digital transmission of materials on an inter-library basis, increasing access to materials that have been acquired by university libraries.

Sixth, the bill features changes to the statutory damages provision that decrease the risk of significant liability for educational institutions. Those changes are discussed further below.

All of these provisions represent significant changes in the law that provide new rights for education, yet the model licence seemingly acts is if they do not exist.

3.   The Legal Risk of Not Signing is Limited

The University of Victoria notes in its announcement that it is reluctantly signing the model licence stating "the decision to opt into the license was taken reluctantly as a strategy to mitigate the risk of litigation by Access Copyright in the immediate future." Yet the legal risk is already very limited. First, the Supreme Court of Canada's CCH decision, still the leading decision on fair dealing, speaks of the need for a "large and liberal" interpretation to fair dealing categories such as research "to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained." Fair dealing certainly provides considerable latitude for copying at Canadian universities and would be the first line of defence against a claim of infringement. Indeed, the recent Georgia State University fair use case in the United States demonstrates how user rights/copyright exceptions can be used as an effective defense against many claims of infringement (Ariel Katz argues that Canadian defences would be even stronger than those in the U.S.).

Second, there remain considerable doubts about the Access Copyright repertoire, both with respect to its scope and the need for evidence of copyright ownership or rights in specific works. Access Copyright is viewed by many as vulnerable on both of these fronts, creating significant legal risk for the collective should it choose to pursue litigation against a university operating outside the model licence.

Third, Bill C-11's statutory damages reforms limit the potential liability for non-commercial infringement. The bill will establish a cap of $5,000 maximum for all infringements involved "if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes." Given the non-commercial status of educational institutions and the absence of any profit motive in these cases, the new statutory damages cap may be applicable. While Access Copyright could seek actual damages, the Georgia State University case demonstrates that actual damages may be even lower in many cases.

Fourth, concerns that universities will offload copyright liability onto faculty are unfounded. Universities rightly advise faculty to follow appropriate copyright guidelines to ensure that their policies are consistent with the law. However, should a faculty member overreach with their copying practices, it is incredibly unlikely that they will face a lawsuit (and even if they did, litigation insurance would cover the costs). The copying involved would be so small that there simply are insufficient damages to justify a lawsuit. Consider a faculty member that makes 50 or 100 copies of an article for their students. Leaving aside all the available exceptions, the damages from the copying would be tiny (capped at $5000 but likely to be much, much less). Given the legal costs and risks associated with losing such a suit (imagine a court ruling that education under fair dealing covered those classroom copies), these are lawsuits that will not happen.

While none of this suggests that universities can simply copy what they like without addressing the issue of permissions (they clearly cannot), assuming a university has developed an appropriate copyright policy as well as invested in site licences and the necessary copyright clearances, the risk of liability should Access Copyright sue is limited.

4.   The Licence is Inequitable

The Access Copyright decision to blend two separate fees into one creates significant inequalities among students. At the moment, all students pay $3.38 annually to cover general copying on campus (the interim tariff) and an additional 10 cents per page for coursepacks. The new licence establishes a single fee of $26 per student. This creates a huge jump in costs for the majority of students. The majority of faculties - sciences, law, health, medicine, dentistry, and engineering - make very little use of the Access Copyright licence for coursepacks since their materials are typically either texts, available under open access, or can be accessed through alternative licensed databases (as is the case in law).

For those students, the only fee they currently pay is the $3.38 per year. If their university signs the model licence, they will be paying $26 next year for next to nothing. The incidental or general copying is almost certainly covered by fair dealing and these students don't use coursepacks with materials necessitating an Access Copyright licence. It is inequitable to compel these students to pay additional fees with no value in return, particularly as some of these students already pay the highest student fees on campus.

5.   The Licence is Harmful

Some institutions may believe signing the agreement is the best way to limit their legal risk, yet the reality is that the licence is not neutral in the sense that it simply results in higher fees for students (or costs for the institution) in return for reduced legal liability. The model licence is harmful in two important respects. First, as CAUT has pointed out, the licence contains very problematic language that raises the prospect of surveillance as well as restraints on scholarly communication, use of scholarly materials, and use of modern technologies.

Second, providing Access Copyright with millions in additional funds that may not be necessary will serve to undermine educational concerns in current and future copyright reform. During the Bill C-32/C-11 debate, Access Copyright was the leading opponent of educational interests, opposing virtually all educational exceptions in the bill. In fact, Access Copyright spent millions last year (over 30% of its licensing revenues) on Copyright Board applications and professional fees, including lobbying on Bill C-11. When universities provide a windfall of millions to Access Copyright, much of that money is funneled toward advocacy opposing education concerns.

6.   The Licence Hurts Long Term Education

As I discussed in a column last week, the emerging education model flips the current approach of expensive textbooks, closed research, and limited access to classroom-based learning on its head, instead featuring open course materials, open access to scholarly research, and Internet-based courses that can simultaneously accommodate thousands of students. Over the past year, dozens of universities have spent thousands of dollars in shifting toward a more open approach by investing in open access and open educational resources.

The University of Victoria claims that it will continue that effort so that it can adopt an open access approach in 2015. Yet many universities signing the Access Copyright model licence will simply write-off the recent investments, particularly given the huge increase in costs they will face. The long-term impact on those schools will be significant. Rather than focusing on open materials and greater flexibility for faculty and students, they will lock into the Access Copyright model of high fees and limited rights to use course materials. As a model for the future, the model licence is a major step backward.

The Secret Lawful Access Regs: What the Gov Told the Telcos While Keeping the Public in the Dark

Michael Geist — Wed, 23 May 2012 08:31:19 +0100

My post yesterday on a secret government - telecom lawful access working group attracted considerable attention with many understandably focused on the revelations that virtually all major Canadian telecom companies (with the notable exception of Shaw) actively worked with the government for months on lawful access legislation. Yet perhaps the most important document is a lawful access regulations policy document that offered guidance on plans for the extensive regulations that will ultimately accompany the Internet surveillance legislation. The specific document obtained under Access to Information is dated October 2010 and was created to support an earlier version of the lawful access bill. However, the same government documents indicate that the policy document was provided to telecom providers last fall, including disclosure to the Canadian Network Operators Consortium in December 2011 after CNOC was at an event a month earlier with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and expressed support for the lawful access bill.

The regulations policy document are not the regulations per se, but rather a clear indication of planned regulations under the guise of a policy document. The document contains several key sections:

The Interception Regulations, including specific details on interception capabilities (as many as 200 simultaneous interceptions), response time to interception requests (30 minutes for remote interceptions), confidentiality requirements, transmission capabilities (real time transmission of intercepted communications), and delivery of intercepted communications.
The Interception Equipment Regulations, including very specific capabilities for simultaneous interceptions including multiple targets and providing intercepted communications to up to five different agencies at the same time. These regulations also identify requirements on service providers to increase their capacity (up to five business days).
The Subscriber Information Disclosure Regulations, including the form to be used to request subscriber information (which can come from police, the Competition Bureau, or CSIS). These also discuss the concept of law enforcement providing at least one identifier (ie. a name, email address or IP address) in order to receive the other corresponding subscriber information. There are also confidentiality requirements and details on telecom provider record keeping. The regulations also identify timing requirements for disclosure, typically within two business days but within 30 minutes in exceptional circumstances.
The Other Obligations Regulations, including location information disclosures that may require telecom companies to disclose location information such as street address, longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates or cell site. It is not clear whether such information would require a warrant. These regulations also will provide details on assisting law enforcement in testing equipment, the special rules for smaller providers, and categories for administrative monetary penalties for failing to comply with the law.
The Payment to Providers Regulations identify when telecom providers will be compensated by law enforcement. These include (1) complying with a Ministerial Order to obtain equipment, software, or to modify existing equipment; (2) provide telecom support related to interceptions; and (3) providing subscriber information.

While the actual regulations may change, it is shocking that Public Safety has provided this information to dozens of companies but kept it secret from the Canadian public. The secrecy associated with the lawful access initiative certainly further undermines trust in Bill C-30 and highlights the need to scrap the bill and the two-tier policy process and start from scratch.

How Canada's Telecom Companies Have Secretly Supported Internet Surveillance Legislation

Michael Geist — Tue, 22 May 2012 05:30:26 +0100

Canada's proposed Internet surveillance was back in the news last week after speculation grew that government intends to keep the bill in legislative limbo until it dies on the order paper. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews denied the reports, maintaining that Bill C-30 will still be sent to committee for further study.

Since its introduction in mid-February, the privacy and law enforcement communities have continued to express their views on the bill, but Canada's telecom service providers, which include the major telecom carriers and Internet service providers, have remained strangely silent. The silence is surprising given the enormous implications of the bill for the privacy of their customers and the possibility of millions of dollars in new surveillance equipment costs, active cooperation with law enforcement, and employee background checks.

While some attribute the Internet surveillance silence to an attempt to avoid picking sides in the high stakes privacy and security battle, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act offer a different, more troubling explanation. My weekly technology law column notes (Toronto Star version, homepage version) in the months leading up to the introduction Bill C-30, Canada's telecom companies worked actively with government officials to identify key issues and to develop a secret Industry - Government Collaborative Forum on Lawful Access.

The secret working group includes virtually all the major telecom and cable companies, whose representatives have been granted Government of Canada Secret level security clearance and signed non-disclosure agreements. The group is led by Bell Canada on the industry side and Public Safety for the government.

The inaugural meeting, held just three weeks before Bill C-30 was introduced, included invitations to eleven companies (Bell Canada, Cogeco, Eagle, MTS Allstream, Quebecor, Research In Motion, Rogers, Sasktel, Telus, Vidéotron, and Wind Mobile) along with two industry associations (the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and the Canadian Network Operators Consortium).

The secret working group is designed to create an open channel for discussion between telecom providers and government. As the uproar over Bill C-30 was generating front-page news across the country, Bell reached out to government to indicate that "it was working its way through C-30 with great interest" and expressed desire for a meeting to discuss disclosure of subscriber information. A few weeks later, it sent another request seeking details on equipment obligations to assist in its costing exercises.

Months before the January 2012 meeting, officials worked with the telecom companies to identify many concerns and provide guidance on the government's intent on Internet surveillance regulations, information that has never been publicly released.

For example, a December 2011 draft list of lawful access issues features questions about surveillance of social networks, cloud computing facilities, and Wi-Fi networks. The telecom companies raise many questions about compensation, such as "a formula for adequate compensation" for the disclosure of subscriber information as well as payment for testing surveillance capabilities and providing surveillance assistance.

At a September 2011 meeting that included Bell Canada, Cogeco, RIM, Telus, Rogers, Microsoft, and the Information Technology Association of Canada, government officials provided a lawful access regulations policy document that offered guidance on plans for extensive regulations that will ultimately accompany the Internet surveillance legislation.

The 17-page document indicates that providers will be required to disclose certain subscriber information without a warrant within 48 hours and within 30 minutes in exceptional circumstances. Interceptions of communications may also need to be established within 30 minutes of a request with capabilities that include simultaneous interceptions for five law enforcement agencies.

The close cooperation between the government and telecom providers has created a two-tier approach to Internet surveillance policy, granting privileged access and information for telecom providers. Meanwhile, privacy and civil society groups, opposition MPs, and millions of interested Canadians are kept in the dark about the full extent of the government's plans. The public has already indicated its opposition to the bill. The secrecy and backroom industry talks associated with Bill C-30 provides yet another reason to hit the reset button.

Athabasca, Winnipeg, & Windsor Will Not Sign Access Copyright Model Licence

Michael Geist — Tue, 22 May 2012 05:27:05 +0100

Following UBC's announcement that it will not sign the Access Copyright model licence, three additional universities have followed suit - Athabasca, Windsor, and Winnipeg. The four universities demonstrate that the licence raises concerns in all types of universites - big, medium, small and distance-focused.

European Union Set To Provide 80 Billion Euro Boost to Open Access

Michael Geist — Tue, 22 May 2012 05:24:38 +0100

Reports indicate that the European Union is set to provide an 80 billion euro boost to open access by making open access publishing the norm for its Horizon 2020 research program.

Romania Will Not Ratify ACTA

Michael Geist — Tue, 22 May 2012 05:22:09 +0100

Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta says his country will not ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement unless the European Parliament modifies the agreement. Since the EP does not have the power to amend ACTA, that makes ratification unlikely.

Exporting Copyright: Inside the TPP

Michael Geist — Fri, 18 May 2012 10:01:47 +0100

Ars Technica has a good article on the Trans Pacific Partnership and the copyright concerns raised by the proposed agreement.