Point: The University of Waterloo Should Accept the Access Copyright Deal

For a number of years, the University of Waterloo has negotiated a copyright license with Access Copyright as a member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). This license costs approximately three dollars per full-time equivalent (FTE) with an additional ten cents per page in printed courseware, and entitled the university access to a database of copyrighted materials without needing to acquire proper permissions from or pay royalties to the author(s) directly. In addition, lists of material not available for copy, and quotas regarding those that were could be, can be found in many locations, including online. Through this process, the use of copyrighted material was simplified as much as possible.

However, after December 2010, our last agreement expired, and Access Copyright proposed a new license priced at forty-five dollars per FTE. This rejected by many involved institutions, including the University of Waterloo. Because an appropriate agreement was not made prior to the start of this past fall term, university dealings with Access Copyright were closed at the end of last August.

Since then a subsequent compromise has been penned between Access Copyright and the AUCC which would entail the following a rate of twenty-six dollars per FTE. While this deal was considered by the university, it was ultimately rejected on June 8, following an extensive FEDS campaign against the deal. As a result, the university library staff will need to acquire the proper permissions needed to conduct all classes and research at the school.

While the deal with Access Copyright was far from perfect, the alternative we must face as a school is not ideal either. It has been argued that all permissions needed since September have cost approximately a hundred thousand dollars to acquire, but a licensing deal with Access Copyright would have cost more than seven times that amount. Though this gap in values seems incomprehensible, it is also doubtful that it accounts for the additional effort spent by library staff obtaining these individual agreements from individual authors and publishers, an endeavour which is quite time consuming.

It was also noted that with the introduction of Bill C-11, educational institutions like the University of Waterloo would be granted greater flexibility with respect to copyrighted materials for the purposes of teaching, and therefore certain provisions within the offer from Access Copyright would be unnecessary. But although the bill does boast education-centric aspects, its primary purpose is to amend copyright privileges in the digital world with respect to national and international development. This includes provisions such as granting legal protection to businesses choosing employ technological protective measures (‘digital locks’) to their works, essentially increasing the presence of copyrighted material online. If Bill C-11 is passed, online resources may become more restricted without the acquisition of copyright permissions.

There were further clauses within the agreement which would grant Access Copyright the ability to monitor copying activities on campus and to prevent articles from being indexed or shared with anyone not affiliated with the University of Waterloo. While such rules do invoke a kind of ‘Big Brother’ feel, is it really that unreasonable? What is ultimately being asked is the ability to ensure that copyrighted resources are being utilized in the manner allowed by the owners, to whom Access Copyright is responsible. And assuming Bill C-11 is passed, appropriate copying methods will change with the nature of Canadian copyright law, undergoing a few fundamental changes. All that is sought through these clauses is assurance that unlawful access and copying practices be avoided through a co-operative effort, not the right or ability to interfere with school and student productivity.

Another valid concern regarding the deal with Access Copyright is the dynamic nature of Canadian copyright law itself. The argument that it is unwise to enter a long-term agreement for the usage of copyrighted materials when the legal duties associated with the act could be subjected to change in the very near future. However, that is when it becomes most beneficial to have a licensing agreement in place. When the laws regarding the usage of copyrighted materials are unclear, it is best to be absolutely sure they are closely followed. While this assurance may mean some provisions in the Access Copyright agreement are ultimately unneeded, it will insure that all copyrighted materials presented as study aids are properly accounted for.

The tragedy in the University of Waterloo’s rejection of Access Copyright’s deal is the absence of a counter-proposal. While I can admit that the suggestions presented by Access Copyright as flawed, I still feel that it would be preferable to relieve the university and its staff of the stress which accompanies the need to procure all the copyright permissions required by an institution of our size. Even with the concerns presented by faculty and students, our rejection of the deal leaves us with this large and tedious responsibility. And while the faculty and library staff have done an admirable job of arranging for the school’s copying needs, the job may be subjected to significant increases in coming years. So why aren’t we countering?