Carleton students are encouraging the university to take a stand for fair copyright by rejecting a proposed deal with Access Copyright that would increase tuition by $26, according to the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA).
Vice-president (academic) Holly Gilroy said the licensing agreement involves a deal with Access Copyright, a licensing agency that administers copyright licenses for an unknown repertoire of copyrighted works.
In 2010, Access Copyright proposed a new tariff and licensing regime to the Copyright Board of Canada which would raise the per student cost for universities from $3 to $45. Access Copyright later decided to increase the cost by $26.
“No justification for this increase has ever been provided,” Gilroy said.
“Given the increasing use of open access content, material publicly available over the Internet, and direct licensing arrangements between universities and publishers, it would seem reasonable to expect the tariff to decrease.
John Provenzano, a media representative from Access Copyright said via email that the fees cannot be compared, since $26 dollars constitutes a flat rate. This would replace the old $3 fee, which carried an additional 10 cent fee per page for copyrighted works in student coursepacks.
This flat fee would allow university administration to decide how much to charge for coursepacks, including any fees for binding or paper, Provenzano said.
As of Jan. 1, 2011 Carleton chose to no longer be licensed with Access Copyright after the Academic Research Committee of the university approved a Fair Dealing Policy in December 2010, Gilroy said.
This decision has helped Carleton to stand out as a leader and an example for other Canadian universities, said GSA vice-president (internal) Anna Goldfinch.
“Access Copyright licensing agreements have been highly criticized by librarians, academics and students,” Goldfinch said. “Universities have been without copyright agreements for years and things have been fine.”
The GSA has expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal and has openly criticized it.
“This fee makes students pay more and restricts their rights. There are problems of accessibility under . . . proposed legislation . . . that, if passed, could restrict us further because of Access Copyright,” Goldfinch said.
She added that there has been no clear indication of how the fee is administered.
“Cost is going down because things are being dealt with on fair dealing so it is unclear why [Access Copyright] is proposing an increase by burdening students and not explaining where it would go to. Students have the right to demand more information.”
“In addition to increased fees, the proposed Model License contains highly questionable clauses that are both regressive and overreaching. Some of these clauses include prohibiting students and [researchers] from storing and cataloging journal articles, making a person with a library of research materials in violation of the license model,” Gilroy said.
This sentiment was echoed by Nora Loreto, director of communications and government relations for the Canadian Federation of Students.
“There are a lot of unknowns that are raising concern in this proposed deal. There is a real reason for students to be concerned as there is the potential for a fee to increase with no explanation why,” Loreto said.
Given that no deal has been struck yet, the GSA isn’t certain that students will be forced to pay the $26 fee, but it does seem very likely, Gilroy said.
“The university is still considering the issue and is talking to other universities about it,” Steven Reid said via email on behalf of the university.
