Thankyou for that detail. I'll study it and ensure I can use it as my own response to similar such questions I get at work. Regards, Leigh
On 20 Jun 2017 18:47, "Liam Wyatt" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Leigh, > > Here is our campaign website's specific page about education > https://www.faircopyright.org.au/education/ > And this is the specific Fair Use myth busting content on the official > copyright advisory website for Australian schools and TAFEs "smartcopying": > http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/law-reform/fair-use > THAT faircopying website is the the best/most detailed/official answer to > any question on this issue :-) > > My own response: the introduction of Fair Use in Australia would NOT mean > that schools stop paying for the copying of any/all copyrighted content - > nor does the school sector wish to do that. Furthermore, "nor harming the > commercial market for the copyrighted work" is one of the key tests of what > counts as Fair Use. So - for example, kids getting textbooks, or the > showing of copyrighted films in classrooms still would be royalty-creating > activies through the process you describe. We see a lot of well-known > Australian authors saying things like that they'll not get any money from > schools using their books/plays/films but it's not true. > What WOULD change is that things like the use of websites which are > freely/publicly accessible (but still in copyright), the use of free-to-air > broadcasts and the use of Orphan Works would change. These are the kinds of > things that the general public does NOT pay for, but currently the schools > sector DOES. No one is asking for money for these things, and the > collecting agency gets to take a cut. In fact, because no one is following > up on that money, the collecting agency has been able to funnel it into a > lobbying fund: using the schools' own money to fight against changes which > would allow schools to not have to spend money to use free-access (but > in-copyright) websites http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political- > news/copyright-agency-diverts-funds-meant-for-authors-to- > 15m-fighting-fund-20170420-gvol0w.html Personally I find this system, and > that behaviour, utterly contemptible and morally bankrupt. > Meanwhile, and relatedly, we know that the copyright industry is preparing > a response to our campaign trying to say that it/we/me are somehow tainted > with money from google. Straw man personal attacks seem likely to be the > best they can muster as a counter argument...Meanwhile, the next stage is > waiting to see how the Government formally responds to the Productivity > Commission report, due "any time now". > > P.S. the banners are now no-longer showing on WP. The 'email your mp' > fiction and FairCopyright website remain up though. At the moment we are > 123 people short of a satisfactorily round "10,000" so, any late sign ups > are welcome :-) https://www.faircopyright.org.au/take-action/ > p.p.s. My submission to wikimania on this campaign has been accepted, so > we'll be producing some pretty graphs on the stats of pageviews/emails to > MPs etc. > > -Liam > > Il giorno mar 20 giu 2017 alle 02:52 Leigh Blackall < > [email protected]> ha scritto: > >> Hi Liam, thanks for the detailed report. >> >> I have a question relating to the counter arguments you cite. Might this >> lobby find better examples in the education and research space? Currently, >> Australian schools and universities pay royalties for works copied through >> Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), based on periodic audits where CAL comes to >> a campus library, for example, and observes photocopying and other copy >> methods to use as a data sample to configure a general payment rate for >> that school or university for the next period (around 5 years).. how it is >> precisely divided up into royalties to those it is owed I don't know, >> dubious I'd expect. Needless to say, much of what is copied in the >> education sector is educational content, like research, textbook chapters >> etc. I know a few academics who claim royalty checks through CAL, for their >> works that have been copied in a library somewhere. Might Fair Use impact >> on this? So, not so much "artists" but producers of more >> educational-in-nature content might lose their royalties from CAL if Fair >> Use was introduced? >> >> Regards, >> Leigh >> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Liam Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Aussiepedians again, also crossposting to the Public Policy group, >>> >>> TL;DR summary: Australia Fair Use campaign on Wikipedia will stop on >>> Monday; Australians encouraged to send a letter to their MP (and bring our >>> total over 10,000) here: https://www.faircopyright.org. >>> au/take-action/#emailform >>> >>> As we reach the end of the #FairCopyrightOz campaign (banners on en.wp >>> in Australia raising awareness of the Productivity Commission's >>> recommendation to introduce Fair Use to Australia) I wanted to give an >>> update and request: >>> >>> - Thanks to the diligent A/B-testing work of Seddon at the WMF, the >>> total clickthrough rate of the banners has remained steady, even while the >>> actual visibility of them has been decreased. They started at standard >>> banner-size visible at 50% on day 1, then steadily decreasing to 12% with >>> smaller banner-size, and also removing the 1 week cookie-timeout - so >>> people would only see 5 banners and then it would stop. So, we've managed >>> (in my opinion) to be simultaneously very visible but also non-disruptive). >>> >>> - Choice Australia (a very respected consumer rights organisation - >>> equivalent of the USA's 'Consumer Reports'), which ran an equivalent >>> campaign several years ago (the last time Fair Use was recommended by a >>> gov't inquiry) has now sent an email to their mailing list cross-promoting >>> ours. They are thereby endorsing our campaign - which gives a great boost >>> of credibility too. (Linux Australia has also cross-promoted to their >>> members, as has the NSW education sector). >>> >>> - We are just about to reach 8,000 people who have sent an email >>> directly to their local member of the federal parliament (and also their 12 >>> state senators). This equals over 100,000 emails sent to elected >>> representatives on the issue of promoting Fair Use as something that the >>> general public cares about. On an electorate-by-electorate breakdown it is >>> the inner-city of the State Capitals which are the most engaged by the >>> issue. We know we've got their attention because several politicians are >>> sending reply emails to their constituents that are written the same as >>> each other - meaning that they've taken the time to draft a response from >>> their party's position and distribute the same text it among their MPs >>> (which also means they're talking about us). >>> >>> - The final day of the banners on WP will be Monday. We are hoping to >>> break the 10,000 mark of people emailing their MPs. *If you've not >>> already: Go here, put in your postcode, adjust the template email if you >>> wish, and send! https://www.faircopyright.org.au/take-action/#emailform >>> <https://www.faircopyright.org.au/take-action/#emailform> * >>> >>> - There have been several other media mentions and blogposts from allied >>> groups (such as EFF, Creative Commons) which we've been compiling here: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FairCopyrightOz#Campaign_Report >>> >>> - ADA / EFA have been able to book many meetings with the relevant >>> members of parliament/senators responsible for this issue over the next >>> week. This is where the public advocacy turns more quiet, as we talk with >>> MPs and await the Government's overdue official reply to the Productivity >>> Commission report. Then, depending on what they say, the other parties will >>> make their positions known... Unsurprisingly, the Copyright industry is >>> also lobbying but they seem to have been taken by surprise by our campaign, >>> since all they've managed to say in reply is that we're stooges of "big >>> tech/Google" and that Wikipedia is already free-licensed (which are pretty >>> obvious misdirection/straw man arguments) and to repeat the claim that Fair >>> Use will mean Aussie artists will stop getting royalties - despite not >>> demonstrating a single example of a royalty currently being paid for which >>> would stop; nor acknowledging that 'not harming the commercial rights of >>> the artist' is a key test for what counts as 'fair'. >>> >>> Yours in Copyrighteousness, >>> -Liam / Wittylama >>> >>> p.s. Also this week in Australian copyright law, the federal parliament >>> approved a longstanding bill which enshrines disability access in >>> accordance with our obligation under the *Marrakesh Treaty for the >>> Blind and Vision Impaired*. There's also some great stuff in there for >>> GLAMs. You can read about this on the EFA's press statement: >>> https://www.efa.org.au/2017/06/15/copyright-amendment-bill/ or the >>> ADA's: http://digital.org.au/media/australia-leads-disability- >>> access-thanks-copyright-changes >>> So that's pretty damn cool too! >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Leigh Blackall <http://about.me/leighblackall> >> +61(0)404561009 <+61%20404%20561%20009> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> > -- > wittylama.com > Peace, love & metadata > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
