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" <liamwy...@gmail.com> 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 <
> leighblack...@gmail.com> 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 <liamwy...@gmail.com> 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
>>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> 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
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
> --
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to