Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - copyright law and educational settings

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Thu May 01, 2003 8:46 pm Post subject:

Copyright laws are suspended when a copyrighted material is to be used in an educational setting.

The Lemon

Joined: 11 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 12:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

Incorrect.

Had you ever taught in a public school in North America, you'd know that school boards are hyper-aware of the problems related to the use of copyrighted material in classes. School boards are frequently found liable for unauthorized copying of textbooks, test materials, sheet music and other protected material. Most photocopiers in schools are located next to school board-mandated posted warnings.

It shouldn't be this way, but it is. Saying otherwise is patently false.

Lemon.
(15 Year Member of SOCAN - Canada's copyright and performer rights organization)

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 6:21 am Post subject:

The Lemon wrote:

Incorrect.

blah blah blah I CAN'T READ blah blah blah

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38008.html#section-29.4

Quote:

(2) It is not an infringement of copyright for an educational institution or a person acting under its authority to

(a) reproduce, translate or perform in public on the premises of the educational institution,

Just one of many examples in the act that clearly state that education is exempt from copyright. It even has examples relating to using sheet music for public performances.

Quote:

(15 Year Member of SOCAN - Canada's copyright and performer rights organization)

SOCAN claims a lot of things. Hell, they claimed I owed them $250 a year because I was giving public performances of copyrighted material in my store, and that if I failed to pay immediately they would file a civil suit against me. Luckily though, I was planning to become a lawyer at one time before I ended up at IBM. I dusted off the law books and outlawyered the lawyer they had.

Gord 1 - SOCAN 0.

The Lemon

Joined: 11 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 6:47 am Post subject:

Mr. Gord:

What happens after the comma in the citation you provided? I'll show you:

Quote:

reproduce, translate or perform in public on the premises of the educational institution,....
a work or other subject-matter as required for a test or examination.

Even in the case of tests, if a company is selling material to be used explicitly for tests, that material is protected according to subsection 3.

And in the paragraph above the one you quoted, photocopies of copyrighted material for instruction (non-test) is forbidden. Only one-off display copies (flipcharts, overhead projectors) are allowed. You missed that?

There are two options here:
1. You misread it. Not sure how - it's pretty easy to follow.
2. You're trying to BS us because you've been proved wrong.

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 7:50 am Post subject:

The Lemon wrote:

Mr. Gord:

What happens after the comma in the citation you provided? I'll show you:

You believe that the last sentence refers to something to be directly quoted on a test in due haste. I believe that it simply refers to something that at a later will will be covered in a test.

As it is written, there is no time limit nor does it cite that a direct quotation will be required, thus my conclusion would be the correct one.

Quote:

Even in the case of tests, if a company is selling material to be used explicitly for tests, that material is protected according to subsection 3.

That's lovely. Now let's run with the ball for a minute. Let's say we copy two references from a book to be used later in a test. OH WAIT! We can't very well qualify that under section 3 under "a medium that is appropiate for the purpose...". That refers to duplication of the bulk of a copyrighted test, not selected components.

Quote:

And in the paragraph above the one you quoted, photocopies of copyrighted material for instruction (non-test) is forbidden.

What?

Care to go back and read it again please. The section above what I quoted, section 29.4(1), only refers to copying of material for use in a public display for many to see. It says nothing about prohibitions but speaks only of permissions.

Quote:

one-off display copies (flipcharts, overhead projectors) are allowed. You missed that?

That's lovely. I'm touched. I also had a lovely dinner, and just as relevant to the subject at hand. Surely you are not suggesting that if something is specifically not listed as permissable in this one particular passage you have chosen to quote that we are to conclude an act is prohibited.

Quote:

There are two options here:
1. You misread it. Not sure how - it's pretty easy to follow.
2. You're trying to BS us because you've been proved wrong.

Option one, but instead your name where you are suggesting I have misread.

The Lemon

Joined: 11 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 2:12 pm Post subject:

True to form, you show an incredible inability to publicly admit you're wrong.

Here are some more sites that show you're wrong, from the US:

http://library.fpc.edu/copyright/copyright01.shtml
-indicates that only "brief" excerpts may be photocopied for class use, and then only with limitations.

This spells it out better:

Quote:

FAIR USE
Under the Fair Use Provision (Title 17 U.S. Code Sec. 107), it is not an infringement to photocopy copyrighted works for purposes of teaching, scholarship, or research. However, the fair use exemption does not support indiscriminate photocopying of copyrighted materials for educational purposes. The four factors for determining fair use are:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work.
It is necessary to apply all four factors when determining fair use for photocopying materials for educational purposes.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~library/copyright_guidelines.htm

Let's look at your initial post again:

Quote:

You just lost. Be a man.

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 6:12 pm Post subject:

The Lemon wrote:

True to form, you show an incredible inability to publicly admit you're wrong.

What is with the insults? Amateur hour? You choose to spell out this insult and variation of reality after I heavily correct your previous posting that suggested I was wrong? There are no tanks in Baghdad!

Quote:

Here are some more sites that show you're wrong, from the US:

http://library.fpc.edu/copyright/copyright01.shtml
-indicates that only "brief" excerpts may be photocopied for class use, and then only with limitations.

This spells it out better:

Quote:

http://www.mtsu.edu/~library/copyright_guidelines.htm

First, I find great humour in hour you've linked to "guidelines" instead of sites with actual laws. Followed up with the two sites having conflicting conclusions in their guidelines. Rolling Eyes

FYI, the first guideline says "Ya, you can copy an entire book anyway as long as it is less than 2500 words in it, so long as you nix the pictures."

Quote:

Let's look at your initial post again:

Quote:

You just lost. Be a man.

So under the site I linked to that is an actual law, it says wholesale photocopying is allowed as long as it isn't intented to replace an entirely consumable book.

You come back with "guidelines". Hell, anyone can link to guidelines. That doesn't make them right, and I would wager that they would be conservative guidelines to ensure that the school cannot be held accountable if there was a breach of copyright by someone.

Even your guidelines state conflicting limits on rights and options.

If you aren't going to quote an actual law text, then just pack up and go home. Posting "guidelines" from others is useless especially when you're posting multiple ones that conflict. This isn't amateur hour, so stick to law quotations.

Example, off your guideline posting it links to the fair use limitations it lists an actual law quote which you are going to great lengths to avoid using:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

Want to know what this says? It says that I can copy an entire book so long as I can demonstrate I didn't cause substantial financial harm upon the potential market of a copyrighted work. Book is out of print, publisher says they will never republish it, go wild with the copying. Decide one morning to read the book in class as a one time event, go wild with the copying. Just for example. I could go on with examples if you would like.

Unless you're prepared to debate statements of law, this is over. I would ask that you not post any more "guidelines".

The Lemon

Joined: 11 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 10:41 pm Post subject:

Quote:

So under the site I linked to that is an actual law, it says wholesale photocopying is allowed as long as it isn't intented to replace an entirely consumable book.

No it doesn't. If you did so in the Halifax school board, and most others, and they found out you did, you would be fired for putting the school at legal risk. And the union would stand and watch. It happens. Three years ago a school in PEI was found guilty of copyright infringement for photocopying sheet music for a school chorus. They paid tens of thousands of dollars in damages.

And this is why I'm making a big deal about this point: if you post incorrect information like you have, and no one calls you on it, someone who doesn't know your history may actually believe you (though all they have to do is click on any of your links and they'll see you've misrepresented them beyond all recognition).

They cover this the first week in education school. It's our responsibility and job to know. You didn't know two days ago what you know now. I'm guessing I'm not talking with a teacher, and you were unfamiliar with the laws regarding copyrighted material in educational settings, and thus speaking from ignorance when you made your first comment. You've grown a little, hopefully. Your problem is admitting that you've actually learned something. We knew that already.

Quote:

Even your guidelines state conflicting limits on rights and options.

No they don't. Not surprisingly, none of the links supplied by either of us support your claim. Claiming they do here doesn't make it so. I really hope if anyone else is reading this thread (I doubt they are... hard to conceive of a more boring subject) that they click on the links and see how you've tried to twist them.

Quote:

If you aren't going to quote an actual law text, then just pack up and go home...Unless you're prepared to debate statements of law, this is over. I would ask that you not post any more "guidelines".

Why? What will you do?

I know you've boasted on your website that your friends are impressed by your ability to dazzle them into believing grass is red and the sky is green. Maybe your magic works in person. Not here.

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Fri May 02, 2003 11:41 pm Post subject:

The Lemon wrote:

What's the context? Was it a for profit event at the school? I would wager it was, and as such would fall beyond the scope of education and into entertainment or under a "for profit" venture if money was involved with a entrance fee.

Ironic that you would suggest I am muddling facts at the same time you promote this.

Quote:

And this is why I'm making a big deal about this point: if you post incorrect information like you have, and no one calls you on it, someone who doesn't know your history may actually believe you (though all they have to do is click on any of your links and they'll see you've misrepresented them beyond all recognition).

I've sure been wrong so far. Yep. Look at how wrong I am... Oh wait, where's the wrong?

Quote:

They cover this the first week in education school. It's our responsibility and job to know. You didn't know two days ago what you know now. I'm guessing I'm not talking with a teacher, and you were unfamiliar with the laws regarding copyrighted material in educational settings, and thus speaking from ignorance when you made your first comment. You've grown a little, hopefully. Your problem is admitting that you've actually learned something. We knew that already.

Actually, I went back and re-read Canada's copyright laws when SOCAN decided they wanted $1000 of my money. I had covered it when I was in university taking business law with the grand plan to become a lawyer one day.

Perhaps I should have sat down and spilled out how the law works in full. I should have said how fair use works and what must be done to ensure it. Though it was much like a posted speed limit. Sure, the speed limit says 80km/h. But that means in ideal conditions with a vehicle under good maintenance. The law dictates that a number of conditions will drop that number lower.

In all likelyhood, what a person would want to copy for use in teaching in Korea would qualify under fair use and didn't need to have the huge law lesson explained why what they were doing was legal.

The speed limit is 80. You can copy books for reading in class.

SOCAN's guidelines also claimed things like "public performance" to mean anything in front of the public eye instead of the legal definition that a public performation is a paid-for performance.

Quote:

Even your guidelines state conflicting limits on rights and options.

Just off the top of my head, one link said that I could copy one picture or graph from a book,. while the other said 10% was up for grabs.

Oh yes, they both said they are merely school guidelines and now the law.

What's to be twisted? They both say they are school policies and nothing more. End of story.

Quote:

Let's review.

I stated a summary opinion.

You said I was wrong.

I went into quoted details of law why I was right.

You quoted school guidelines and attempted to diguise them as laws. You being amateur hour at the insult lounge.

I explain why your guidelines are not facts of law.

Your insult hour at the amateur lounge continues. Then you toss in a case with no supportive details and proclaim it so soundly supports your cause that you don't need to provide any more details.

I then write this list and laugh at the irony involved.

You've got all this bent-up angst against me. Invest in a new hobby.

The Lemon

Joined: 11 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 12:50 am Post subject:

http://www.cmec.ca/else/copyright/matters/indexe.stm

You're going to say "don't show me guidelines" because you've slipped into la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you mode.

Quote:

The textbook industry would be the first to disagree.

Again - teachers that work for school boards in Western countries will trust Gordo's advice at their peril.

Rand Al Thor

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Locked in an epic struggle

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 3:08 pm Post subject:

perhaps "The Gord" would like to enlighten us into why some teacher resource books say that they are for photocopying but others are not. It seems to me that the ones that explicitly say that, for example Cambridge Copy Collection or Communication Games by Jill Hadfield, are saying that copyright law does not apply to thier materials by thier choice. Other teacher resource books do not give explicit permission to copy. Logically if there is a need to give explicit permision to photocopy then there must be some sort of copyright protection in an educational setting.

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 5:28 pm Post subject:

The Lemon wrote:

http://www.cmec.ca/else/copyright/matters/indexe.stm

You're going to say "don't show me guidelines" because you've slipped into la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you mode.

Very well, I'll go over these "guidelines" and explain where their examples as to why they say the law protects them, and why they are wrong.

Quote:

The textbook industry would be the first to disagree.

Again - teachers that work for school boards in Western countries will trust Gordo's advice at their peril.

Oh no! The textbook industry disagrees with me! They would never lie! NEVER! The same people that claim even copying one single page is illegal (as is claimed in nearly every book in the opening credits). Yet the links you provide say their claims are nothing more than lies.

So we've already caught "the textbook industry" lying, and yet you now cite them as being pure and worthy of praise now that it is convenient for you have them on your side?

Hello? These people are not your friends and are lying to you in order to steal your wallet. Though it's hardly the first time an entire industry has claimed a legal act was illegal.

1910s - Book publishers claimed that libraries were illegal, and if anyone could borrow a book then there would be no new book sales.

1930s - Book publisher's claimed people standing on street corners and reading books allowed was illegal, for if anyone could sit and listen to a book being read, no one would buy books. This went to court, and the book industry lost.

1950s - Radios play music and make money off this, and don't pay extra royalties for it. The music industry screams bloody murder. Music industry loses court action.

1970s - Music industry claimed that people copying music on cassette tapes was piracy and illegal. Government disagreed, and eventually non-commercial copying and distribution of music is legalized clearly under laws instead of just under "fair use".

1982 - Sony was sued over the recording feature of the BetaMax VCR. Movie industry claims that piracy will become rampant and this must be stopped. Supreme Court reaffirms the right of "time shifting" and bluntly states that a person can record a broadcasted program for viewing later.

1985 - Nintendo sues Blockbuster over renting video games, citing "every game rented is a game not sold". Nintendo eventually loses.

1995 - An association of Japanese video game companies cite used video game sales as being illegal and refuse to sell stock to companies that sell used videogames unless they remit 10% of the resale price to the publishers. The Japanese consumer rights board takes them to court and wins at every level. The American version of this attempt was quietly abandoned, though Nintendo still cites used games and game rentals as being illegal.

2001 - Book writer's claimed that Amazon.com's selling of used books online was a copyright and trademark violation, and even went so far as to suggest Amazon was engaging in piracy.

Do you want me to go on? We can cite cases where companies have sued to prevent people talking about their products negatively in reviews (Computer Associates, 2001), online price lists are copyrighted and trade secrets (Walmart, 2002), or any of others of hundreds of cases where copyright owners not only lied to people, but took their lies to court in the hopes of changing the world.

Anyway, to the link of the Textbook industry site.

It rambles on about why copyrights are important, and that people must be paid for everything or no work would be done. Then it lists some feel-good guidelines. Then starts up with the complete lies after saying "pay us for these uses of copyright materials, and avoid going to court".

Though once my book comes out, I will be sure to send them a bill for royalties as they feel they have the authority to licence my book. Oh the irony.

Next it goes into audio and video recordings in the classroom. First it says the truth "yes, yes you can do that." Then the big lie starts when they dish out the dollars for doing that. "Trust us, you have to pay us each and every time it's watched"

Then it goes into the huge lie about the video industry. "Did you know that the $19.95 video you buy could cost your media centre $250 to purchase" and talks about how it's related to the right to perform in public.

OH! BIG LIE!

The video industry works like this. Most new release video cassettes cost $100 on average. In exchange, the publisher says they will give a 60-120 day window on television Pay-Per-View (thus limiting the distribution of the product and forcing consumers who want to watch it to pay the video store for it), and then another window of 120+ days before selling at $9 or whatever the "consumer version" will be. At the time the consumer version is available, it's the same price as the video store version. The difference being a revised box and previews usually nixed.

Some movies skip the high price phase and go straight to the $9 wholesale price. That's when you'll see places like Rogers or Blockbuster says "Guaranteed In Stock!" because they could put up the 120 copies for the same price as 10 copies of a regular movie.

Then it rambles on about how videos are licenced. Uhm, no. The courts have ruled over and over again that anything sold through distribution channels is sold, not licenced. So companies like Netscape that have gone to court citing "licenced, not sold" and lost. Just because it says licenced doesn't mean it is.

For their to be a licence, that would be a contract. For a contract to be in place, there must be consideration and communication. Even if we pretend there was consideration "oh, there is warning on every tape at the start!", there sure as hell isn't communication of acceptance.

Plus videos are advertised on TV and print as "BUY IT TODAY!", not "Licence a copy for home viewing today!". If someone were to step up and try to claim "licenced, not sold!" they better have never, EVER claimed that a person should buy their product or they would be on the hook for a false advertising claim in court. A primary reason why the video industry has never sued anyone for breaching their "licence".

So anyway, they come up with big lie of how the world works and why they want to charge big dollars to watching something that can be legally watched for free.

Next up, it the site goes into a spiel about how computer software can be copied for back-up copies and portability. I notice how they skip over things like how computer software claims it too is licenced as the courts have ruled over and over in recent years that it was a big lie for the reasons mentioned above in part about licencing videos.

It also says the onus is on me to prove that any back-up copies that I may have made were destroyed if I no longer claim ownership of the original software package. *beep* that. That's not what the law says at all. If piracy is suspected, they have to prove it. It's not up to me to prove my innocence. But's all part of their fear package. "Don't break the law, as we can cause you a world of hurt and you have to prove your innocence. Guilty until proven innocent!"

If someone threatened me with legal action unless I proved my innocence, I would first note that their head resemebled that of a chicken. Then I would note that it is illegal for someone to threaten to use a court of law to resolve something then not follow through on it. I would force the issue. I would force them to sue me in which case I would make a spectacle of everything and go for serious cash dollars. Same time, if they didn't sue me I would sue them for making a false threat of court action (as it is illegal to say you'll take someone to court unless they meet your demands, then fail to do so when your demands are not met).

Then the site concludes with some feelgood "everyone can own a copyright" and lists other sites with more info.

Congratulations. You linked to a falacy. And you may have even made me some money from when I request my royalty money later.

You're not even trying at this point. You're just linking without understanding the issue at hand. If you don't understand, then say you don't understand or just say nothing. What next, you link to a site that claims it teaches Latin when you don't speak Latin, then someone who does speak Latin says "dude, that site is wrong." Are you going to argue "yes, it is Latin!" to the person who speaks Latin and knows it doesn't?

I wonder how much my royalty payment will be.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 5:49 pm Post subject:

That was a pretty detailed overview of the fluctuating state of copyright laws and there's no doubt in my mind that you're more informed than most on the subject, but I'm a blockhead- I still don't see anything in this thread that specifically backs up your statement that:

Gord wrote:

Could you spell it out so that even a moron like me can understand?

lawyertood

Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul, Incheon and the World--working undercover for the MOJ

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 6:33 pm Post subject:

To be fair let me state that although I am a licensed attorney, copyright law is not my bailiwick. From my reading of information related to the law on copyright in the U.S., however, I think that I can safely say the following about "fair use":

Quote:

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I believe many educational governing bodies have released guidelines because judicial decisions on "fair use" issues have not revealed any clear standards to apply to determine whether use is "fair use" or copyright infringement. The courts usually make their decision on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts of the given case. In any event, the court looks at all four factors listed in Sec. 107 in determining whether it is "fair use" or not--not just whether you can meet one of them.

That being said, it would hardly be worth an author's time or money to pursue each and every teacher that might photocopy a page or two of a textbook. This does not necessarily make it "legal," just that it is impractical for someone to pursue legal action. When a university reprints a textbook as its own publication for sale to students is another matter. In fact, some schools in Korea have gotten into trouble for this recently.

I hope this clears matters up somewhat

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 7:52 pm Post subject:

lawyertood wrote:

I hope this clears matters up somewhat.

So, to say that "Copyright laws are suspended for Educational purposes" is in fact not true, while advising someone that they probably don't have to be worried about being nailed for copyright violation due to 'fair use' precedents is? Does that sound like a reasonable summation?

Obviously we're not discussing Korea here
[anyone remember when the govt. taskforce tried to shutdown any computers in govt. offices and universities that they found to be running unlicenced software? That was quite a laugh],
but are the 'fair use' and 'copyright' laws quoted international, or do they pertain specifically to the Canada and/or the US?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe