Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Universities Agree To Email Monitoring For Copyright Agency

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the somebody-forgot-to-read-the-fine-print dept.

Canada 165

New submitter fish waffle writes "The universities of Western Ontario and Toronto have signed a deal with Access Copyright that allows for surveillance of faculty correspondence, defines e-mailing hyperlinks as equivalent to photocopying a document, and imposes an annual $27.50 fee for every full-time equivalent student to pay for it all. Access Copyright is a licensing agency historically used by most universities in Canada to give them blanket permission to reproduce copyrighted works, largely to address photocopying concerns that may extend beyond basic fair-use. Since the expiration of this agreement, and with recognition that many academic uses do not require copyright permissions or payments or are already covered under vendor-specific agreements, Canadian academic institutions have been united in opposing continuation of the agreement with the agency. Access Copyright has countered with a proposal for increased fees, and expansion of the definition of copyright to include linking and the need for online surveillance. In a strange breaking of ranks, the University of Western Ontario and the University of Toronto have capitulated and signed agreements that basically accede to the licensing agency's demands. The Canadian Association of University Teachers bulletin provides detailed background on the issue (PDF)."

cancel ×

165 comments

/facepalm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088431)

/facepalm. Both sides.

Change Universities (5, Insightful)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088459)

The fact that others are NOT doing this means that people in Canadian Universities can change to a different University. Lucky people.

Re:Change Universities (4, Funny)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088469)

eh

Re:Change Universities (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088591)

Unfortunately, $27.50 is a drop in the bucket compared to tuition, and hence not likely to affect much of anything.

Re:Change Universities (2)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088735)

Engineering undergrad at UofT is around $8000 a year. $27.50 would be appropriately 0.3% of tuition. To me that feels quite substantial, considering that this $27.50 fee doesn't help students at all; they still have to spend hundreds of dollars every year on textbooks.

Re:Change Universities (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088845)

0.3% feels substantial to you? You aren't going to switch schools over another $30. You might switch on the principle, but not for economic reasons. Just driving out to the university, getting lunch, and spending your time looking at the program costs more than $30.

Re:Change Universities (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089221)

Considering it costs over $1k/mo in London and Toronto in just living not food expenses? Yes, $30 is expensive. Food is a bit of a different story depending, by the time you left the university to get lunch and came to head back, the afternoon might be over.

Re:Change Universities (3, Interesting)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089305)

0.3% feels substantial to you? You aren't going to switch schools over another $30. You might switch on the principle, but not for economic reasons. Just driving out to the university, getting lunch, and spending your time looking at the program costs more than $30.

Zill (1690130) - Engineering undergrad
Missed something, I do think.

Re:Change Universities (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089717)

Then he's a terrible engineer. 0.3% of $8000 is $24. Transferring to another university would cost more than that in transcript fees alone (which vary but can be about $30). Once you take into account moving expenses you blow that out of the water.

0.3% is insignificant for just about everything engineers do. You're going to use a factor of safety of somewhere between 1.5 and 2 for even the most well-known situations, 0.3% is well within this limit.

Re:Change Universities (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089869)

27.50/8000=0.34375%, which I rounded down to 0.3% since $8000 only has one significant digit.

I still maintain it's substantial, considering that students gain absolutely nothing from this $27.50.

Re:Change Universities (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088877)

The professors should supply hyperlinks to the textbooks.

Re:Change Universities (1)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089251)

Just $8000?
I'm paying close to $11000 a year for Comp Sci.

Re:Change Universities (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39090095)

Back in the 80s I paid $600 a term ($1200 a year) for comp sci at Waterloo, and with paid work terms in between it practically came out to be free... Every time I read slashdot I feel lucky that I'm old, sad isn't it.

Re:Change Universities (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39090307)

Go for a real degree...computer engineering...that is, if you have the grades to get in.

Re:Change Universities (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089387)

I remember college. I remember $27.50. I even remember not ever having $27.50 while in college.

Re:Change Universities (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39090239)

Switching University may not be enough, they'll also need to ensure they don't send emails to anyone on those two University email systems.

Are there any privacy-focused email Block Lists one could subscribe to?

Poor Google? (3)

Roger Lindsjo (727951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088475)

Did I understand this correctly, linking to content is the same as providing a copy of the content and requires a fee? Does that mean that Google Canda is next?

Re:Poor Google? (4, Insightful)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088499)

Poor Google? How about poor Canadian WWW, almost every website that's hosted in Canada has at least one hyperlink to an external site, the contents of which are copyrighted.

Re:Poor Google? (4, Insightful)

PIBM (588930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088525)

What I find interesting is that for 27.50$ per year per student, they have a blanket permission to reproduce any copyrighted work (should I understand the summary correctly) ... That's such a small fee vs what people have had to pay for limited copyright infringements..

Re:Poor Google? (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088585)

Further, does that give them access to every paywalled site available in Canada or do 'some restrictions apply'?

Re:Poor Google? (3, Informative)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088719)

What I find interesting is that for 27.50$ per year per student, they have a blanket permission to reproduce any copyrighted work (should I understand the summary correctly) ... That's such a small fee vs what people have had to pay for limited copyright infringements..

Not quite blanket. No music, and nothing that would reproduce the entire work, unless that work is short and/or monumental.

Re:Poor Google? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089021)

"entire work" .. ok just 90% then? The parts you care about.

Sounds like a 'unlimited license to all content'. Sort of like some of the music services here, pay a monthly fee and get all that you want.. But in this case, you can make copies.

Re:Poor Google? (5, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089721)

Seeing as they contractually treat sending a link as making a photocopy, it would seem that you are now allowed to photocopy entire works under this new agreement.

Not a bad perk for the price increase at all.

Re:Poor Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089029)

27.50 a year for ALL my textbooks? I'd gain money back x5 after 1 textbook.

Re:Poor Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089383)

What I find interesting is that for 27.50$ per year per student, they have a blanket permission to reproduce any copyrighted work (should I understand the summary correctly) ... That's such a small fee vs what people have had to pay for limited copyright infringements..

They don't get blanket permission to do anything. If your read the fine-print in this agreement, you see in section 3 how very limited the rights are. Really not much more than fair dealing would allow in any event. So don't read too much value into this license.

Re:Poor Google? (1)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089791)

Say I write a book, they pay $27 to some orginization I have nothing to do with and then they can copy my copyrighted work without paying me? Which, if any, artists get a check from this and how do they determine who gets what?

Re:Poor Google? (2)

trolman (648780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089995)

For the low price of 19.95 I will let them do anything they want on the Internet.

Re:Poor Google? (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089617)

Did I understand this correctly, linking to content is the same as providing a copy of the content and requires a fee? Does that mean that Google Canda is next?

Yes, and then the world.

Is this some sort of joke? (5, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088481)

You'd think the Universities would be the last to cave in to a blatant demand for protection money.

Can they really be serious? Linking is equivalent to a copyright?

Re:Is this some sort of joke? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088653)

Apparently it's also equivalent to seeing the full page, as if merely sharing the title of a paper was all you needed to share a document.

Just what I was going to say. (2)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089317)

I was about to say that I don't see the difference between URL-as-reference and international-standard-Harvard-system-referencing. Neither gives the reader access to something they wouldn't otherwise be able to see, and neither reproduces any content. This is a ludicrous state of affairs.

Re:Is this some sort of joke? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089637)

Apparently it's also equivalent to seeing the full page, as if merely sharing the title of a paper was all you needed to share a document.

Maybe if you are Edgar Cayce.

Re:Is this some sort of joke? (2)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089941)

I have edited the Encyclopedia Britannica down to a far more powerful, potent form. It follows below.

.

There. You now know everything.

Re:Is this some sort of joke? (1)

Mateorabi (108522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39090259)

Mostly harmless.

Re:Is this some sort of joke? (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089049)

Somebody high up in the university administrations got bribed, is my guess. I honestly can't think of any other reasonable explanation.

Re:Is this some sort of joke? (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089059)

Never underestimate the power of bribes.

Re:Is this some sort of joke? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089431)

Next up: referencing ISBN numbers is considered photocopying.

Later: SHOCKING BREAKING NEWS: Every reputable peer-reviewed field is engaged in MASSIVE copyright infringement! Just look at all the links at the end of all these articles - we can't have that!

Still later: Per resulting legislation, no peer-reviewed articles or texts can include references, and every reference on Wikipedia has by law been replaced with [citation removed].

This [nonsense] would not fly in the US of A... (4, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088489)

...Access Copyright that allows for surveillance of faculty correspondence, defines e-mailing hyperlinks as equivalent to photocopying a document...

How can emailing a hyper-link be equivalent to photocopying? When one photocopies, they then get a physical copy of a document. On the other hand, e-mailing a hyper-link provides no such physical object.

Here's how to circumvent the insanity: Email actual documents and then argue that *no* hyper-links were emailed as required by the stipulation. How about that?

Re:This [nonsense] would not fly in the US of A... (2)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088581)

Just tweet the links, instead.

Re:This [nonsense] would not fly in the US of A... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089433)

Not helpful, because under the definitions in the license that's covered too. It's not just links, but links are included. Access Copyright negotiated a very good deal. If we have such lazy and compliant administrators at such strong universities as UT and UWO, everyone else should be worried as well because AC will want to spread this to your campus too (and if you are at UT or UWO you should be particularly worried)

Re:This [nonsense] would not fly in the US of A... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089667)

This is actually reasonable -

If I, as a professor, were to put a link to a copyrighted work on my course website - I would then specifically be directing you to go to that website, consume the copyrighted work, or you'll be behind.

This is still overly broad but it makes some sense if you think about it.

Re:This [nonsense] would not fly in the US of A... (2)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089905)

My guess is that someone doesn't know what the "L" in "URL" stands for. If that's not the case, I've got some directions (to a bridge) I'd like to sell...

Re:This [nonsense] would not fly in the US of A... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089987)

Yeah and students who have hours to master say entire games and do headshots every time are not going to work around the issue.

Seriously? People with time on their hands AND learning the ability to work around things. Yeah that will last about 3 months before people work around it.

Anti-scientific? (5, Interesting)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088517)

This practice sounds like complete the opposite of the principles of scientific research.

Re:Anti-scientific? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088601)

That's the journal industry's core competency.

Re:Anti-scientific? (5, Insightful)

hism (561757) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088825)

The prevailing trend in Canada seems to be drifting way from scientific research: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468 [bbc.co.uk]

Each time I read a new article about my country, I become more and more ashamed to be Canadian...

Re:Anti-scientific? (5, Funny)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089071)

See, people keep saying Canada is just another part of the USA, but you guys never believe us...

Re:Anti-scientific? (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089095)

If you think that's bad, imagine what it feels like to be an American! We were founded on awesome principles and ushered in on the back of slavery and genocide only to see things go on the down slide from there.

Re:Anti-scientific? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089559)

That's what we get for having Harper in power. I didn't think people could be so foolish as to think he wouldn't make Bush look like a commie.

Re:Anti-scientific? (3, Insightful)

Amadablam (516748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088855)

This practice sounds like complete the opposite of the principles of scientific research.

Of course. Publishers aren't in this for the science.

Re:Anti-scientific? (2)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089355)

This practice sounds like complete the opposite of the principles of scientific research.

Of course. Publishers aren't in this for the science.

Science is for the weak, extort er marketing non-existent protection is for sharks.

More Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088535)

I don't see anything in the article that mentions anything about email monitoring. Also the source seems biased...any more impartial sources?

Re:More Sources (5, Informative)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088689)

The agreement reached last month with the licensing agency includes provisions defining e-mailing hyperlinks as equivalent to photocopying a document, an annual $27.50 fee for every full-time equivalent student and surveillance of academic staff email.

Re:More Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088861)

surveillance of academic staff email.

What about PGP, is that verboten?

Re:More Sources (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089367)

surveillance of academic staff email.

What about PGP, is that verboten?

No but strangely Nazi's still show up if you try it.

Privacy law disagrees (2)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088545)

Except in Canada you have to give them the right to monitor email or internet traffic as you do have reasonable expectation of privacy.

Simply have to refuse to sign any paperwork which gives them the right to monitor. If they do monitor and try to do anything then they are basically providing evidence that makes your lawsuit very easy.

Re:Privacy law disagrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088631)

Simply have to refuse to sign any paperwork which gives them the right to monitor.

It is unrealistic to try to get a degree in any field of study without Internet access.

Re:Privacy law disagrees (5, Interesting)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088725)

Except in Canada you have to give them the right to monitor email or internet traffic as you do have reasonable expectation of privacy.

Simply have to refuse to sign any paperwork which gives them the right to monitor. If they do monitor and try to do anything then they are basically providing evidence that makes your lawsuit very easy.

One of the universities I attended had some BS clause about allowing them to give access of my information and documents to third parties as they saw fit. I argued it up to the dean and was eventually told that if I wanted to continue in the program, I needed to sign the clause.

Re:Privacy law disagrees (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088903)

You shouldn't have argued, you should have handed the clause over to the police as evidence of ongoing or intended criminal activity.

Re:Privacy law disagrees (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089285)

If you're in Canada, you should have demanded your money back. They have no right to give your information away, or force you to sign it away like that. It's a violation of the privacy act. Hell, if you are canadian and are in Canada, and this happened I'd consider filing a complaint to the privacy commissioner over it anyway.

Re:Privacy law disagrees (1, Interesting)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089753)

What I did with BS clauses was write "NoThankYou" backwards with the opposite hand I normally sign with on the signature space, fast enough to look like a typical sloppy signature. I have yet to have anyone question it, but if it came to a legal issue, I can say that is not my signature.

Alternate idea: tell them that all reproduction rights have already been signed over to your literary agency, and they will have to contact them to get access.

Were all doomed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088547)

The world is batshit crazy. Email a link is wrong now.
Shutdown thw whole goid damn internet then its a worthless pile of shit.

My death wish for them all is that the die choking on there own vomit.

backwards (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088571)

If i write an email and someone whom I did not choose to be a recipient reads it by this means, they should have to pay me royalties for the right to view my creative work. Students should receive 27.50 from the university for being the content providers for the sick dreams of our perverted neo-con big brother. Anything short of that and this is basically theft and circumvents all that the concept of copyright stands for.

And in other news (5, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088595)

Use of encryption, and international email services on HTTPS, has started to rise in Canada.

Re:And in other news (3, Informative)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089435)

Encryption should be used routinely (just because)!

Gmail (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088649)

Time to move to an independent email account. Not a good idea to entrust your email in the hands of your employer.

Random Redirection NOW! (1)

bolt_the_dhampir (1545719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088679)

I really want to enroll there, make a little PHP script to redirect to a random link on either a newspaper, or the pirate bay (50% chance of each), and then distribute that link in an email. Wonder what they'd do with that. What about a site where if you aren't logged in, all links to its content redirect to copyrighted material? They aren't *really* going there, you just don't have access to where they actually go...

Re:Random Redirection NOW! (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089351)

If I put a link to my blog in my sig, does that mean I get paid to send emails...?

Re:Random Redirection NOW! (3, Insightful)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089357)

Actually, that makes me think... If they're monitoring your emails, start appending links to three random charities in each email, and demand that those charities get their cut....

Well, if it works for CDs... (1)

itsme1234 (199680) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088701)

... why wouldn't work for email as well?
You pay the levy/tax or whatever is called for CD-Rs as well even if you just use them to back-up your own pictures (or even if you want to use them as coasters).
Why not tax email as well, even if you don't use it for copyright infringement, even if you don't use it at all.

So I am going to start a web site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088705)

I am going to start a web site soon, with a lot of content. Will these people start giving me money? How many other web sites are they going to be giving money to? If they aren't going to give people like me money, why oh why should anyone give them money for content that isn't theirs? This sure looks like a shakedown racket (not unlike the Chicago branch of Cosa Nostra). I'm disgusted that these universities capitulated. Surely any university with a Law Faculty wouldn't capitulate like this, and wouldn't put up with it.

So watch the watchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088803)

So who exactly are this company ? who are the employees, who are the directors, where do they live ? what is their education and salary ? children ? phone ? car they drive ? registration ? what do they do an a saturday night ? what makes them tick ?

Make a script to generate random links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088857)

Then send 1 MB e-mails filled with nothing but links that may or may not be functional. I wonder what the result will be?

Re:Make a script to generate random links (2)

themusicgod1 (241799) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089255)

"Hacking" like that is probably enough to get you expelled.

May violate collective agreements (4, Informative)

sdavid (556770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088933)

Monitoring faculty email in this way may well violate the U of T's collective agreement with their faculty. I'm at another Canadian university, and I'm pretty sure it would violate ours.

2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088979)

While it may not be the end of the physical world, no one said anything about the free world.

I mean WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON THIS YEAR!!??!? NA Gov's have lost so much fear that they are openly seeking big chunks of all this power.....and for what? Examples: the Moroccan kid they BAITED into being a 'suicide bomber', like Megaupload, the current powers they posses were CLEARLY enough stamp out these particular evils. So wtf? Are they trying to bait the public into revolution? Are they that sure of themselves? I really doubt that, but still....this is madness.

Yes I know this is about copyright. That doesn't change much.

hyperlinks as equivalent to photocopying? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088991)

WTF? have they completely lost their minds? I hope this is not the crap they are teaching the kids there.

How about a link to a physical book? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089009)

Suppose I email a link that explains where a certain book is on a shelf in my home? Is that equivalent to copying the book and does it become a copyright violation? If a piece of paper with writing on it falls to the ground and I point to it, is that also not allowed? Whole matter sounds insane to me. Lucky I am in the US where this can't possibly happen.

Re:How about a link to a physical book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089465)

I hope you were sarcastic when you said that can't happen in the US. I'm pretty sure that those bastards are have been sitting and trying to figure out how to implement this in US for a long time without being called to court for privacy issues. But as soon as they figure out, be sure that it'll be implemented.

Anyway, ''congratulations'' for canadian mafiaa who managed to implement another tax on canadian students.

Re:How about a link to a physical book? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39090275)

Can't happen in the US? Where have you been for the past decade? Let alone the last year?

Says who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089053)

What gives this company a right to grant copyright protection for everything?

Worst... analogy... ever! (1)

fox171171 (1425329) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089117)

defines e-mailing hyperlinks as equivalent to photocopying a document

Linking does not equal photocopying.
That has to be the worst analogy ever.

Wonderful how they think they can define things themselves (kind of like how they define infringement as "theft"). I can define black as white, but it doesn't make it so.

Student: Hey, those two books you were looking for? I saw one at the library, and the other at the book store.

Copyright police: Hey, he's just shared two links. That's two counts of infringement!!

Re:Worst... analogy... ever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089539)

Who cares about the analogy as long as people are bribed and new taxes by corporations are being implemented. When has logic and reason ever been applied to copyright.

Suckers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089127)

...there's one born every minute.

Two Universities (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089133)

...that no one intelligent will ever apply to again. Good job; now watch your rankings fall like the stones in your university administrators' heads.

Insane (2)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089161)

I heard about the "copyright police" at university, where a bunch of petty small-dicked wankers have nothing better to do, then to get paid by scumbag publishers to hang around photocopiers to make sure nobody's copying too much.

Clearly, some fat cat assholes at Elsevier and friends are afraid of losing their obscene 45% profit margins.

But intrusive surveillance to monitor in case somebody might link to somebody copyrighted, is bizarre and utterly extreme. It's a bit like burning down the entire forest, just because there might be a snake somewhere. But then, with corporatist extremists seemingly on the march everywhere, and seemingly completely untouchable these days, little surprises me.

Outrageous (2)

Grieviant (1598761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089229)

I honestly can't believe that U of T and Western would be bullied into to such an outrageous proposition, even if they were being paid money in an attempt by Access Copyright to gain a foothold so that other universities will fall in line. Although this upstanding company can surely be trusted with the contents of all faculty and student e-mail correspondences, including those containing original research ideas and algorithms that aren't intended to be disclosed to anyone else, it just doesn't sound like a good idea.

Fraud. (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089283)

Why are students paying for the "privilege" of being monitored ? Do they not have law students over there ? I'd sue the goddamned administration!

Re:Fraud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089677)

Maybe this is actually the universities' plans. Piss off the student population over ridiculous "agreements" so some ambitious law student sues the unis and/or the company doing this and kills it. Bam. No more universities have to deal with this crap.

Gun running costs. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089437)

Considering all of the news coming out of Canada, I'm wondering if it might not be a bad idea to get into the gun running business. This begs the question, "Would they sell them back, when our turn comes, at the same price".

Re:Gun running costs. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089839)

can you fake a hispanic accent, our BATF might sell you some machine guns just to see what you'll do with them....

those (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089513)

wacky Canucks!

Gonna be lonely, (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089581)

When no one deals with them electronically, I'm guessing that the criminal researchers and students will have to submit all their PDFs and .doc files for approval too, since they also might have links in them. And if you're an academic working with them, you have to have your work inspected for purity.

Why would anyone at universities that haven't gone batshit crazy deal with these morons? Aren't links kind like what the web is about? Canada is getting it's tubes tied. With roughly the same result

And in other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39089609)

Law Degrees from UofT and Western suddenly aren't worth the paper they are photocopied on... or should I say... hyperlinked too!

So Where's My Cut? (3, Funny)

avgjoe62 (558860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39089699)

I have a blog that I write and own the copyright on. Will Access Copyright send me my cut if a student happens to send a link to my blog to a friend? And what if they send a link to their own blog? Will that student now be entitled to a partial refund of their 27.50 Canadian?

Seems like this could be a revenue stream that bloggers may have to wake up to!!

Re:So Where's My Cut? (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39090181)

Of course they will when that amount gets to a high enough amount to cover the cost of writing a check. Now you have to keep in mind that there is only $0.50 per student being distributed to copyright holders, the rest of the $27.50 per student goes to the administrative costs that Access Copyright incurs to facilitate this process (I may be underestimating their administrative costs).

thius site is bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39090039)

ab cdefg hijkl mn opBull.aa abc defghi jklm nopa aaaaa abcdef ghijk lmnop aaaa aaaaaa aaa aaaa aaaa aaaaaa.shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shitshitshitshitshit shitshit BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT aaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaa aaaaaaBULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT
aaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaBULLaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaSHITaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa
BULLSHIT BULLSHITBULLSHIT BULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT BULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT BULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBULLaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaSHITaaaaa aaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaBULLSHITBULLSH ITBULLSHITBULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHITBULLSHITBU LLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBU LLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT BULL SHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT BULLSHITB ULLSHITBULLSH ITBULLSHITBUL LSHITBULLSHIT
how about making it so no one can post

and so ya know i had something relevant to say
THIS IS AN ILLEGAL RULING
the supreme court affirmed that linking is not copyright infringing and is up to the end user to visit and infringe or not.
THIS site is to hard now to deal with good bye....

Lucky were teathered to our own networks and dont (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39090067)

use that shit any more.

Obligitory (2, Informative)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39090281)

Yeah, Stallman's The Right To Read [gnu.org] may be getting linked a lot (for free, still) - but it is so apt.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...