Association of Polytechnics New Zealand - eLearning Members
[ Last Updated 4 November 2005 ]
Date Received: 2003-02-21
Original version: Digital Copyright: Position Paper Submissions: No. 37: Association of Polytechnics New Zealand - eLearning Members [88KB PDF]
Submission from APNZ (Association of Polytechnics New Zealand) eLearning members
Primarily, members believe that although the act should not essentially be any different for digital materials than it is for paper, there needs to be provision for the distribution of digitized material that students would normally have access to if they were on campus, or able to access via Intranet or library facilities. For example, distribution of materials via the web using Learning Management Systems or CDROM needed to be covered under the Act. Otherwise, certain groups of students would be disadvantaged if studying via eLearning methods, a less than optimal situation in the digital age. It was not sufficient in the current educational environment to have access to digitized materials only via Intranets or onsite terminals (174/5). Copying for educational purposes urgently needed fair treatment for digital works.
There is a need for an explicit license for digitization similar to CLL which covers photocopying. For example, the act does not cover the issues of distributing articles from online journals in distance courses thus disadvantaging distance students. Items in digital format should have the same protection as other formats, but suffice to say users should also have the same rights of access to digital materials as they do for paper-based materials.
The Australian copyright law for digital materials needs to be looked at closely as a feasible working model where Digital Resource Registers are used to keep track of distribution and a structured licensing system affords protection. Also, a blanket licensing fee would be fairer rather than charging per student.
A prime concern was that most institutions do not have the resources to ensure full compliance with the act because it was very time consuming seeking copyright permission for everything used in hardcopy or digitally by every lecturer/trainer in every course. A structured process needed to be set up to make it easier to obtain permission to use materials from the web and a definition of fair use needed to be streamlined to cover the web.
180. Caching of websites was a debate which needed to continue with regard to the feasibility of such an exercise - was caching actually possible or was it an act of downloading, and should the use of such websites only be allowed if the dynamic and up to date ones disappeared, to prevent the loss of the `dynamic web' utility.
If allowed, transient caching of pages should follow the stipulations of the HTTP header (which is an explicit permission to cache given by the publisher) or up to a maximum of 6 months if the HTTP header does not specify any caching restrictions. (Caching permission should be made explicit and a requirement of publishing on the web.) An exception would be that an individual may keep a personal copy as a historical record. This may be an important requirement to hold the publisher accountable for the content of their web page. It may also be seen as a public good in allowing a historical recording for later analysis beyond the normal usage of time-shifting. This copy kept as a historical record must not be made public (beyond the 3% -10% fair usage) as this would be re-publishing the work.
It is important to have the ability to obtain a dispensation to make a historical cache publicly accessible. Otherwise the copyright law would make the caching pages of Google and the way-back machine [link to external website] illegal within N.Z. - it should be possible to provide a case that making the historical archive public is in the interest of the public (which is different to something being interesting to the public). Only then would re-publishing be allowed.
32 & 182 & 183 - most agree with ministry paper that distance learning should not be treated differently providing fair and reasonable digital distribution was enabled for all teaching and learning.
Back to Top