Distance Learning and Interlibrary Loan: Broken Promises

Bill C-60 included several qualified exceptions intended to benefit Canadians by addressing access to educational resources -- namely distance learning and digital interlibrary loan -- via the Internet. These socially valuable endeavours involve acts of copying that could trigger expensive litigation, so "exceptions" are necessary for schools and libraries. Uncertainty about such lawsuits has slowed access to distance learning in rural areas and many First Nations communities. Unfortunately, C-60's attempts to remedy this situation were hamstrung by copy restrictions and administrative burdens. We can do better in 2006.

C-60's distance learning provisions were supposed to grant schools the ability to use copyrighted content for Internet-based distance education. But in order to appease copyright holders, it required schools to destroy materials made under the exception within 30 days of the completion of a class, even if the material will be reused the next semester. Bill C-60 also would have imposed burdensome administrative and technological obligations on schools, like the requirement that access restrictions and copy controls be applied to all materials made under the law.

The Bill's digital interlibrary loan provisions, which were supposed to provide public access to the collections of far-flung libraries, suffered from similar faults. Digital loans must self-destruct, and do so within a ridiculously short period of time after delivery. As with schools, the Bill would have imposed administrative and technological burdens on libraries that would make digital interlibrary loan difficult to use and administer.

The government has the right idea in encouraging distance learning and facilitating interlibrary loan. However, its execution leaves much to be desired. The government should go back to school on these provisions, and redraft them in a way that makes them useful and efficient to administer.