EXHIBIT AC-1

STATEMENT OF CASE
ACCESS COPYRIGHT
EXHIBIT AC-1
STATEMENT OF CASE
ACCESS COPYRIGHT
1. This Statement of Case provides a summary of the arguments Access Copyright
will make in support of the Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariff, 2011-2013 (the
"Proposed Tariff') and a brief description of the evidence on which Access Copyright intends to
rely. In accordance with the Board's Directive on Procedure dated March 16, 2011, this
Statement also provides, at Appendix A, a list of the witnesses Access Copyright will call and an
estimate of the anticipated time witnesses will require to present their evidence in chief at the
hearing before the Board.
I. OVERVIEW
2. Access Copyright will submit that the value of the tariff to be certified by the
Board is $26.00 per FTE for Universities and $10.00 per FTE for all other Educational
Institutions (as those terms are defined in the Proposed Tariff). In support of this valuation,
Access Copyright wili present evidence about the reproduction licences it has entered into with
a large number of Educational Institutions since January 1, 2011. These licences (the
"Benchmark Licences") provide for an annual royalty rate of $26.00 per FTE for Universities
and $10.00 per FTE for all other Educational Institutions. Access Copyright will assert that the
Benchmark Licences are reasonable and appropriate proxies for the licence granted under the
Proposed Tariff and that the royalties paid under the Benchmark Licences, the term of which is
January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015 (except for the licences with the University of Toronto
and University of Western Ontario, which expire on December 31, 2013), are directly indicative
of the fair market value ("FMV") royalty rates for the Proposed Tariff.
3. It is also Access Copyright's position that the fair dealing policy (the "Policy")
promoted by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada ("AUCC") and the
Association of Canadian Community Colleges ("ACCC") and adopted by many Educational
Institutions, which purports to characterize as fair dealing amounts of copying essentially
identical to that licensed by Access Copyright, is unfair and results in copying that is not fair.
Access Copyright asserts that, on the evidence to be filed, the Objectors will not be able to meet
their burden to establish that the Policy and copying being carried out under the Policy are fair.
Therefore, any such copying constitutes compensable copying which (for any Educational
Institution that is not operating under a licence entered into with Access Copyright) is subject to
the tariff to be certified by the Board.
II. ACCESS COPYRIGHT AND ITS REPERTOIRE
4. Access Copyright is a non-profit corporation whose members consist of national
and regional organizations that represent authors and publishers of works protected by
copyright, including text and visual works included in publications such as books, magazines,
journals and newspapers. Access Copyright's core mandate is to licence and protect individual
copyright owners on a collective basis.
- 2 -
Exhibit AC-2: Witness Sialemeni of Roanie Levy, Kerrie Duncan and
Jennifer Lamantia (the "Levy el al Witness Slatemenl").
5. Access Copyright administers the reproduction of published materials by issuing
licences, collecting royalties and distributing those royalties to copyright holders. Access
Copyright together with Societe Ouebecoise de Gestion Collective des Droits de Reproduction
("Copibec"), Access Copyright's sister rights organization operating in Quebec, are the only two
Reproduction Rights Organizations ("RROs") representing the reproduction of literary and
visual artistic works in Canada.
Exhibil AC-2: Levy el al Witness Sialemeni.
6. Access Copyright represents those publishers and authors ("Affiliated
Rightsholders") that have granted it the right to exercise and manage their reproduction rights
through collective licences. Through its bilateral agreements with 31 foreign RROs, Access
Copyright represents the reproduction rights of rightsholders in more than 29 other jurisdictions
around the world.
Exhibil AC2: Levy el al Wilness Statement.
7. In addition, Access Copyright represents the works of rightsholders ("Non
Affiliated Rightsholders") who have, by implied agency, authorized Access Copyright to act on
their behalf. Access Copyright's agency relationship with a Non-Affiliated Rightsholder is ratified
when it pays out royalties to such a rightsholder and the rightsholder cashes the cheque or
otherwise accepts the payment.
Exhibil AC2: Levy el al Wilness Stalement.
8. Access Copyright licenses the reproduction of works on both an exclusions-basis
and on an inclusions-basis, depending on whether a print equivalent of the work has been
issued to the public. At this time, the works that are in Access Copyright's repertoire
("Repertoire") include:
(a) Any published work in print form or that has a print equivalent (a "Print Work"),
that has been issued to the public with the consent or acquiescence of a
rightsholder that has not been excluded by the rightsholder (licensed on an
exclusions-basis); and
(b) Any published work that has been issued to the public in digital-only form (a
"Born Digital Work") with the consent or acquiescence of a rightsholder that has
been expressly included by the rightsholder (licensed on an inclusions-basis).
Exhibil AC-2: Levy el al Witness Sialement.
III. HISTORY OF REPRODUCTION LICENCES IN THE POSTSECONDARY SECTOR
1994 THROUGH 2010
9. Access Copyright had reprographic reproduction licences in place with
Educational Institutions continuously from 1994 to December 31, 2010.
10. Negotiations between Access Copyright and the AUCC resulted in a model
licence in 1994 (ultimately the "2003 AUCC Model Licence"). The AUCC Model Licence
- 3 -
formed the basis for a similar model licence in 1994 between Access Copyright and member
institutions of the ACCC and other public colleges (outside Quebec), (ultimately the "2003
Public Colleges Model Licence"). Access Copyright also granted licences to post-secondary
training and vocational colleges that are not members of the AUCC or ACCC (the "Proprietary
Colleges") under a licence that took effect on January 1, 2005 (the "Proprietary Colleges
Licence").
Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
11. Pursuant to the 2003 AUCC Model Licence, the 2003 Public Colleges Model
Licence and subsequent renewals, AUCC and ACCC member institutions paid royalties and
reported coursepack usage to Access Copyright continuously from 1994 through to December
31, 2010. Pursuant to the Proprietary Colleges Licence, Proprietary Colleges paid royalties and
reported coursepack usage from January 1, 2005 through to the same date.
Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
12. The 2003 AUCC Model Licence and the 2003 Public Colleges Model Licence in
force between 1994 and December 31, 2010 covered reprographic (i.e., print) uses only. These
licences were structured as a flat fee per FTE plus a per page rate for works photocopied for
use in coursepacks. The flat fee covered day-to-day copying, such as for handouts and library
reserves, which the licensee was not required to report. As of 2007 and thereafter until the 2003
AUCC and 2003 Public Colleges Model Licences expired on December 31 , 2010, the annual
royalty was $3.38 per FTE and $0.10 per page for works photocopied for use in coursepacks.
Under the Proprietary Colleges Licence, as of 2007 until December 31,2010, the annual royalty
rate was $3.58 per FTE and $0.11 per page for coursepack copying.
Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
13. Access Copyright attempted to negotiate an amended version of the 2003 AUCC
Model Licence throughout 2009 and 2010. These negotiations were unsuccessful because,
among other things, the AUCC was unwilling to discuss coverage under the licence for digital
uses whereas Access Copyright believed that digital reproduction of the works in its repertoire
by Canadian post-secondary educational institutions was widespread. Once it was clear that
negotiations had failed, Access Copyright filed the Proposed Tariff with the Copyright Board.
Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
IV. LICENCES CURRENTLY IN PLACE
14. In January 2012, Access Copyright negotiated licences with the University of
Toronto ("U of T") and The University of Western Ontario ("Western"). The licences are
effective from January 1, 2011 to December 31 ,2013, cover both paper and digital copying of
works in the Repertoire, and effectively mirror the uses authorized under the Proposed Tariff.
The U of T and Western licences provide for a royalty rate of $27.50 per FTE student
throughout the term of the licences, however, pursuant to a "More Favourable Rate" clause,
given that the 2012 AUCC Model Licence, discussed below, provides for a royalty of $26.00 per
FTE, U of T and Western pay $26.00 per FTE per year.
Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
- 4 -
15. In April and May 2012, Access Copyright negotiated model licences for AUCC
members (the "2012 AUCC Model Licence") and for ACCC members (the "2012 ACCC Model
Licence"). Like the U of T and Western licences, the 2012 AUCC Model Licence and the 2012
ACCC Model Licence cover both paper and digital copying of works in the Repertoire and mirror
the uses authorized under the Proposed Tariff. The annual royalty rates under these Model
Licences are $26.00 per FTE for AUCC member institutions and $10.00 per FTE for ACCC
member institutions. A similar model licence (the "2012 Proprietary Colleges Model Licence"),
at an annual royalty rate of $10.00 per FTE, is available for Proprietary Colleges. The 2012
AUCC, ACCC and Proprietary Colleges Model Licences cover the period from January 1, 2011
to December 31, 2015.
Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
16. 37 AUCC member institutions (including the U of T and Western) have signed a
licence with Access Copyright, representing 65% of all AUCC institutions. 36% of all other
Educational Institutions have signed licences with Access Copyright. This group consists of 20
ACCC institutions (representing 24% of all ACCC institutions) and 61 Proprietary Colleges
(representing 42% of all Proprietary Colleges).
Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-12: Post-Secondary
Educational Institution Tariff, 20112013, Valuation Report of Brad Heys
("NERA Valuation Report"}.
V. COPYING BEHAVIOUR OF POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS
17. Under the Model Licences in place between 1994 and 2010, post-secondary
institutions were required to report the number of pages copied and bibliographic information for
works copied for use in paper coursepacks. Institutions are also required to report paper
coursepack copying under the terms of the 2012 Model Licences entered into by Educational
Institutions and under the terms of the Interim Tart!. Access Copyright will file an analysis of this
historical coursepack reporting which shows that, on average between 2005 and 2010 post-
secondary institutions copied 124.8 million compensable pages per year from the Repertoire for
use in paper coursepacks:
(a) AUCC institutions copied an average of 111.8 million compensable pages per
year, the equivalent of 167.1 pages per FTE;
b) ACCC member institutions copied an average of 10.7 million compensable pages
per year, the equivalent of 33.9 pages per FTE; and
c) Proprietary Colleges copied an average of 2.3 million compensable pages per
year, the equivalent of 42.8 pages per FTE.
Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-5: Circum Network
Inc., Analysis of the Volume and Nature of the Copying of Published Works
Documented by the Post-Secondary Coursepack Data Delivered to Access
Copyright between 2005 and 2012 ("Circum Coursepack Data Volume
Report'l
18. The majority of coursepack copying is from books, representing between 77%
and 79% of total volume from 2005 to 2010. This is followed by journals (ranging between 17%
and 20% of the volume), magazines (representing 3% to 4% of volume) and newspapers
(accounting for less than 1%of volume).
- 5 -
Exhibit AC-5: Circum Coursepack Data Volume Report.
19. There is continuing heavy use of paper coursepacks, however, there has also
been in recent years a major move by post-secondary institutions to post digital content on
Course Management Systems ("CMS") and utilize digital copies in other ways.
Exhibit AC-3: Mich ael Murphy, Report on Course Manag ement Systems and
Copying Activities in High er Education ("CMS and Copying ActIvities
Report"; Exhibit AC-7: Witness Statement of Greg Nordal ("Nordal Witness
Statement"} ; Exhibit AC-8 Witness Statement of David Swail ("Swail
Witness Statement").
20. Access Copyright will provide evidence about CMSs: what they are and what
they allow users to do. Works uploaded to CMSs are available to students to download at their
convenience, from any location with access to an internet connection. Based on answers to
interrogatori es provided by both AUCC and ACCC institutions, it is apparent that digital
technologies facilitate the copying of published works and are widely used across Educational
Institutions. The posting, emailing, and other dissemination or sharing of content is not generally
monitored or tracked by the institution with respect to copyright permission. No significant,
qualitative differences are observed between Model Licensees and non-Model Licensees with
respect to the types of CMS systems used and the types of copies made. Access Copyright will
adduce evidence on the number and types of digital copies typically created when works are
posted to a CMS site and a secure intranet site.
Exhibit AC-3: Michael Murplw, CMS and Copying Activities Report.
21. While the data available to Access Copyright relating to digital copying is more
limited than the historical paper coursepack reporting that Access Copyright has collected,
pursuant to the Board's order of June 6, 2011 and its ruling of October 23, 2012, a number of
ACCC institutions that have not entered into a licence with Access Copyright were ordered to
answer certain interrogatories (the "interrogatori es in abeyance"). The documentation
provided in response to the interrogatories in abeyance clearly shows that the amount of digital
copying that is now typically carried out by post-secondary institutions is enormous, far outstrips
paper coursepack copying, and is approximately six times greater than paper coursepack
copying. There is no evidence to suggest the copying carried out by AUCC member institutions
is not equally pervasive on a commensurate scale.
Exhibit AC-4: Circum Network lnc., Analysis of the Responses Provided to
Interrogatories 71, 105, 106, 107, and 108 in the Context of the Post-
Secondary EducatIonal Institution Tariff (2011-2013) Proceedings ("CIrcum
Interrogatories Analysis Report").
22. In addition to the paper coursepack copying and the digital copying reported by
post-secondary institutions, there is also evidence from the answers to the interrogatories in
abeyance of the volume of an additional category of previously unknown copying: i.e., day-to-
day copying that was never historically reported to Access Copyright including, for example,
copying for handouts in class and library reserves that will be covered by the comprehensive
licence provided by the certified tariff. That volume suggests that Educational Institutions copy
261 compensable pages per FTE under the day-to-day copying component of their licence.
Exhibit AC-4: Circum Int errogatories Analysis Report.
- 6 -
VI. THE AUCC AND ACCC ISSUE THE POLICY
23. In the fall of 2012, the AUCC and the ACCC issued "fair dealing" policies setting
out their interpretation of fair dealing. (The AUCC and ACCC fair dealing policies, which are
substantively identical, are referred to herein as the "Policy".) Many AUCC and ACCC member
institutions have adopted the Policy.
Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
24. The Policy, with one exception, mirrors the copying permitted under the Access
Copyright Model Licences and the Proposed Tariff. Therefore the Policy effectively subsumes
the copying in respect of which an Access Copyright licence would be required or to which the
certified tariff will apply.
Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.
VII. THE COPYING BY POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS IS UNFAIR
25. The Educational Institutions bear the burden to establish that the massive
amount of copying they do is fair. Access Copyright's position is that neither the Policy nor
copying under the Policy is fair and, therefore, the copying by the institutions under the Policy is
compensable.
26. The goal of the Copyright Act (and the fair dealing exceptions under the Act) is to
create a balance between the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works
of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator. The six factors identified by
the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence are aimed at determining whether or not the
copying engaged in is consistent with this underlying goal. Here, all of the evidence available
supports the proposition that, notwithstanding that alternatives to copying are available,
Educational Institutions are engaged in non-spontaneous (i.e., purposeful), systematic copying
on a large-scale, copying hundreds of millions of pages per year as paper coursepacks, digital
works posted to CMSs, handouts and other copying. The copying, which permeates across all
institutions (licensed and unlicensed) and all genres of works, results in slavish, identical copies
of the originals. Parliament cannot have intended that such copying in such quantities would be
permitted without compensation to creators and publishers.
Exhibit AC4: Circum Interrogatories Analysis Report; Exhibit AC5: Circum
Coursepack Data Volume Report; Exhibit AC-7: Nordal Witness Statement;
Exhibit AC-8: Swall Witness Statement; Exhibit ACll:
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Access Copyright Market Impact of Post-
Secondary Fair Dealing Policy ("PwC Market Impact Report'?
27. Access Copyright's position is that the Objectors will not be able to establish that
any of the six factors established by the Supreme Court of Canada - when applied to the
circumstances here - indicate that the dealing in this case is fair.
Exhibit AC-4: Circum Interrogatories Analysis Report; Exhibit AC-5: Circum
Coursepack Data Volumes Report; Exhibit ACG: Analysis of a Survey of
Access Copyright Creator Affiliates in the Context of the Post-Secondary
Educational Institution Tariff (2011-2013) Proceedings ("Circum Creator
Survey Report"}; Exhibit AC-7: Nordal Witness Statement; Exhibit AC8:
Swail Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-9: Witness Statement of Don LePan (
- 7 -
"LePan Witness Statement"); Exhibit AC-fO: Witness Statement of John
Degen.
28. Copies of works in the Repertoire are made available to students, among other
means, through CMS systems via which works can be downloaded at their convenience, (and
are incapable of being monitored given the decentralized nature of the copying). Entire works
(e.g., articles, poems and photographs) are copied mechanistically, with no transformative or
added creative input. Whole chapters of books, which can and often do contain an author's
complete and complex analytical and intellectual analysis on a given topic, are copied. The
Policy permits copying that competes with and damages the market for the works.
Exhibit AC-3: Michael Murphy CMS and Copying Activities Report; Exhibit
AC-6: Circum Creator Survey Report; Exhibit AC-?: Nordal Witness
Statement; Exhibit AC-8: Swail Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-9: LePan
Witness Statement; Exhibit ACff: PwC Marketlmpact Report.
29. Access Copyright will adduce the evidence of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
("PwC") regarding the likely adverse effects on the market of the Policy. PwC concludes that
copying by Educational Institutions in accordance with the Policy is likely to have the following
impacts:
(a) Substantial reduction or elimination of the secondary licensing income earned by
copyright holders (publishers and creators);
(b) Reduction in primary sales by allowing free creation of content that directly and
indirectly competes with content sold by copyright holders;
(c) Reduced income to creators will decrease the number of works they produce and
reduce the time they spend creating;
(d) A fall in revenues coupled with increased uncertainty, will result in a reduction in
investment made by publishers. Certain areas, such as Canadian content, will be
affected more than others;
(e) Some smaller publishers will reduce activity or close operations; and
(f) Content diversity will decline as certain niche areas become underserved.
Exhibit AC6: Circum Creator Survey Report; Exhibit AC-ff: PwC Market
Impact Report.
30. These impacts would harm both copyright holders and copyright users and
hamper Canada's efforts to become a knowledge-based economy.
Exhibit Ac-t t: PwC Marketlmpact Report.
- 8 -
VIII. THE FMV OF THE PROPOSED TARIFF
31. NERA Economic Consulting was asked by Access Copyright to provide an
estimate of the value of the licence granted by the Proposed Tariff. The FMV is a measure of
the royalty rate to which arm's-length parties would agree in negotiating a licence, where FMV is
defined as:
The highest price available in an open and unrestricted market
between informed and prudent parties, acting at arm's length and
under no compuision to act, expressed in terms of cash.
Exhibit AC-12: NERA Valuation Report.
32. NERA's estimated FMV royalty rates under the Proposed Tariff are $26.00 per
FTE for Universities and $10.00 per FTE for all other Educational Institutions. NERA concludes
that the Benchmark Licences - which consist of (for Universities) the 2012 AUCC Modei
Licence and the U of T and Western Licences; and (for other Educational Institutions), the 2012
ACCC Model Licence and the 2012 Proprietary Colleges Model Licence - are reasonable
proxies because:
(a) The FMV royalty rates are the actual negotiated royalty rates under the
Benchmark Licences.
(b) The ratio of the FMV royalty rate for AUCC institutions to that for all other
Educational Institutions is 2.6, which is consistent with the ratio of average
historical royalties paid by these two groups to Access Copyright;
(c) The Benchmark Licences are substantially similar to the Proposed Tariff , with
any differences between the terms of the Benchmark Licences and the Proposed
Tariff being immaterial to the determination of the FMV royalty rate;
(d) The Benchmark Licences are reasonable proxies given assumptions regarding
fair dealing;
(e) The copying behaviour of the licensees to the Benchmark Licences (the
"Licensees") (on an average per FTE basis) is not significantly different from the
copying behaviour of the population of Universities and other Educational
Institutions to which the Proposed Tariff would apply, and the historical royalties
paid by the Licensees (on an average per FTE basis) is not significantly different
from the royalties paid by the population of Universities and other Educational
Institutions to which the Proposed Tariff would apply.
Exhibit AC12: NERA Valuation Report; Exhibit AC5: Circum Coursepack Data Volume
Report.
33. NERA's conclusion regarding the FMV royalty rates under the Proposed Tariff is
reasonable given:
(a) The available information regarding the volume of copying and the per page
values supports the estimated FMV royalty rates (in fact, the available data
suggests the estimated FMV royalty rates are conservative); and
- 9 -
(b) The royalty rates paid by post-secondary educational institutions in other
jurisdictions for reproduction licences.
Exhibi t AC12: NERA Valuation Report.
IX. CONCLUSION
34. The object of copyright is to promote the encouragement and dissemination of
copyrighted works to aid in fostering future innovation while at the same time providing a just
reward to creators. The fair dealing exception ensures there is room for the public domain to
fiourish and to permit others to create new works by building on the ideas and information
contained in existing copyrighted works. In short, copyright law and the fair dealing exception
are meant to ailow for unlicensed uses of copyrighted works for a transformative or socially
productive purpose.
35. Access Copyright will submit that the Policy is not supported by the jurisprudence
or legislation and does not further the goals of copyright policy. The Policy and the copying
carried out under the Policy are manifestly unfair under the six criteria formulated by the
Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the dealing is fair.
36. Access Copyright wiil request that the Board, consistent with the analysis of
NERA, certify the tariff at royalty rates of $26.00 per FTE for Universities and $10.00 per FTE
for ail other Educational Institutions.
37. Access Copyright reserves the right to rely on any other evidence adduced
during the course of the hearing and, in accordance with the Board's Directive on Procedure, to
modify this Statement during the course of the proceedings as required.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
September 13, 2013
1 J ! & ~
11.
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Lawyers for Access Copyright
APPENDIX A
TO ACCESS COPYRIGHT
EXHIBIT AC-1 (STAT EMENT OF CASE)
Witness Panel : Roanie Levy, Executive Director, Access Copyright
i Kerrie Duncan, Director, Operations, Access Copyright
: Jennifer Lamantia, Manager, Education Licensing, Access Copyright
-_ ----_.. --_ -- --_._ -_.--- --- ---------- ---------------- ------------------ --------- ---------------- -_. _. -.-- -
Est imated Time : 3.0 hours
in Chief :
. _._. _.-------_.. .. . _.... ----------------------- ---- _... .. ------ _.-_. .. . _. . --- _.--_. _._. .. --------_. -_.. .. . ------- -------- -- -
List of Exhibits : Exhibit AC-2 WitnessStatement of Roanie Levy, Kerrie Duncan and Jennifer
.. . ... .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .l .dat e.,!. ..1. .
...................... .
: AC2B Cumcuium Vitae of Kerrie Duncan
.. . .. --------------- -' , --------- _._. _ ----- --_ -_.---- _ _.----------_ -_.------_ _ ---_.------_ ---
.. ........ ...........-i.. . f !J!!!q!1'L1lJ1 ."!!('!I!.9.1. !l.ifer. .
......................j.. .P.a!entL yaten.t.a.nd. .
... . .. .. . ... ... .. . .. .. L.ist.of.rv1e.m.ber. .
. . ... .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .
. .. . ..... .. . . .. . .. .. .. .
: CONFIDENTIAL List of Affiliates
.. ... . .. . .. . . ... .. .. .. .
: AC-21 List of RROs
-------- ------ ---_ _--- _ _--- -- -- - --- - -- -- ------- - -- - -- -. - ---- - -- - -- - -.. --- ----- .
: AC-2J Sampleof Agreements with Foreign Reproduction Rights
... . ... . .. . . . .... . .. ..l .
....... . . .. . ...... .. .. ?QJ.0:?0.12 .
: AC-2L 2003AUCCModel Licence
_.- _.. . _.----_. _. _.. . ' ,' _.-. ---. _ _. --------- ------- ------------------------------ -- ------------ ----------------. _. _.-----
.. .. .. .. . .. .... . .. .. ..1.. .,:,.ubli.c . .M.odEJI. : .
.. .. .. .. .. . .... . . .. ... !\LJ.G.C. .
. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !\G.9.Q.. .
. . .. ... . .. ... .... . ... . .Af : 2fO .
. ....... . .. . .. ....... . ()f!o!o.ntCl . .
.... . . .. . ... .. . .. . ... . .9.n!a! io. .
. .... .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .
..... ... .. .. . ...... .. . ()f .
... .. .. .. .. . . . ... .. .. . 2.QJ.? (M!!'. .
. .. .. ... . ... .. . .. .. .. . 2.QJ.? (F'il1<l I.VEJrsi.on) .
: AC-2W Letter to AUCCMember Institutions
. -_._.-_ - _ -' ,' ---------. ------------- ----- _ --------_._.-_.--------_ ----- _. _._ ----------------- --
: AC-2X List of AUCCinstitutions that have entered into licence
. . .. ----------------- -,- ---------_. _ -_.-- . _ ------- -- ---- _. - _. -- _.-_._. -- --_.-- -. . --_ ---
...... ................i.. h.aYEJ .
... . .. .. .. . . ... .. . .. .. ?0J.2 .'!.ersion} .
. . .. .. .. .. . . 2.0J.? .YEJrsLon) .
.. . . ... . .. . . .. .. .. ... .l 2.QJ.? .
: AC2CC Letter to ACCC Member Institutions
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0- - -- - __ - - - - - - - - _ _
: AC-2DD List of ACCC Institutions that have entered into licence
- 2 -
Witness Panel Roanie Levy, Executive Director, Access Copyright
Kerrie Duncan, Director, Operations, Access Copyright
Jennifer Lamantia, Manager, Education Licensing, Access Copyright
. . . J. '?! .
... .. ........... . . . . . . . L .
............. . .. . . . . . . . .
........... .... . . . . .. . . hist .'?t.Pr()pr!et<3.ry. .
......... .. . . . . . . .. ... . his.t ,?f.Pr()P!!e!a.ry. th<l.t .
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. !'<31r .
... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. !'<3!r .
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . J. .ReRort. ?-' .?o) .
........ .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1. .of i\n.alysis .
... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1. .
............. .. . . . . . . . .Ac;: 2.0.o J. .of <3.'"!cJ.reRertoire. .
AC2PP : Research Specialist Manual, June 2013
_ _ -_. --- ---- ---------------- --- ------- _.. _.-- _. . ----- ----- ---------------_._.. _ _. . _ -_.--------
AC200 : Document Analyst instructions for entering Interrogatory 0 108
: Metadata
----------- -- _. - _._. -- ---- _._.---_ .. _. .. _. .. . '," ------------- ----------------------- ------- -----_.. ------------------------
AC2RR : Historical Reporting Data for "Native Poetry - A Contemporary
. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . .
AC-2SS : Kwantien Polytechnic University Creative Writing CRWR1110
. ... ... . .. ... .... . .. .. . .. ...... . .. ... .... .. .. .
. .. . i. ic.U.niversity !o. ! 1.8..
AC-2UU i Printout from Kwantlen Polytech University website, "What Can I
: Copy?"
Witness i Michael Murphy, Michael Murphy Consulting
Estimated Time : 1.0 hour
in Chief
.. -_ -------- ------:- -------------- ---------'," _. . _. --_._.------ -------------- ------------------------- ---- -_. - .
List of Exhibits : Exhibit AC-3 : Michael Murphy, "Report on Course Management Systems and
...................... i. in. .
............... . . . . . . . J. .
........... . . . . . . . ... .l .ARll e.ndix,13 '?!.9.op.i!' .s .
i Appendix C i Curriculum Vifae of Michael Murphy
Witness Benoit Gauthier, President, Circum Network Inc.
Estimated Time 3.0 hours
in Chief
.. ... ... . . .. . ... ...... ---- --- _. _------- ------ - _-- _-------
List of Exhibits Exhibit AC4 Circum Network Inc., "Analysis of the Responses Provided to
Interrogatories 71, 105, 106, 107 and 108 in the context of the
Post-Secondary Educationai Institution Tariff (20112013)
Proceedinas"
Witness
- 3 -
i Benoit Gauthier, President, CircumNetwork Inc.
__ ______ _____________.:__ _1 _
______________________:_A.1lj)e.nd_i x_E3 _Pr()ce.ss)ng _C()de. _
_____________________-1- _C()de._ _
______________________ Q __ <1 _
______________________,tlllj)e.nd_ix_ ; _ __5 _
__ ___ __ ____________ f. J_ _C()de. (3 _
______________________ J_ _C()de. .7 _
______________________l _AIlj)e_nd_ix.!"i J_ _<::()de.__ _
: Exhibit AC-5 : Analysis of the Volume and Nature of the Post-Secondary
i Coursepack Data Delivered to Access Copyright between 2005
, : and 2012
-------------- ---_. - r ----.- -- -- _ _ -, ----------------------- ------------------- ----------------------- ------------
____ _______ ____ ____ __-l -- 1. _
____ __ ____________ E3 -1. __<::()de. _2 _
_____________________-1- -1- S;;()de. _
_____________________-1- A.1l j)e.ndix_Q -1- _C()de. <1 _
______________________ _AfJj)e.nd_ix_ _C()de. _5 _
______ ________________ _AIlj)e.nd_ix.f. ; _ (3 _
. .
____________________ __ _AIlj)e.
nd
_
ix
_ _<::()de. .7 _
______________________ H J_ S;;()de. _
: Exhibit AC-G : Analysis of a Survey of Access Copyright Creator Affiliates in
: : the Context of the Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariff
__ _____________ ____ __ _L L(2_01_1_ 3} _
______ ________________l _AIlj)e_ndix_ L _
: Appendix B : Detailed Tables
Witness Greg Nardal, President Nelson Education Ltd.
David Swail, President and CEO, McGraw-Hili Ryerson Limited
Estimated Time 1.5 hours
in Chief
I
Exhibit AC-7
Witness Statement of Greg Nordal, dated September 11 , 201 3
---- ---- _ ---- ------ ----------------------- ---------_ _.. _. _.-_. -. . _.--_ _.. -_. --_.---- -- _ -_.-------
Witness Statement of David Swail, dated September 11, 2013
Exhibit AC-a
Witness
- 4 -
Don LePan, President and CEO, Broadview Press
Estimated Ti me 0.5 hours
in Chief
.. ... . . . _--------- ---- ------- . __ --- ---- -- -- ------ - -- - ----- -------- - -- ----- - ------- -- ----- - - -- -.-- - -- ---- - -
Li st of Exhi bi ts i Witness Statement of Don LePan, dated September 11, 2013
Exhibi t AC-9
Witness i John Degen, The Canadian Writers' Union
.. .. .. . ------------- -- } -----------. _..... ---------- -. ----------------------------------------------- ---_.-------. --_.. .. ----
Estimated Time : 1.0 hour
in Chief :
_.. . _._.----_.. _. ... -" --------- --------------",----------------.. _. . . -----------.. ----------------------------------- --
.C?! . .. .E!<, -.1 0 .C?! .Jo.hn. . .! !!. .
.... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. of. 9.f. .
......................l _ J. gf .
: AC-10C : Reoort on the 2013 Survev of Members
Witness i Michael Dobner, Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers LP
. .. . . ----------------- ----- _ _. _ -------- ---. -. -. ---------------------------- ---------- - _ ---- - _ _-
Estimated Time : 3.0 hours
In Chief :
------------------ --. . -_ -- --- -. . _ ---------. - --------- _.------- ---- --_.-------
List of Exhi bits : PricewaterhouseCoopers LP, "Access Copyright; Market Impact
i of Fair Dealing"
: Exhi bit AC-11 :
_._ _. ------ ------ --'" ----------- -------------:- --------- -------------- ------------ ---- ---------------- ----------- _-
..... .................i.. i. .
. . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . a.nd. .
: A endix C : Curriculum Vitae of Michael Dobner
Witness Bradley A. Heys, Vice President, NERA Economic Consulting
Estimated Time 3.0 hours
i n Chief
_.-_. -- ------------- - -------- -------- ------- ----------- ------------------------------- ------------------------- _ .
List of Exhi bits CONFIDENTIAL Bradley A. Heys, "Valuation Report Post-Secondary Educational
Exhi bit AC-12 Institutions Proposed Tariff 2011-2013"
----_._----- ------ -- -- -- ------ - - - -- -- - - -- ---- -- - -- -- ---- - ----- - -- -- - - --- -- - ----- -- - --- -------- --- - - -- - ------- - -- - _-
. . . .. .. ........ . . . . . ... 9.1. .
.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .Ap. fle.nd.ix. a.nd. 1 .
..... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . '!!. Ia@ .
.. . . . . . ... . . .... . . . . . . [) to. .
CONFIDENTIAL RROs responses to questionnaire
Appendi x E