institutions Copying of primary textbooks to facilitate book sharing Copying of other types of works e.g. workbooks, short stories, articles, newspapers Reprographic copying for course packs, digital copying of course collections, copying of primary textbooks for students for other purposes Multiple copying of short excerpts from the same textbook Digital storage and storage and distribution through learning management systems Electronic reserve systems Other digital copying, scanning, downloading, emailing Copying by other staff members" Technically, Barry Sookman is right. The Supreme Court didn't address any of these other forms of copying. But Barry Sookman should know quite well that the implications of the rulings are wider, and that the principles laid down by the Court will have to apply beyond the specific facts of this particular case. He should know that not only because he is a smart and well-trained lawyer. Barry Sookman the blogger should know that because Barry Sookman the lawyer recognized this very point a year ago in his submission to the Supreme Court. Back in September 2011, when his clients sought to intervene in the case, he wrote to the Supreme Court that This is a critically important case to the long-term health of Canadian publishing in the educational sector. The Proposed Interveners believe that the precedent established in this case will extend to activities well beyond the K-12 educational setting. He further added that "The decision in this appeal would likely be applied to many other activities where fair dealing could be claimed". He did not