[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [school-discuss] Open Content: Dialog on creative commons licensing terms

Hi Justin!   
    I just read your mail and thought you might like to read the article I attached.
Best Regards
Jan Ciechanowski
skarbien@xxxxxxxxx
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 15:08
Subject: Re: [school-discuss] Open Content: Dialog on creative commons licensing terms

I was thinking about this a little bit more, and have tried looking at it from different perspectives.  This message is somewhat lengthy, but I think there is a lot to consider and there isn't exactly a "starting" point for this sort of thing.  I'm brainstorming and dumping the different things I can think of while working to build an understanding of these subjects, and trying to find the approaches that are effective.  Some of it might even go a bit outside of the specifics of what is being looked at with OpenLearn, but that they are willing to evaluate the comments is a great motivator to start taking a look at this topic. 

It's hard to be disappointed with their efforts and progress when institutions that haven't even started to examine the subject of open educational resources are considered.  When I look at what OpenLearn is doing I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that getting to where they are now was a small feat. 

Resources such as SchoolForge and Free Curricula Center could come across as organizations that simply aren't satisfied unless institutions let go of their intellectual property claims and embrace these licensing approaches without regard to the financial and legal issues.  This isn't the case, but given that we look at these things from a freedom-centric perspective and view these freedoms as the enabling standards - it would be easy to find faults with many OER type projects.

If moving to open content licenses and allowing others to make derivative works is looked at as becoming part of a discussion where these ideas and resources can be worked with, challenged, and improved, then there is a direct correlation between the freedoms granted by the license and the extent the content producer is willing to contribute and share a voice in this discussion.  With less freedoms being restricted, the sphere in which the resource has utility grows - and it's within that sphere that the resource will realize the benefits of the collaborative aspects that this openness lends itself to. 

When I look at an open resource, the first thing I ask myself is "what can I do with this, and what would I need to take into account to do these things" Through that, I get a sense of whether this resource (whatever it is) could be used as a foundation or extension to some effort or idea that might come along.  What I haven't been able to do, is to fit the OpenLearn termination clause into my understanding of the creative commons license.  Looking at the first two reasons provided - financial sustainability and whether the materials must be withdrawn in the case that the project is not viable, and in the case that inappropriate materials are submitted - the proper course would be to cease the distribution of the materials.  Beyond that, expressing the termination of any rights would be in conflict with the CC license.  (Though, IANAL!! :-)

The third reason is a little bit more interesting, in that it's looking at the implications of third party content.  From what I could see on the website, many steps are taken to ensure that third party content is appropriately submitted in accordance with the CC license (which would mean the above applies,) if there are materials included in resources that do not fall under the CC license/have special terms - it's more logistical, which OpenLearn addresses by having an area for special restrictions to be noted.  Though, if the special restrictions prevented an entity from duplicating or reusing that specific material, there wouldn't have been any rights granted that would now be eligible for termination. 

OpenLearn mentioned that this is unfamiliar territory, and that is supported by even the most definitive and exhaustive analysis of OER's that is ongoing through the OECD's research with UNESCO / IIEP.  These discussions have been great to read - and it's impressive that they are able to summarize it in these reports.  Just reading the discussions, one post here or there could lead to one of those hours long sessions of playing follow the linker. 

A couple good links on this:

http://www.schoolforge.net/IIEP_OECD_OER_forum_report.pdf (This document will soon be available on the IIEP wiki site, but I couldn't find it there yet - but wanted to share this because it points to a lot of important topics)  It was also announced that the OECD/UNESCO/IIEP discussion will soon be focusing on Intellectual Property Rights - which should be a very interesting discussion that raises many new questions and provides some great insights.

Another link, that points to a couple documents (again from OECD) is here http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,2340,en_2649_33723_37815811_1_1_1_1,00.html
 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date: 28-02-07 16:09
Title: iTWire - Why not ban the Internet at schools?
Home arrow Our Blogs arrow The BeerFiles arrow Why not ban the Internet at schools?
Why not ban the Internet at schools? PDF Print E-mail
By Stan Beer   
Thursday, 01 March 2007
The State Government of Victoria Australia has taken what I would consider to be a most stupid and ill-informed step by banning video sharing site YouTube from schools. The reason given - to prevent cyber bullying - is equally stupid and ill-informed.

Related stories

Last year, some schoolboy thugs made headlines in Australia and shocked the nation when they tortured a teenage girl in front of a camera. They made DVDs of the terrible incident, which they later distributed, and then posted the video to YouTube.

In the US, social networking site MySpace has legislators up in arms because young teenagers pretending to be older than they are have been lured by predators pretending to be something other than they are into dangerous situations with tragic results.

There's no question about it, the Internet can be a dangerous place for the unwary. Chatrooms, instant messaging networks, emails and even merely web browsing can all be dangerous activities if misused. Should we ban them from schools and public libraries? Absolutely not! Should we teach children how to use the Internet safely and in the process reap its benefits and rewards? Absolutely!

YouTube has become something of a phenomenon on the net. In fact, it's in the class of killer app. This extraordinary tool has actually put the power of video production and global distribution into the hands of ordinary people. What was once the exclusive franchise of the elite is now within reach of the common folk.

However, like everything else on the net, YouTube can be used for good and for evil. A teacher can make a video of an experiment demonstrating an important scientific principle or deliver a lecture on an economics theory and teachers on the other side of the world can replay the video in class or point students to it for after class viewing.

A student can make a video production for a school project and later post it to YouTube for his or her friends and family all over the world to see. A school could post a video of their annual school play to YouTube. In fact, YouTube can be used as an inexpensive platform to teach students the art of film making

Alternatively, a bunch of ratbag boys can video their abuse of a helpless young girl and post it to YouTube. Did they post it to YouTube at school or at home? Does it matter? Did thuggish classmates view it at school or at home? Does it matter? It was a criminal act well before it made it to YouTube.

Cyber-bullying is a problem no doubt about it. But why single out YouTube? Email, SMS, instant messaging, social networking sites where jilted boyfriends and girlfriends slander their ex are all far more culpable mediums for cyber-bullying. Mobile phones have hit the news recently in the US as being an especially abused medium by teenagers bullying and intimidating other teenagers.

However, YouTube is not like a mobile phone. You can't send an intimidating instant message or email to a classmate on YouTube. In fact, it was YouTube that exposed the schoolboy thugs to world and brought them down. In an act of hubris and immature bravado, they uploaded their crime for the world to see and thankfully were collared for their efforts.

So please explain to the world Education Services Minister for the State of Victoria Jacinta Allan, exactly how will banning the use of one of the most innovative applications for the global distribution of video information at schools decrease cyber bullying? Why not just simply ban the use of the Internet?

Get stories like this delivered subscribe to our free Daily UPDATE email newsletter

Have your say! Get a WireTalker account to add your comments to this article.
Login now to add your comment.

Comments
 
Next >
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3

sponsored links