4 ms·

The line is, their content is free, even though they were not required to. If it was a teacher that put his content up on his personal website, nobody would ca

The line is, their content is free, even though they were not required to. If it was a teacher that put his content up on his personal website, nobody would care. But because it was done in MIT's name, people start throwing dirt. I've asked some hearing-impaired friends what they thought about this article. Their reaction was that it was ridiculous to sue over the accessibility of information given away for free.

falcolas 10y ago
> But because it was done in MIT's name, people start throwing dirt. Well, perhaps its because that material was paid for in part using public grants - your tax money and mine? These aren't poor, barely solvent community colleges, these are private institutions with huge revenues and investment funds in the hundreds of millions. > If it was a teacher that put his content up on his personal website, nobody would care If it were created with money from a federal grant, then yeah, people would still care.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  > Well, perhaps its because that material was paid for in part using public grants - your tax money and mine? Do you have any sources that shed light on whether any of this material is the product of federal grant money? You assume it is, when the article and other sources I can find offer no suggestions or evidence that the universities are releasing federally funded information in an inaccessible format. Based on your comments here, you have made a set of assumptions and concluded that because the universities accept federal funding, and because they have released course material to the public, that this course material is the product of federal money. That has not to my knowledge been shown to be the case. If you're including loans/grants that are awarded to students, then all colleges, even the poor, little, barely solvent ones, are to be subject to the same principles. But when you make what sound like snide remarks about an institution's investment funds and revenues, you somewhat betray that you're only outraged because the university has money, and isn't doing what you think it should with that money.

falcolas 10y ago

> But because it was done in MIT's name, people start throwing dirt. Well, perhaps its because that material was paid for in part using public grants - your tax money and mine? These aren't poor, barely solvent community colleges, these are private institutions with huge revenues and investment funds in the hundreds of millions. > If it was a teacher that put his content up on his personal website, nobody would care If it were created with money from a federal grant, then yeah, people would still care.

bobwaycott 10y ago
> Well, perhaps its because that material was paid for in part using public grants - your tax money and mine? Do you have any sources that shed light on whether any of this material is the product of federal grant money? You assume it is, when the article and other sources I can find offer no suggestions or evidence that the universities are releasing federally funded information in an inaccessible format. Based on your comments here, you have made a set of assumptions and concluded that because the universities accept federal funding, and because they have released course material to the public, that this course material is the product of federal money. That has not to my knowledge been shown to be the case. If you're including loans/grants that are awarded to students, then all colleges, even the poor, little, barely solvent ones, are to be subject to the same principles. But when you make what sound like snide remarks about an institution's investment funds and revenues, you somewhat betray that you're only outraged because the university has money, and isn't doing what you think it should with that money.