7 ms·
Copyright to Class Notes: Do Students Own the Copyright to Their Notes?
- reggiecasual 14y agoCopyrights for Back to School so as not to copyright infringe.
- politician 14y ago> For copyright to even exist at all the work must be fixed in a tangible medium. Examples of a "tangible medium" would include, of course, graphite markings, magnetic dust, or the strength of nodes in a neural network.
- kunvay 14y agoI like the neural networks piece ;-) That's funny.
- norswap 14y agoWhat about my intangible spiritual soul? Is my whole life a lie? Which part of me will go to heaven? :o
- camiller 14y agoYou are born with the rights to your soul, otherwise you wouldn't be able to contractually give it up.
- Cogito 14y agoA lot of the argument seems to be based on the premise that a lecture is not copyrightable because it does not lie in tangible media. This seems to ignore the common practice (at least at my University) of recording every lecture so as to make them available for students who could not attend them.
- vectorbunny 14y agoProperty, in the legal sense of the word, refers not to a particular scarce resource, but rather to a state-acknowledged bundle of exclusive rights that an individual may be recognized to hold over said resource. State acknowledgement of real and personal property, <b>combined with the rule of law</b>, are the basis of the stability of, and therefore prosperity of, the so-called 'first world'. Trying to extend these metaphors to intellectual property, to build fences around knowledge, without seriously rethinking the fundamental differences between ideas and manifest things, quickly generates absurdity. Should every teacher that I've ever had be entitled to some portion of the value that I am able to create applying the ideas that they have imparted to me? Did they create those ideas in the first place? I believe people should be able to make a living from their work. That said, copyright is not an incorruptible shield-maiden descended from the heavens to defend creators. Copyright, among other things, makes legal interest portable. This has many upsides for the clever and the brave, but it also allows the naive and unwary to be fleeced, as the depressing nursing homes full of dirt-poor hit song writers could attest.
- vannevar 14y agoTo elaborate, copyright has always been primarily for the economic benefit of distributors, and only rationalized as a benefit for creators. Tolerating the occasional absurdity was understandable when distribution was capital-intensive and economic incentives were needed, but now that distribution is nearly free, our expanding copyright law only serves to incentivize marketing, an activity of questionable social benefit that hardly needs encouragement.
- 001sky 14y agoCopyright has always been primarily for the economic benefit of distributors, and only rationalized as a benefit for creators This statement is sort of nonsense. Copyright has always been exploited by groups of people formed to exploit it. Yes. But its "purpose" is and was independent of such.[1] The problem is that these groups are now re-writing laws to entrench their business interests as public policy. The "purpose" needs to be seperated more clearly. (1)It is independent of "copyright" per se, as a strategy; and (2) it is independent of any particular implementation of that strategy via law or fiat. The point of noting these differences is that in order to solve these problems they need to be framed more pecisely and more clearly. That's not to say I agree or disagree with the direction you are proposing. And I think you are dimensionalizing the problem in useful ways and at the right level of abstraction. Notes ______________ [1] As a point of history, copyright predates the industrial revolution. And thus predates widespread organizing economic actors as corporations. Authors and independent professionals were in a much different position in society, and corporations were relatively few, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
- rabidsnail 14y agoUniversity degree programs come with some of the scariest shrink-wrap licenses I've ever seen. If colleges really thought this was a problem they wouldn't need copyright. The public perception of universities as some kind of noble public service needs to end.
- koof 14y agoCan you give an example of one of those licenses?
- rabidsnail 14y agoThey're usually not public, so finding one would take a lot of digging.
- Lockyy 14y agoI had to sign (hit accept on a webform) an agreement when I started at my university that said the university would own any intellectual property I produced using university resources. Which I am to assume is just to cover them for anything I create for assignments. I am not sure on exact details of the agreement, as this was just under a year ago now and having asked for the agreement since I haven't been provided with a copy of it.
- Cogito 14y agoI was never much of a note taker in class, however most students I observed who were tended to copy verbatim that which the lecturer was presenting, either in slides or on the board. Rarely was there any use of "their own skill and knowledge to interpret what has been said" that allowed them to "claim ownership of them". I agree that _some_ notes may be significantly original works, however the arguments made are somewhat incomplete and rather broad, to their detriment.