Talk:Copyright for Educators/Introduction
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Introductory sentences problematic||6||00:55, 9 July 2012|
I find these two introductory sentences
- "Copyright is a branch or subsection of intellectual property law which aims to protect the outputs of intellect through for example, trademarks, patents, designs, software licenses and copyright. This unit is restricted to providing an introduction to copyright law."
problematic and completely superfluous:
- Using the term "intellectual property" directs students' thinking on these matters in the direction desired by those who oppose digital freedom and the principles of OER outlined in this course. See this essay and other terms to avoid (including IP).
- The title of the page and its name make it clear what it is about.
How about starting with something to arouse interest such as
- In this digital age, the default, © copyright all rights reserved (applicable in most countries) contradicts the original purpose of copyright: to promote progress in science and the useful arts - a public good. The purpose is not to enrich publishers or authors, or to grant them undue influence on development and distribution of culture (Lessig, 2004).
I too support and advocate the use of free software and free knowledge artefacts. Notwithstanding my preferences for libre, Copyright is a legal construct and is a subsection of intellectual property law. We deal with the issue of the origins of copyright as in your rights to copy under the historical subsection.
Pedagogically speaking -- I feel it is prudent to meet the learners where they are and we need to highlight where this sits within legal frameworks. I think the best way to address these issues is to add your sentence in the opening section - -which I will do.
Thanks for adding value.
Hi Kim and Wayne,
We made a decision to not use in-text citations (that is, (Lessig, 2004)) in these learning materials, as the purpose is for learning (not reporting research results); learners who are not used to reading research papers may find them distracting.
As we introduced Lawrence Lessig in an earlier module in the course, I wonder if it would be useful to revise the sentence to specifically refer to Lessig as promoting this idea. This way we retain having his name in the text, and can delete the in text reference. For example:
- In his book Free Culture. How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity, Lawrence Lessig explains that the default, © copyright all rights reserved (applicable in most countries) contradicts the original purpose of copyright: to promote progress in science and the useful arts - a public good. The purpose is not to enrich publishers or authors, or to grant them undue influence on development and distribution of culture.
I'm also fine with just deleting the in-text citation, leaving the link to the reference.
One more suggestion: It think we should delete the comma after "default" --reads better.
Let me know your thoughts.
You're amazing! I am happy with all your suggestions. It's important to remain consistent.
Thanks....but really not (blush). I'll make the change.
I made one further change....put the name of the default in quotes. I think it helps learners see that this is the default phrase:
'...the default "© copyright all rights reserved" (applicable in most countries) contradicts...."
I like how this new lead-in in the introduction previews the contents of the module, namely the history page. Good addition.