[Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

[Ian Lynch]

We are in a transition between a dominant highly restrictive IP model
and growing support for liberal licensing. it's taking time because
new business models have to emerge that can support this and the big
players are paralysed by change because they only know how to make
money form a single approach.  People have to get used to a different
way of doing things ad that too is slower than technological change.
Mostly IP law arose at a time when publishing to a high standard was
very expensive. The first chinks in the practicalities of this was
when music moved to cassette tapes about 40 years ago. It's not just
that digital resources are easy to copy, it's also the unworkably
complex variations on terms and conditions and inconvenience to
end-users that will ensure that over time CC style licensing will
become the norm. Those companies that don't get to grips with this
will go out of business. In this day and age there really is no
argument for not having full and coherent support for the statutory
curriculum on-line with permission for anyone to take, modify and
improve those resources. The fiasco of Curriculum On-line shows how
unsustainably expensive the alternative model is - just compare it to
Wikipedia. BECTA et al are simply still in denial because they can't
deal with change and politicians have been incredibly slow to see that
the emperor has no clothes when it comes to the large scale commercial
interests that are clinging to an untenable status quo. The only
unknown is how long it will all take. There is bound to be a lot of
confusion in the meantime - well unless there is some genuine
leadership from those in a position to lead but that seems unlikely on
current track record. The fact is that most people in decision making
positions simply haven't kept up to date with digital trends. Many
still appear to think that sending a .ppt attachment to delegates
after a meeting is the height of digital literacy :-) A bit ironic
given the rhetoric about lifelong learning, e-strategy and digital
literacy ;-)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Roger Broadie
<Roger@broadieassociates.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Crispin,
> Thanks for supporting the view that the educational exceptions concept is
> broken.
> And I am afraid the idea that there can be a technical boundary also cannot
> work. Access to educational content is now through a browser, even for
> software that is used through thin client or secure gateway technologies,
> with the software actually running on machines in the school. And if the
> user can see something on their screen, they can capture it, even if only as
> a screen-grab or by taking a picture of it on their phone.
> Sure it is possible to technically limit software and content to running on
> specific machines, but that does not fully solve the copyright problem. It
> only gives control over quality of the content.
> The only copyright control which is workable is legal control through Ts&Cs,
> with the Ts&Cs being simple enough for all users to grasp easily.
> There can be a sort of technical boundary through closed networks/intranets
> that require logon, but even this cannot be precisely defined by the
> copyright holder. Some years ago in a 3Com meeting, a network manager from a
> university who was attending explained that they had 60 different CATEGORIES
> of user on the network, with overlaps all over the place, some being full
> 'members' of the institution, others being transient users or being some
> kind of associate user, making it absolutely impossible to precisely define
> numbers of users. The same is true for schools with parents and extended
> family needing some access, as well as partner schools, other agencies,
> maybe community businesses and so on.
> Roger.
>
>
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2010, at 17:39, Crispin Weston wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I agree with all you say – the concept of educational exceptions is
> essentially broken.
>
> I would only add two points (uncontentious ones, I hope):
>
> 1) the simple classification offered by Creative Commons is a real help –
> maybe we need some similarly iconic representation of “for educational use”;
>
> 2) it would be useful to have some kind of technical boundary to that
> educational use – this would be feasible for more complex interactive (and
> probably high-value) content, though not for simple assets which, as you
> say, cannot be kept inside any sort of a useful boundary.
>
> Crispin.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Roger Broadie [mailto:Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk]
> Sent: 18 February 2010 17:18
> To: Crispin Weston
> Cc: 'secondary'; 'Advisory talk'
> Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and
> Education
>
>
>
> Crispin,
>
> Apologies for taking some time to get to replying to your email.
>
> Education dictating copyright terms is certainly NOT code for 'ignore
> copyright'. Exactly the opposite in fact, it means assuming everything is
> copyright and that it is necessary to positively determine what the Terms
> and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for usage are.
>
>
> The point I am making is that the whole concept of 'educational exceptions'
> is broken and cannot be mended. Even if we engaged fully in debate of the
> Gower recommendations and the consultation it would not be possible to agree
> limits on where things could be accessed, by who, or what materials are
> included or not included. The net result would be that any school relying on
> educational exceptions to justify how content is being used digitally by
> their community will end up hopelessly confused. It's just unworkable. We
> could engage with this until the end of eternity and still get no result.
>
> A little story - a big museum set up a nice project, whereby kids could
> borrow mobile phones and as they went round the museum could take pictures
> of things they found particularly interesting and could then upload these
> into online galleries being run by the museum, that the kids could then
> access when back in school. But the project ran into a roadblock when they
> realised that they had some things in the  museum that were on loan and not
> owned by themselves, and the terms of the loan did not permit photography of
> the object, let alone the making and copying of digital copies.
>
> At some point in the near future kids in schools are going to be permitted
> to use their phones to capture images - how many company meetings have you
> been in where taking pictures of the whiteboard at the end of a discussion
> is just normal practice. Even the builder putting in our loft conversion is
> now taking pictures of things to show us. So if they are using some content
> in class and need to be able to look at it again at home, they will copy it.
> Moral for the school - don't have any content in use that cannot be used in
> this way and make sure the kids also know the Ts&Cs (probably 'can be used
> by you and on the school platform, can't be put on the Internet or copied to
> others).
>
>
> I believe we should be saying to this consultation:
>
> - Educational exceptions to copyright will no longer work for schools,
> because they cannot be limited in space or to what materials are digitised,
> given that we are way past the point when digitising devices and spread of
> content around networks and the Internet can be controlled by a responsible
> organisation, and the people it is necessary to engage in collaborative
> learning cannot be limited to single defined institutions and people who are
> bone-fide members of those institutions.
>
> - Schools should therefore rely not on exceptions, but on positive
> determination of the copyright terms and conditions that apply to the
> content they wish to use.
>
> - For education and learning in the digital age, there is a clear need for
> as much content as possible to be covered by creative commons Ts&Cs, so that
> it can be used as widely as possible, collaboratively, and re-purposed to
> aid learning. The amount of this content will continue to grow
> exponentially, worldwide, as more and more educators and learners become
> content creators.
>
> - Copyright holders will then have to decide for themselves what they have
> that has value beyond the creative commons content available, and whether
> they are going to adopt copyright Ts&Cs that help educators to use their
> content, both with regard to how the content can be used and to the
> complexity for the organisation in understanding and managing the copyright
> Ts&Cs. (I have seen museum Ts&Cs that run to 12 pages!) To help this process
> some simple, single page exemplar Ts&Cs for education purchasers should be
> produced. The whole issue of digital rights management would also come in
> here - if content owners demand DRM and that makes their content unusable by
> schools and their communities, then so be it.
>
> - Similarly, organisations such as the Copyright Licensing Authority will
> have to decide if they can make a business by coordinating the copyright
> Ts&Cs  of a range of defined content providers, in a way that will stimulate
> educational use and hence a financial return to the content owners, that the
> owners could not themselves achieve by selling to schools directly.
>
>
> Then as clarity appears as to what content schools can and cannot afford to
> use, without reliance on 'educational exceptions', there will be a clear
> message for government that if some content is critical for education and is
> not being made available for educators and learners to use, in
> learning-effective, manageable and affordable ways, then national action
> will need to be taken to make such content available.
>
>
> Roger.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:04, Crispin Weston wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> I agree with you on the underlying problem – but I am not so sure that I
> agree with your view of the solution.
>
> The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of
> view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something
> displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room – it is a plenary
> display device with a clear boundary to the group of people who are
> accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to the display of
> video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating
> quality) to the distribution of photocopied hand-outs.
>
> I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms
> (this is really code for “ignore copyright”). The much touted view that the
> internet was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a)
> – technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM
> protection, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time very
> significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) – in
> principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring
> innovation to a screaming halt.
>
> That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to
> give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g.
> by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support
> services) – and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast
> majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they provide in
> one way or another – and we need the involvement of industry if we are going
> to get access to genuinely innovative products and content.
>
> The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the
> material which is affected – something like “literary, dramatic or musical
> works” i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all
> educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other
> words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a
> tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder.
>
> In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context
> becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We
> are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not
> educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable)
> – we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined
> with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and
> comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme
> (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex.
>
> So I have two overall comments on Gower:
>
> 1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call
> “plenary displays” (IWBs and visualisers).
>
> 2) I am less sure about “distance learning”, which is really a synonym for
> the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material
> being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in,
> educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We
> must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable “wall” around educational
> use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content
> within complex orchestrations of different types of content.
>
> Crispin.
>
> PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the
> document.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On
> Behalf Of Roger Broadie
> Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00
> To: theo kuechel
> Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk
> Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and
> Education
>
>
>
> Theo,
>
> First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational
> exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please
> advise.
>
> However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will
> deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the
> concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study,
> whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access
> by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done
> and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this
> and publishing.
>
> It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational
> institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of
> people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does
> that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner
> school in Mexico?
>
>
> The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to
> state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate
> copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and
> learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the
> suppliers.
>
> The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources are
> completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There
> is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be
> resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the
> copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally.
> The whole education community should do similarly.
>
> There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter:
>
> - you can look at it but not do anything else with it.
>
> - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an
> educational institution (but the community of the institution can only be
> defined by the institution itself)
>
> - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's
> content provided source is acknowledged.
>
> Roger.
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote:
>
>
> Paul, Colleagues;
>
> This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the
> many technologies we often discuss, (including  iPads, Interactive
> whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this
> consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital
> tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we
> afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of
> learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT
> including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital
> format and the sharing and development of teacher created resources.
>
> Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it
> appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy
> of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can
> add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access.
>
> It  think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to
> reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can
> start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working
> group on this?
>
> Best
> Theo
>
>
>
>
> On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:
> Colleagues
>
> Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal
> Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications
> for UK schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office
> (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual
> Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their
> consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital
> age.
>
> We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our
> schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to
> coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the
> IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk
>
>
> --
> Theo Kuechel
> Learning Technology Research
> theo.kuechel@gmail.com
> T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
> Roger Broadie,
> Director,
> Broadie Associates
> http://www.BroadieAssociates.co.uk
> Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk
>
> 99 High Street, Chatteris,
> Cambs, PE16 6NP, UK.
>
> tel: +44 1 354 695583
> mobile: +44 7710 328672
> fax: +44 1 354 696647
>
>
>
>
>
>
>