Introduction to Intellectual Property

Copyright Law

Intellectual Property Issues

Implications for Educators

Resources for Educators?

Intellectual Property Issues for Educators

An Addendum

2006

Ethical Considerations for Educators

Consider the fact that today technology is so advanced that we are “rendered capable of making high-quality copies even in different media”. In the field of education, more and more software is becoming available to teachers to enhance their instruction in the classroom.

One example is SmartView by Texas Instruments. This software comes in the usual CD form that can be installed on a classroom computer.

?The TI SmartView Emulator provides teachers with an exact fully functional representation of the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition graphing calculator. Installed on a classroom computer, the image can be projected onto a screen in the front of the room for all to see clearly. The screen is divided into three vertical sections. The entire calculator, including the keys, is shown on the left section, the graph of an equation is in the middle while a history of keystrokes is on the section on the right A teacher can move around the room and, using a remote mouse select the keys explaining the proper use of the calculator, as she does it. For the student who may have fallen behind during the instruction, they can catch up using “history of keystrokes” on the right. It is a very effective teaching tool.

This software was just introduced in 2005. It is very effective and desirable for high school math teachers who are trying to teach calculator usage to their students in a math classroom.

In the Math Department of a high school, perhaps all the teachers press to get this desirable software ASAP. The Department Chairman makes inquiries and discovers that the SmartView CD is expensive-about $150.00. There are 15 teachers and 15 computers in each of the classrooms in the department.

Herein, lies the issue for ethical consideration. Should the Department Chairman buy just one CD and pass it around for all the teachers to install in their classroom, or should one CD be purchased -$150.00 each for each of 15 classrooms? The CDs have clear copyright stipulations. One CD is to be installed on one computer for each classroom. Then each CD should be safely stored in each classroom.

Soon after all the CD’s are installed and operating, the next IP issue arises. The teachers now each have a CD. They want to know if they can take them home to install on their computers at home just to make lesson plans for their classes. After consulting an authority at Texas Instruments, it is determined that, yes, the teachers could install their CDs at home on one computer for lessons for their existing class. There is no additional cost.

Many surveys have indicated that teachers don’t know the IP ethical considerations and copyright laws regarding software use in their school. Even if they do, they have admitted that they feel justified in copying the software because it will “benefit their students” and/or “teachers are under-funded”.

“Geometer’s Sketchpad” is example of another software package that is used in schools. The copyright strictly indicates that it can be installed in a Computer Lab for each of a certain number of computers. If you have another lab(s), you must buy another package not just use the old one.

The availability of educationally desirable software packages coupled with the fact that? high-quality copies of the software can be made, creates ethical considerations for educators who are faced with a dilemma when need doesn’t match funding.

We need to provide the teachers with more education regarding Intellectual Property Issues for our schools, so that teachers clearly know the correct ethical response in each case.
?

Emerging Technologies and IP Issues

As online learning, (e-learning), becomes increasingly popular and profitable, it brings with it IP issues of ownership that must be addressed.

A report sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation involving 1,000 universities, disclosed that “universities provide distance learning to almost two million users, with a rate increase of about 25 percent per year.” The estimated current annual distance-learning revenues are in the low to mid tens of millions. ?( www.educause.edu )

As these e-learning courses become increasingly in demand from a university, the IP issue of ownership of coursework begins to surface more frequently.

In the article E-learning-A Financial Quarterly 2006, we learn, “Another troublesome issue involves the intellectual property (IP) rights for online courses. An argument can be made that each instructor “owns” the slides, TV lectures, CD-ROMS, special course techniques, and so forth.” From the universities’ standpoint, “the legal issues associated with faculty IP concerns add additional overhead to the total per-course cost.”? It was proposed that methods for working out the ownership issue stay within the institution.” When research is conducted at a university, traditionally “rights of discovery and profits” go to the university.

In consideration here of ownership of the course material for an online course, it appears that rationalizing the IP Rights to take into account claims by both sides - the institution employing the author, and the rights of the teacher’s ownership, would have to be considered in the final judgment.

Nontraditional schools are not concerned with IP issues “because many of their courses offer considerable teaching materials to the teacher beforehand.”? Since the course materials were the property of the university before the teacher was hired, the teacher has no claim to IP rights of the material.

It has become increasingly apparent that each university establishes IP policies that address IP issues that are unique to their school.

Legislators have begun a Distance Educational Study to amend the Digital Millennium Copying Act of 1998.

“In the course of consideration of the DMCA, legislators expressed an interest in amending the Copyright Act to promote distance learning education, possible through the expansion of the existing exception for instructional broadcasting section 110(2).”?????????????? ( www.cs.mdx.ac.uk )

Veronica Diaz, in her paper: Distributed Learning Meets Intellectual Property Policy: Who Owns What? , concluded that each university should create its own IP Policy, because one solution won’t fit all universities regarding this issue of the ownership of online coursework. She reasoned that it was important in this process to get faculty input since they are often the creators of the course software and materials in question.?

?

Arguments in Favor of Greater Freedom and Those in Favor of Greater Protection.

The virtual freedom of the Internet raises ethical considerations regarding the IP issues surfacing from peer-to-peer sharing of files, the making of high-quality copies in various media, and downloading free music.

An example of a company that enjoyed phenomenal success in the freedom of the Internet arena is Napster. Napster provided free downloads of copyright music to Internet recipients. Because there was originally no charge for the downloads, this company’s Internet customers numbered in the millions. Profits were generated from advertising on the site.

“Napster is an online music sharing service and it made major impact on how people, especially university students, used the Internet. Its technology allowed music fans to easily share MP3 format song files with each other, thus leading to the music industries’ accusation of massive copyright violations. Although the original service was shut down by court order, it paved the way for P2P file-sharing programs such as Kazaa, Limeware, and BearShare, which have been much harder to control. Napster continues to live on with pay services today. However, the popularity and repercussions of the first Napster made it a legendary icon in the computer and entertainment fields.” ( www.wikipedia.org )

Napster, (and companies like it), still leave us with many unanswered questions regarding IP Issues. When the company was put out of business, it became apparent that the exposure of art/music on the free Internet provided artists with tremendous exposure to consumers around the world. When Napster was shut down it was expected that the record companies’ revenue would go up, but the opposite was true. They made more money in the years when Napster was sharing their music files for free. The artists were torn. Since then, Napster re-opened its doors in April of 2006, but with limited ability to share music.? The music artists now get royalties but it’s not as much exposure and hence revenue as when Napster gave their music samples away for free. Should they go back to the old “free” way or stay under the protection of the laws that protect the artists?

The IP issues of the Internet continue to challenge us as we try to develop laws governing the Internet use that don’t impede the growth toward the productive and prosperous use of Cyberspace.

?

Resources:

http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/news/ipr_news06.html

http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm0615.asp?bhcp=1

www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id+11624-374

http://dinarstandard.com/innovation/DRM020306.htm

www.napster.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster