

Copyright to Class Notes: Do Students Own the Copyright to Their Notes? - reggiecasual
http://blog.kunvay.com/copyright-to-class-notes-do-students-own-the-copyright-to-their-notes/

======
vectorbunny
Property, 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
To 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
_Copyright 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>

~~~
vannevar
Your Wikipedia reference begins with "The history of copyright law starts with
early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books." Not 'authors of
books'. Printers. Why? Because printing books was expensive, and printers
needed some assurance they were going to have a monopoly if they were going to
invest the money. How is that in any way contradictory to my statement?

~~~
001sky
_and only rationalized as a benefit for creators_

The public policy goal is to spread knowledge. If the printing is a critical
step, it needs to get done. You're conflating ends and means. It was eg the
guttenburg bible that increased the spread of literacy and the use of
vernacular language in european history, right?

Ergo _Dante: Inferno_ etc.

In other words, this is constructive criticism. I'm not slighting your
observations. The point is that the public policy goal which makes copyright
"poltically correct", needs to be articulated clearly and benchmarked for
performance. Even in your formulation, it is this what shields it from reform.
That's the end [or not].

And so, then the question is: what _means_ [x from the set X] do we pick?
Well, we need to look at all the alternatives. The, its ends<=>means + some
thought optimaztion or "natural selection" or whatever. Is a different
framework.

~~~
001sky
Its a fair question to ask: Since the original dynamics were set in place, we
don't need to print books, since we don't need capital to distribute
recordings, etc should we re-evaluate in light of this.

------
politician
> 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.

~~~
norswap
What about my intangible spiritual soul? Is my whole life a lie? Which part of
me will go to heaven? :o

~~~
camiller
You are born with the rights to your soul, otherwise you wouldn't be able to
contractually give it up.

------
rabidsnail
University 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
Can you give an example of one of those licenses?

~~~
rabidsnail
They're usually not public, so finding one would take a lot of digging.

------
Lockyy
I 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
I 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.

------
reggiecasual
Copyrights for Back to School so as not to copyright infringe.

~~~
derleth
> Copyrights for Back to School so as not to copyright infringe.

Does this make any sense at all to anyone else?

~~~
385668
I've read it several times and gave it a few minutes, and I've got nothing.

