The Shadow of the MOOC Grows Longer
Will massive open online courses (MOOCs) disrupt higher education? With recent announcements, the potential seems to be growing.
Will massive open online courses (MOOCs) disrupt higher education? With recent announcements, the potential seems to be growing.
Universities should seek to retain control of their copyrights and develop mechanisms to monetize them to ensure the financial health of the institutions. This is a proposal that sides neither with open access advocates nor with the interests of commercial organizations.
A fundamental confusion between articles and data leads to a call for more CC licenses and less copyright. But why are data being closed down while articles are being opened up? Is there a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright, licensing, and rights?
Publishers have lost ground in the public debate of the role of publishing in scholarly communications. A new strategy is needed, one that emphasizes preemption, cooptation, and innovation.
AAP and Google have reached a confidential settlement over Google Books. But the larger Authors Guild case remains.
By allowing free commercial use of OA articles, current CC licenses may shift costs to researchers, presage an unsustainable information economy, and ultimately work against their stated goals. A commercially viable option might actually prove more sustainable.
“How Open Is It?” offers a useful set of parameters for defining “open,” but some fundamental questions remain, including the commercial and social consequences of free distribution.
While the effect of piracy on some book sales is still debatable, college textbooks lose sales when online file-sharing becomes prevalent. A recent examination of the situation in a market outside the U.S. provides a laboratory example.
The author recounts an experience in which one of his blog posts. He was saved when an Internet community rode to his rescue.
In space, nobody can hear you litigate.
What once appeared to be a lopsided ruling has, in its final form, turned into something much more definitive.
Vitriol may have obscured important points in a post last week. The growing business strategy of our era is to drive the cost of everyone else’s product to zero in order to make more money from your own product. This imbalance stifles innovation and creation.
Creative people are using our inputs — and letting us do the same — to drive more creativity.
An essay on the Beatles and their business model, which emphasized paid content, now called “toll-access” content. The question is how the Beatles would have been different if they had worked in an era where content was expected to be free.
The GSU case serves as a strong rebuke for publishers over fair use and copyright claims, while recognizing that some boundaries remain.