development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[Stephen Downes <Stephen.Downes AT nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>]

Hiya,

Zachary Chandler wrote:

I think either result will be positive, it's just a question of _how_ positive.
(Is there anyone who thinks that the wrong iteration would be dangerous?)

I have argued before that a license that restricts use to educational
institutions will have a detrimental impact on the cost of an education
and would favour the commodification of learning over the sharing
of learning. Allowing commercial publishers to distribute material
for educational institutions only allows them to use such materials as
a form of advertising, and at the same time effectively curtail the
distribution of free materials by reducing demand, authoritativeness
and impact.

1) What about Wouter's idea about an Education Licence, and a separate Open
Education License? Was there a reason why that wasn't pursued?
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-education/2003-December/000103.html

Nothing prevents companies from developing an 'educational
institution' license, and I would imagine many have, because they
favour the impact I describe above. But such a license should
not assume the default 'education' license, as least so far as 
Creative Commons is concerned, and should not be allowed to
pose as 'free content'.

2) What about wiggle room on the other end of the problem. At the risk of
positing an idea across two topics about which I know very little (home
schooling and law) could we specify that materials can be used by an
"educational institution or entity?" An _entity_ could be a family. Presumably
a home-schooling parent has to satisfy the state somehow that they are
sufficiently caring for their child's education, doesn't that technically place
them under the auspices of an institution?

Leaving aside how U.S. courts would interpret this, I don't really
see a 'family' version as helping a lot, since it now introduces the
question of alternative families (do two gay men and an adoptee
qualify? does a co-habiting but unmarried couple? does an
individual, even if he lives on his own?). On what grounds do we
discriminate against the non-married, say?

3) Do we really need to worry about discouraging the individual curious learner?
If the RIAA can't significantly deter unauthorized use of music files, would
anyone be deterred by a sub-optimal but still relatively friendly cc license
for private use of educational materials? Would the copyright holders
(universities, colleges, educators) ever be inclined to seek damages for breach
of license? That is, how pragmatic is the debate over the inclusion of the
instition clause?

Well, the idea is to encourage the *legal* sharing of resources. I quite
agree with you - in the long term, all other things being equal, people
will simply ignore restrictions against copying educational materials.
But it would be better to create a network of free - and known to be
free - content.

Another way of looking at this: individuals and institutions that abide
by the law (they still exist, and are in fact a majority) will not use
free
educational content, even though it is high quality, if they are not
sure
it is legal. Thus, to encourage the widespread creation and use of
free content, it is necessary to set up a system whereby people can
easily know that it is free and that they are allowed to use it. This is
essentially the objective of the Creative Commons project as a whole.

My essential concern is to ensure that the interests of commercial
publishers do not put us right back in the same position we were in
when we started. We need to ensure that we do not introduce
uncertainty into the use of free materials. If some content is free for
some people, and not free for others, then we're back to being
uncertain, and would have to consult with lawyers or get clearance
to use each item, even though it is already licensed.

This is a key part core of my objection to David's proposal. The 
creation of confusion in licensing undermines free content, even 
if that is not its intent, because it creates risk on the part of
users. 
And a system that licenses only educational institutions creates 
that sort of confusion. 

-- Stephen Downes