Intellectual Property Laws Confer Rights in Respect of Online Distance Education Yet Most Learning Resources are Still Free - Truth or Fiction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational technologists might well describe online distance education as ‘a series of instructional events over the Internet that find their expression as learning events in a student’. As a legal construct however, ‘online distance education’ is simply ‘the intellectual property of its owner’. This description is too simplistic for educational technologists, however – for two reasons. First there can be no such thing as ‘typical intellectual property ownership in online distance education’, because there is no such thing as ‘the typical distance education course'. No single law or appellate court decision can adequately protect at once the online course and the blended course, or the stand-alone course and the Web course management system. A second, related reason why intellectual property ownership is too simplistic is that most of today’s online courses have multiple creators, each creator making a different original contribution to the course, each contribution being afforded a different type of legal protection within a jurisdiction. Ownership complexity rises with the number of contributors as well as the different types of legal protection available in the jurisdiction. This paper attempts to reconcile ongoing political rhetoric over everyone’s right to an education with recent leaks in the media about the increasing likelihood of a global lock-down of intellectual property that could criminalize contemporary online distance education for every user.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".