It's Called Fair Use
3 min read
Much discussion on the internet concerning the AP's new Pay By The Word policy. Gary Stager had this comment on Will Richardson's blog:
Why shouldn't journalists and publishers get paid for their work?
Here's a suggestion for edubloggers who believe that all intellectual property should be free - let's stop paying teachers.
They just deliver content that is freely available elsewhere, right? Why is hard earned public money being given to teachers? They're so 1.0!
C'mon teachers, get on board and do your job for free! Conferences can pay keynote speakers with links, rather than that tired old money.
Hello, Gary,
I know (or at least I think I know :) ) that you are playing devil's advocate here, but your comment is off-base. No one is suggesting that journalists and publishers shouldn't be paid for their work. On the contrary: some journalists and some publishers do an excellent job, and deserve every penny they earn, and more. They provide a valuable service by contributing to -- and in some cases, helping to shape -- the public discourse.
Delivering content is a service. Providing analysis on content is a service. Providing context on content is a service. Providing a service deserves compensation. Teachers do more than provide a service; at their best, they help students develop a set of skills that allow them to interact critically with the ideas they encounter, and articulate their thoughts effectively. This transcends delivering "content that is freely available elsewhere." In many cases, teaching is situational: an explanation gets created on the spot to help illustrate a point in response to a specific interaction among learners. Teaching isn't canned (unless, of course, you buy a textbook and deliver that curriculum via Blackboard -- but I digress).
Hence, your suggestion that teachers stop getting paid is absurd. But from reading your writing in the past, I suspect you know that already. Call me crazy, but I suspect you are employing irony (or is it sarcasm) for rhetorical purposes.
RE your suggestion: "Conferences can pay keynote speakers with links, rather than that tired old money." -- this, however, is an excellent idea. Most organized conferences are rarely worth the price of admission, unless you find value in having a vendor sell you a packaged version of a technology that was interesting three to five years ago. Anything that moves us away from the traditional format of Ed Tech conferences can only be a Good Thing.
And while I'm at it, the AP Technology News RSS Feed had the following stories freely available for distribution via RSS:
The following AP story, the rights of which are completely and fully owned by AP, was particularly interesting: "SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court has made it more difficult for employers to snoop legally on e-mails and text messages their workers send from company accounts...." You can read the full article here, from the link on the AP's web site. The AP reporters have done excellent work in researching this article, and you should read the entire article on their site. The same article can be read on Newsday, an organization who likely pays a fee to aggregate, republish, and rebrand AP content. This fits Gary's definition of delivering "content that is freely available elsewhere."
Gary, and others: It's called Fair Use.
