Top Public School Signs Multi-Million Dollar Deal To Copyright & Sell Its Curriculum

from the progress? dept

If you go back to the original intent of copyright law, it was to improve learning and knowledge. "Promoting the progress of science" really mean "knowledge" at the time it was written. But, these days, we've lost pretty much all touch with that original intention. Last year, we noted that there was a growing battle over whether or not teachers could sell their lesson plans, with some districts claiming copyright over all teacher curricula and lesson plans to make sure that only they could determine how those plans were used. Of course, in the past (and, for many, the present) teachers often freely shared curricula and lesson plans with each other, in an effort to spread the knowledge and help each other out.

But throw in a bit of copyright, and a chance to "profit" -- even for a public school -- and apparently the whole concept of sharing gets tossed out the window. Kevin Donovan alerts us to the news that publishing giant Pearson has signed a multi-million dollar deal with a public school district. Basically, Pearson is giving the Montgomery County Public Schools $2.25 million for the right to their curricula, which it will sell. The schools will also get a 3% royalty. Pearson can change the curricula if it wants, so it might not even be what the teachers there put together, but they're apparently trying to build up a big brand around this school district, which tends to do well in various metrics.

Of course, some people are quite uncomfortable with this. Now the teachers won't be able to share the curriculum they themselves develop. And that could come back to haunt them. Will teachers at other schools be willing to share their own curricula with schools that are locking down and selling their own? One of the dissenting school board members (only two were against the deal) is reasonably worried that deals like this may turn teachers into sales people, rather than teachers.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 11:47am

    all it does is clearly make it that the teachers are on a work for hire basis as opposed to be some sort of independant creative people who just happen to work in a school. it might be a good way in the future for schools that excel to finance their operations and pay the teachers better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 11:55am

    Re:

    all it does is clearly make it that the teachers are on a work for hire basis as opposed to be some sort of independant creative people who just happen to work in a school.

    Probablt won't do much for teacher motivation though. Plus - who says that the version of the lesson plan that the teacher releases to the school is necessarily the whole story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:03pm

    Re:

    all it does is clearly make it that the teachers are on a work for hire basis as opposed to be some sort of independant creative people who just happen to work in a school

    But it's all about the creators, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    Re:

    Nice sidestep of the question: how does this promote the progress of knowledge better than the free distribution of lesson plans and curricula?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    Public Domain

    But, If my taxes go to pay for school funding, don't *I* own the copyright? (and, of course, everyone else who pays taxes)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    zaven (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:07pm

    This isn't one school from what I can read. It's the damn county's public schools. In fact, it's my county. I mean, our public schools are good but 2.25 million good? Not sure about that one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    As a public school, couldn't you get all the curriculum with a FOIA request? Wouldn't they be public documents?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:42pm

    Copyright Bastardization

    A depressing "big picture" aspect of this story is that the government (local,state,federal) are now experimenting with using copyright to lock content for revenue enhancement. The whole purpose of tax funded public education is to educate our citizens. Now education is to be used as a profit center?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    rabbit, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    per the article, pearson will hold the copyright on the program's tests and training but montgomery will control over their classrooms...

    what happens when one of the teachers decides to tweak the program data that is now copyrighted to pearson?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    drkkgt (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:47pm

    Re:

    OK work for hire - so what happens when this teacher who created a commodity in the form of an excellent curriculum decides to switch to a different school? Do they have to create an entirely new curriculum based on completely different set of educational information so that they don't have to worry about violating copyright and/or being sued? (ie if they teach World History at this school and created a curriculum, are they now required to teach another subject so they don't take the chance that they might accidentally infringe on the copyright for previous work they produced but don't own?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Danny, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

    Question...

    "If you go back to the original intent of copyright law, it was to improve learning and knowledge. "Promoting the progress of science" really mean "knowledge" at the time it was written."

    sounds a lot like the purpose for sending children through school.

    Can someone explain how locking down lesson plans will promote learning for kids?

    This might be a strech but isn't this teetering on the edge of trying to copyright facts?

    Maybe this is being done under the notion of copyrighting the teachers' method of teaching I guess?

    Does this mean that if a teacher's plans end up under Pearson's copyright then moves to another district said teachers can no longer use those plans?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Ryan, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

    Re:

    Your response does nothing to address the copyright issue, but you just provided a perfect example for why schools should be privatized. Guess what: most public schools are funded with a shitton of money that, thanks to teacher unions, gets spent pretty equally on bad teachers and good, not to mention a huge number of administrators.

    On the other hand, private schools actually perform in the way you seem to be thinking. Furthermore, it's examples like these that make me continually question how people can think "greedy" corporations are all about the profit, but politicians and public employees are apparently all about serving the public out of the goodness of their heart...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re:

    If districts can sell curricula then they can pay higher class teachers even more money to make even better curricula, which will benefit everyone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

    Re:

    More to the point, wouldn't completing homework based on the material be a dirivitive work?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read on this site. How about not looking at it from the microview of the one school district and looking macro at the school districts as a whole.

    Jesus Christ.

    The only way this works is if many curriculum defficient schools are buying these supposed superior cirricula from a few. So how do the majority of schools spending money on curriculum leave them MORE money to pay better/more teachers?

    Holy fucking logic fail, Batman....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:06pm

    My only question is....

    Who owns the copyrights to those thousands of pictures that school distric captured of their students who had school issued laptops (ref another technote blog)

    It was only a matter of time until schools, who suffer budget cuts after budget cuts (some needed some not so) that they start whoring out thier teachers for money. Honestly, its not the Schools desion. Its a PUBLIC school meaning that information gathered there is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Thats like the IRS selling their databases to creditcard companies and bill collectors so they know how much you makes to better spam you with offers.
    I was in education for a short stint. most teachers are hard working and relyed on the onformation sharing to get ideas for their classes. This will eventually break down and we will just be going back to the stone age.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    tuna, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    I did not think that the Government could hold a copyright. The lesson plans are public documents created at the behest of the tax payers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:08pm

    Do you have specific examples of the kinds of sharing that will be hindered by copyrights? Do you mean sharing within the same school, the same district, the same county, the same state?

    I'd argue that there is very little sharing between teachers in different school districts, let alone in different states. Getting a publisher involved gives the content in question a much wider audience, the content will now have further reach. That extended reach absolutely promotes knowledge. At what point in history did anyone say that promotion of knowldege should be free?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:12pm

    and to add...

    I am so glad I refuse to bring another child into this world...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re:

    The question with privatizing schools has always been twofold:

    1. How do you instill uniform learning standards on an at best loose network of private schools? This is important, because every child in this country has a right to an education. To have a high variance in private schools with regard to learning material and curriculum would create a problem in creating proficiency in certain areas that are of national importance.

    2. Who owns the schools?

    Religion? Eh, a problem, but not that huge of one, so long as they aren't slapping the kids around with rulers and making half the classes religious studies. The only real problem I can see is the area of the applied sciences. There are some religions that seem to prefer mysticism over proper scientific method, which is fine for faith but bad for education.

    Businesses? Fuck no. I mean, just hell no. We have enough commercial indoctrination of our youths through advertisements in this country, I'm not putting BP or Microsoft in charge of children's education (particularly with the dismal failure of Bill Gate's own private school turnarounds...)

    And really, who else is there? Wealthy philanthropists? We're back to business influence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:24pm

    stupid

    Not only is it a PUBLIC school, but i'm sure every teacher would agree that the strength of a classroom is determined not by a great curriculum, but by a great teacher.

    I'm glad the teachers themselves are nervous about this - they should be. The teachers, all their teacher friends, and all the students are exactly the ones not benefiting from this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Public Domain

    what? you mean we the people should have a say? heresy! heresy i say!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Sean T Henry (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:35pm

    This year you will be paying for the books that you do not get to keep and we are adding an additional fee of $25 for a copy of the Curriculum. If the $25 is not paid your child will not know when things are due and fail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Chris, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

    Re: Government held copyright

    Federal copyright (Title 17) law prohibits work generated by the federal government from being copyrighted. However a copyrighted work created outside the federal government can be transferred to the federal government. State/local governments/agencies are not prohibited from creating copyrighted works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Janis (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    Taking the public out of a public school

    Great discussion! Can I just clarify one item however as you discuss this "deal"?

    The curriculum that will be sold will NOT be written by classroom teachers. A new department has been set up in the school system and new administrators have been hired to write the curriculum that will be sold to the vendor.

    4 administrators were hired minutes after the Board voted to approve the vendor contract. What is being sold is our school system's curriculum writers product. You can learn more at this link:
    http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/06/weast-hires-staff-to-work-for-pearson.html

    Also, I would note that Montgomery County Public Schools is a $2.1 BILLION dollar a year system.

    $2.25 million would not even pay for two artificial turf football fields. Hardly a dent in our enormous school system with over 200 schools and 140,000 students.

    As this was not a procurement that was put out for a bid we don't know what other vendors may have offered for this deal.

    You can watch the video of what one of the dissenting Board of Education members said here:

    http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/06/berthiaume-on-untenable-conflict.html

    But understand that she and all the other Board members, along with the public had only heard about this deal the night before so these were just her first impressions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If districts can sell curricula then they can pay higher class teachers even more money to make even better curricula, which will benefit everyone.

    That is some very naive thinking right there. If the money goes to salary increases for anyone, then most of the increases will be seen in the salaries of the administrators.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Chris, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    So what happens when they find out that a significant part of that curricula is based on work of other teachers from outside the district that shared curricula/ideas with teachers inside the district?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Stuart, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re:

    Probably dose less to harm teacher motivation than union contracts that keep teachers based solely on seniority rather than how well they do their job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Stuart, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 2:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This actually can have some real positive effect. Schools could be encouraged to hire newer teachers with better ideas so that they will do well. Once they are doing well it is possible that they could sell their curriculum to other schools.
    That is a benefit to this system. I am not saying that there are not problems here or even that the benefits surely outweigh the issues that WILL be caused. I am only saying that only looking at the one side of the situation is a bit disingenuous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re:

    no side step. teachers might distribute it piecemeal, this appears to be an attempt to take a full school success story and move it to other schools. not the same thing. free distribution makes it unlikely that everyone would get all the pieces in the same place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 2:34pm

    There are soooo many things wrong with this I don't know where to start, so I'll just mention 1 thing.

    I like this statement in the Memo from the Superintendent.

    "In accordance with the Agreement, Pearson will contribute up to $4,500,000 and its expertise in assessments, professional development, and publishing. One-half of these development funds will be considered an advance against future royalties."

    This sounds a lot like the Record Labels agreement. So, until $2,500,000 is paid back, the school district won't get another dime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In other words, the rich school districts get richer and the poor ones get poorer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 2:50pm

    Re:

    You really think teachers don't share lesson plans and other materials over the internet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Ryan, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    1. You don't. That's part of the advantage in that each school can do it's own thing, and if their innovation is successful then parents will choose to send their children to that school. Other schools will adopt their methodology, improving the system as a whole.

    2. Anybody that wants to open a school and can convince parents to send their children there. Nobody, least of all government, is going to be more careful with children's futures than their own parents (with exceptions, of course, that are nevertheless much smaller in number than any other system). Some of them may very well be biased in some manner or another(take religious institutions), but if that's the desire of their parents then who are we to tell them how they can or can't raise their kids?

    There already exist private schools and they perform much better than public schools even accounting for funding differences. It's just a matter of removing public schools' monopolistic advantages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 6:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What you may have failed to realize ... is that the success of the students has more to do with the teacher than it does with the curriculum.

    Good teacher w/ bad curriculum is better than a bad teacher w/ good curriculum

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 6:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: smoke up the ass

    "private schools and they perform much better than public schools "

    [citation needed]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 7:55pm

    HAHAHAHA

    and now everyone that can't afford it will become a BUM.
    NOW criminals can use the excuse

    BUT the education was copyrighted and i dun know how to pays for it....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sounds like real life!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    AW, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:41pm

    What a bunch of uneducated fools

    You can tell a lot of the people supporting this issue have no children of their own.
    Unions have no affect on the educational system whatsoever, except apparently states which tend to unionize teachers have higher ACT scores.

    http://www.mibazaar.com/education/actscores.html
    Select Composite scores for test results.

    Another example showing yet again Unionized schools perform better
    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/school-district/ratings/top100/
    And the worst
    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/school-district/ratings/worst100/
    You'll notice Chicago is on the worst list multiple times and that is due to a HUGE financial crunch, which I recommend everyone read into. If all schools were required to purchase these curriculum, as the federal government likes to overstep and mandate things like standardized testing etc, imagine the financial crises of these schools.

    This is only meant to show one thing, Unions do not ruin schools in union states. I am actually in a union state and tend to dislike them , but they can't be held accountable for test scores, it's money coming in, that's why Texas also has good schools in many areas despite the fact that they have just added religion to curriculum.

    Privatizing public facts is a bad thing. Look at what Monsanto has done to farmers who want to use their own seed. They come in and since there has been some cross contamination you must now pay them for your seed forever...where does the privatization of the public end? When does copyright get back to what it was meant to do in protecting the consumer?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Darryl, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:12am

    Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...

    ""Promoting the progress of science""

    Why dont you make the full statement that is the definition of copyright law?

    Is it because it does not gell with the line you are trying to push.

    You, above all here should not about accuracy and completness, if you expect people to take your word as worth anything.

    Ok, here is the full and complete statement, that Mike tends to omit.

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    Importantly, the part you omit is the most important aspect of copyright law.

    "BY SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITINGS AND DISCOVERIES."

    So that is what copyright law is about, its not "JUST" about promoting knowledge, but its a complete statement that Mike tends to truncate for his own benifit.

    _______________

    As for this example, this is an example of copyright law working, how is it better if this school kept their information proprietary, and not making it available to anyone who sees value in it.

    How is that better, keeping it proprietary and closed as opposed to making it open and available for others?

    Sure, you have to pay for it, but thats ok, because you dont HAVE to pay for it, if you dont want too you can choose to use your own.

    And that is stopping others from making their work copyrighted and available for others to purchase and use.

    Is this not better and more open and promoting knowledge than keeping that information proprietary and closed ?

    To me, and most others (ie everyone but only 2 people who disagreed), this is a shining example of copyright law WORKING as intended.

    But you manage to twist it around to something bad, because clearly that is the angle you wish to push.

    No such thing as balanced reporting, or factual reporting here.

    So next time, when defining copyright, include the full definition of copyright, not just the part you agree with, and not the part you disagree with.

    ""To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.""

    "To encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."


    Mike: " One of the dissenting school board members (only two were against the deal) is reasonably worried that deals like this may turn teachers into sales people, rather than teachers."

    Ok only two dissenters, from the board of I assume Many.

    And I not you dont agree that teachers should turn into sales people, but at the same time you expect musicians to turn into sales, production, promotion, distribution and not be musicians.

    So why is it ok to retask movie makers, or musicians but stick up for teachers ?

    Every has the right to do the work they choose, teachers dont want to be sales people, just as musicians dont want to be sales people, or producers, mixers, sound engineers and so on.
    And all those people who do choose to be producers, sales people and so on might have something to say about your model putting them out of a job.

    But you dont address any downsides, and you dont show what or how the upsides of your scheme is achieved.

    Just strawman arguments, about how somehow the system now does not work, and your new system somehow will work as long as those involved are willing to give up the work they choose and do other work that they have chosen not to do.

    **************

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[3]

    ""To encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."[4]"

    so in future make sure you include the complete definition.

    "WHILE RETURNING TO CREATORS SO THAT THEY CAN LEAD A DIGNIFIED ECONOMIC EXISTENCE, AND TO PROVIDE WIDESPREAD, AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO CONTENT FOR PUBLIC"

    So when you can show how no copyright protection, and illegal file sharing can provide a dignified economic existence. AS WELL AS, providing widespread, affordable access to content for the public.

    So what is wrong with that ??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:43am

    Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...

    Why dont you make the full statement that is the definition of copyright law?


    The clause I quoted is the "why". The clause you're talking about is the "how." I'm not ignoring it. I'm posting the *relevant* portion when discussing the "why."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 8:14am

    Re: Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...

    "If you go back to the original intent of copyright law, it was to improve learning and knowledge " --- By PROTECTING ARTIST AND INVENTORS , and granting then full COPY -RIGHTS

    "Promoting the progress of science" really mean "knowledge" at the time it was written. But, these days, we've [+++ at techdirt ++] lost pretty much all touch with that original intention."----
    --------------------------
    IN touch with that original intention,,, IS any one who has gone to LAW SCHOOL or , sits in Congress ,, or sits on SCOTUS, or is a Beatle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 8:17am

    Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...

    Daryl, you have nailed mike to the wall.....

    Look at his Squirming Answer here below :

    ( your ball Daryl , i got you covered)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 8:38am

    The clause I quoted is the "why". The clause you're talking about is the "how." I'm not ignoring it. I'm posting the *relevant* portion when discussing the "why."

    The clause I quoted is the "why". The clause you're talking about is the "how." I'm not ignoring it. I'm posting the *relevant* portion when discussing the "why."
    ---
    Mike do NOT Ever go into Politics , the Media , would never let you esacape with a point like that.

    Full Quote = Honesty

    Half Quote = Agenda
    -----------------

    You Mike , are a habitual Half-Quoter.
    ---------------------------

    Your readers are smarter , than you.

    Except the Pirate Clone Army you have here following you.

    That .00001% of the USA pop , that want , kill, cut , and destroy , and abolish copyright for Artists , Writers , and etc ., et al ,

    All come here, to read you Mike .

    Where else can they go to read such drivel , that ignores law and history?.
    --------------------------
    Like i say Mike ,, Patent Law , is sick , and needs healing,
    ------------------------
    You have taken your justifiable , and mainstream dissatisfaction with Patent Law in it current bastard form

    ,, and decided to go after copyright too,, which has been pretty in law and principle stable for 200 years.
    --------------------------------
    Patents are for big biz corp slime, suing other big biz corp slime.
    ---------------
    Copyright protects the George's Beatles music , from being in every commercial broadcast everywhere. w/o paying the Harrison Estate , which still own George' songs.

    I for one am glad copyright means i do not have to hear commercials like ,,

    "Here comes , the sun" - Tan -- tan -- , every one ...

    Or

    "Why My New Car never weeps"
    ---------------------------------------
    copy. right now , copyright forever,,, and stronger.
    -------------

    But yes, Patent , is a sick puppy , because of huge corp $$$ at stake , greedy lawyers & lobbyists .
    ---------------------------------
    Stick with Patents Mike. you got a good cause there.
    -------------------------
    but on copyright , it is displaced hostilities from you towards Artist and Writers , See a shrink to work it out..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...

    RAPE!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Jennifer Smyth, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:29pm

    Conflict of interest?

    My problem is that Pearson also scores state tests and is heavily involved in developing state computer-based tests. So, when Arne Duncan talks about how important test scores are to judging teacher quality, and the people who score (and help develop) the test are now also packaging curriculum, I start to wonder if the days of DIY teaching aren't numbered. Teachers who aren't allowed to think for themselves are not ever going to be able to produce students who can think for themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 12th, 2010 @ 8:06pm

    Re: The clause I quoted is the "why". The clause you're talking about is the "how." I'm not ignoring it. I'm posting the *relevant* portion when discussing the "why."

    no answer here ,, huh , Mike.

    half quotes and half answers,, that is your Pirate Logic

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    ED Anywhere An Added Public Service, Dec 13th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Independent Resources Will Save Thousands of Dollars.

    Another reason why Public and prate school officials, principles & counselors nationwide are turning to ED Anywhere for solutions to their academic needs including summer school, missed courses needed for graduation, home school, homebound, home based, special education, alternative school programs, study hall utilization, adult education, athletic eligibility, state standardized test prep., GED test prep., creating a cost savings, and providing services during teacher shortages. Over 16,000 students currently use the online curriculum to prevent student dropout.

    "Teachers all over the United States are seeking new and better ways to meet the needs of all of their students..."--Curriculum Associates

    Please contact us if you want to be added to our list of service providers or if you want a guest user id and password to view curriculum. We can provide you with free consultation on how we can become an added service or a ways we can help you save money and extend the scope of services you can provide. We appreciate all that you are doing for our community. www.educationanywhere.com or www.edanywhere.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This