the outputs of generative AI programs will continue to pass immediately into the public domain.
I wonder if this isn't reading more into the decision than is there. I don't read the decision as a blanket statement. Rather it says that the claimant didn't provide evidence of creative input.Would the decision have gone differently if he had claimed creative intervention? And what if an author does not acknowledge using AI?
The US Copyright Office rejected his attempt to register copyright in the work – twice
AI-generated work not eligible for copyright protection. OTOH, how would anyone know if the "author" decided to keep the AI component a secret?
3 sets of foundational values of open pedagogy, namely: autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.
compare to Downes' MOOC design principles. Autonomy - diversity - openness - interactivity
poor searching and citing of the literature
a different open ed/info lit connection. Does the bias towards recent research play a part in this?
Transforming
I like this idea. There is a closed-ness to most rubrics that I've encountered, where goals and measures of mastery are determined without learner input. "Transforming" implies a further step along a journey rather than an endpoint, and a process that is under an individual's own control.
Instead I think about best philosophies.
Lots to like in a little statement. Best philosophies over best practices. Also the idea of philosophies as plural. Different situations may require different models.
Restricting access to information, limiting engagement and participation, and providing learners and instructors with little control over the learning activity, materials, or processes creates a demotivating experience
Restricting and limiting are keys to profit-making. Relate to education as a commons
‘making the bad diffi cult and the good easy’”
a good design principle
access, agency, ownership, participation and experience
principles of open ed - compare to Downes: autonomy, diversity, interactivity, openness
Downes (2014) has identified four key design principles for cMOOCs
design principles - compare to Kahle
Free Software Definition
essentially says "you bought it, you own it." Vendors in some cases prefer to lease rather than sell - creates an ongoing revenue stream, and allows for ongoing control. Transition to digital media facilitates lease over sale.
university education to all, with no formal entry requirements
one definition of open ed
The word 'open' signals a broad, de-centralized constellation of practices that skirt the institutional structures and roles by which formal learning has been organized for generations
Love this point. Open has been trying to skirt the formal structures and roles for generations as well.
How can we minimize the cost of textbooks?
Of the five important questions listed here, this is the low-hanging fruit. Cost is a major barrier to access, so it makes sense that it's Q1. But the other Qs point to things that are so much more beneficial and empowering.
the five R's are a set of activities
The key point to me here is that open is about what you can do, not what you can get. Open resources matter because they enable open practices and open pedagogy.
Tohaveopeneducationmeansthatapersonisabletochoosethecourseoftheirownlearning
good - not limited to OER - open to learner input and control
We need to start with a good term — could we call this vision one of “connected open”?
I like this idea. Opens ways to connect info lit
fundamentally redefine open education and once and for all decide that it cannot just equal open educational resources
This is where history is important. OER has only been a part of open ed relatively recently. The broader vision of open ed has been around for at least 45 years.
It is a change related to creativity, collaboration and innovation, seen as non-political processes.
I tend to talk about it in entirely political terms, highlighting the difference between the purpose of copyright as written in the US Constitution and the purpose as practiced today.
Polish publishers used this term to show us in negative terms
interesting to hear about how this is framed in other cultures. People here take similar tactics, but the cultural resonance is different.
Virginia’s Faculty Collaboratives Project
“knowledge creation”.
The "business" of univeristy?
In considering considerations, I think it’s important to begin with a thinking (or erasing?) exercise that asks you to forget everything you know or think you know about ed tech and start over.
Imagine having at least part of your virtual learning environment (VLE) open, not just for current students (and even current students usually can't see all the teaching that might be useful to them) but for non-students, prospective students, or staff members who want to know what's happening down the road, across the country, in that academic department that interests them. NetworkED 2020 Watch Donna at NetworkED 2020: The London University, as she asks 'what if all of London were a networked University?'There would be so much potential for seeing the different ways in which departments are teaching, for instance. Which departments of biology are doing what in their labs? What theoretical approaches are they taking?
This to me is more transparent than open where the world outside can see,
In this context open to me is more about connecting, communicating, learning together and from each other. it's people can walk in on their own or be invited in, people inside can go explore and visit others
Important: Open to me is much more than that still. I remember the Vconnecting we had during OpenEd15 : No consensus on what "Open" means yet.