This statement and the questions which follow it really highlights to me just how central to Creative Commons copyright really is. I hear people talk about open and Creative Commons as though they are some sort of magical panacea to the supposed problems created by copyright. Whichever regime we choose to engage with, we still need to consider questions related to substantiality, originality, ownership, and duration and how these issues tie in with how we share our work and use other people's creations.The underlying issues have not changed but the way we engage with them has.

I was not aware (until now) of the CC+ Protocol tool as an approved mechanism to modify or or waive CC licence terms and conditions. I was interested to view the html markup and also see the CC+ tool used in conjuction with a CC-BY-NC-ND licence on the New York State Senate website, https://www.nysenate.gov/copyright-policy to waive 'attribution requirements and allow for the creation of derivative works and commercial usage provided that such derivative works and commercial usage do not relate to political fundraising', thereby providing broader permissions for text, pictures and graphic material.

Aside from a business model which apparently relies upon students purchasing back their own work, to what extent are the lecture notes original works? Surely, this case is not about protecting facts which should reasonably be considered public domain? The only originality I can see here lies in Professor Moulton's arrangement of those facts.

Notwithstanding this,copyright would grant Professor Moulton the right to assert his Performance Rights in the delivery of his lecture through appropriate acknowledgement even with the University relinquishing its rights in the actual lecture recording.

What is the University's interest here? Are these materials which are being commercialised individual works in which the University has relinquished its copyright interests or is what is being commercialised tantamount to the structure of the course/program offered by the University?

Should educational materials which are developed by salaried staff for a public good be commercialised in this way? I feel like this is just another version of the distribution monopoly we are trying to move away from.

Digital technologies make it easier and cheaper to share content but we also need to consider quality. There is such a plethora of content out there and open is not always a reliable indicator of quality.

Open education means flexibility, equity and removing barriers and limitations.