Much of the pain is the result of downsizing and I think that's driving the interest in AI unfortunately. The fantasy that we will be able to replace human beings with AI is alive and well in higher ed and CIOs will need to navigate that before millions of dollars are wasted. When Admissions asks you, "Everyone else has a chatbot. When are we getting one?" you will need to be ready with an intelligent, strategy-based response. "Everyone's doing it," should not enter into it - but we have a pretty dismal track record in this regard. .

It seems like we are still confusing analytics with AI.

If it knows you are working John, why is it distracting you by bumping into your door? Have you been ignoring it?

This also depends on the the usability of AI applications and their integration with tools instructors use every day (e.g., LMS).

So how do we do that? How are we going to collaborate differently than we have for the past 30 years, methods that clearly failed to prepare us for the pandemic? What has EDUCUASE learned about how they need change to support these new forms of collaboration moving forward? Is it through these centralized efforts that new forms of collaboration will emerge or will/should it be more grassroots? We have to move beyond hopes and dreams and actually do it. Otherwise we really are back to normal.

Actually, this was not my experience at all. I saw an incredible amount of duplication of effort across schools and a tendency toward a hyperlocal "take care of our own" response. Organizations like EDUCAUSE were relatively silent, especially during the early months of the pandemic. Once the "deer in the headlights" reaction subsided after maybe six months in, then I saw more collaboration. I was actually a bit surprised by the initial absence of leadership from institutions and organizations that were positioned to lead. I think it just speaks to our overall lack of preparedness and the human response to trauma.

Interesting! I had not considered whether a domain name could subject to copyright protection - and the answer is, "no."

I wonder if this is why those insufferable recipe blogs are all set up they way they are? Is it to allow for enough original authorship to be copyrightable?

I understand that ideas are not copyrightable, but this phrase confuses me. If I explain my idea by drawing a picture or writing it down on a napkin, isn't that expression of the idea copyrightable in that form?

Two reasons why a work is not subject to copyright protection.

The fact that this hasn't happened yet and there's no indication that it's going to happen any time soon must mean there are some pretty compelling forces at work. What are they?

The fundamental question is a good one, but I am not sure that "approve" captures CC's current position toward the SA restriction. The broader point that "free" should equal public domain is well-taken and thought-provoking.

Although most instructors will not secure copyright registration of an adaptation or collection, it's probably a good practice to note, both during and following the creative process, what "new copyrightable authorship" is intended.

This is one of the best arguments for assigning Creative Commons licenses to instructional materials that omit the NoDerivatives restriction, allowing others to create adaptations without permission. This is also a cautionary note for instructors who are adapting course materials using preexisting. All Rights Reserved work without permission.

In the case of textbook editions, I assume this means that the copyright on the first edition cannot be extended by creating a second edition.

The examples are helpful. The list of required readings for a course could be considered a compilation or collection if the instructor could demonstrate originality in the selection and ordering of those readings.

The use of the phrase "new original copyrightable authorship" to distinguish an adaptation from preexisting work is suitably vague. See William Fisher's lecture on the concept of originality for more information about what constitutes, "originality."

I don't think this is a good indicator of empathy. You could make the argument that instructors who worked their tails off to maintain academic continuity cared more about their students than those who reduced their students' workload. The difficulty transitioning to online course delivery was on us, not our students. We were unprepared and I think that frustrated them.

To what extent was this higher than normal? Do we have good data on student perceptions of faculty indifference?

I agree that the sensory experience is perhaps more immediate and immersive than reading a book or watching a movie, but I am not sure there are any important qualitative differences between this form of exposure to someone else's reality and others. I also don't see the act of putting on a headset as inherently violent. One can simply take the headset off just like closing your eyes or looking away when watching a movie. I think I have less freedom in a movie theater than I do when wearing a VR headset.