Chris Betcher

As many of you may know, I'm a big supporter of Creative Commons and the ideals of open sharing. I publish most of my stuff under a CC licence, usually BY-SA, because I think sharing is important and I believe that the world is a better place if we allow others to build on what we do (in the same way that I often build on the influences of others). So, a while back I published a couple of things to the OER Commons ; a site where teachers can upload and freely share their educational resources with others. The general idea is that if you publish to OER Commons, anyone can take your work and remix it and build upon it to create a version for their own individualised use. For busy teachers who all too often find themselves "reinventing the wheel" in the creation of their own teaching resources, it's a brilliant concept. You can also attach metadata to the resources you share to make them more searchable, and even map them to the US Common Core standards if you wish. If s...

I received an email recently from a colleague asking about data sovereignty, and in particular asking about how schools deal with the  need to store all personal data on Australian servers to be compliant with the law. This was my reply... When deciding whether to do a thing - any thing - you need to assess the relative risk. There is NOTHING that can have it's risk mitigated to zero. So while we can have debates about the security of the cloud, the fact is that ANY service is generally only as safe as the password that protects it. It's far simpler to socially engineer your way into a system than to hack it, and it's easier to follow someone through an open doorway before the door shuts than to crack the lock. There are security risks involved with every system. What makes you think that data saved on a server that happens to be geographically located on Australian soil is any safer than data on a server located on the other side of some imaginary geographical dividing l...

Here's the follow-up from my last post about the copyright claim that YouTube made on a video I made using a Creative Commons soundtrack. You can read the previous post for the start of the story if you're interested. Since then, I've had conversations with several people about the issue. One was Jeff Price, the CEO of Audiam . Audiam was listed by YouTube as the entity responsible for policing the claim. Audiam is a service that musicians can use to track the use of their music in YouTube, although I think they also monitor Spotify and a few other streaming services as well. Basically, when a musician signs up to use Audiam's services they upload a sample of their music which gets passed on to YouTube and fingerprinted. Fingerprinting is a process whereby the track can be compared against existing tracks to see if it matches, thereby identifying the copyright status of the music. If a match is made, YouTube flags it as a copyright violation and that was the problem I ...

A few weeks ago I got home from a short holiday in Bali. We had a great time, and managed to collect a few snippets of video along the way using a GoPro camera. A few days after I got home I managed to stitch a few clips together into a little video summary of the holiday using my own footage and some Creative Commons music that I sourced from Jamendo, one of of my favourite sources for CC-licensed music. I used a happy little track called " 8_Happiness AC2 " by an artist called " Music for your Media ". The track was licensed under a CC BY-ND-NC licence - meaning that if I attribute the artist (I did), don't modify the music (I didn't), and not make money from its use (I'm not), I was welcome to use it. That's the nice thing about Creative Commons licensing; the terms and conditions of use are clear, explicit and fairly unambiguous. Or so I thought. After I edited the video - all 2 minutes and 52 seconds of it - it was published to YouTube. The ne...

When I lived in Canada for a while, I was always a little bemused by the Canadian approach to speed limits. The maximum allowed speed limit on the QEW and the 400-series roads around Toronto is 100km/h and yet if you actually do that speed you just about get run over. The locals routinely cruise the highways there at 120-130km/h and there's no issue. I like to drive fast too, but it used to frustrate my sense of logic when I'd ask my Canadian friends why they didn't observe the speed limit. "Oh, it says 100," they'd say, "but nobody actually drives at 100, we drive at 120." "Why don't they just raise the speed limit to 120", I'd ask. "Because then people would just do 140" came the reply. Apart from being a really strange view of human nature, I'd then ask, "Why don't you just post the speed limit that you actually want people to observe and then enforce that, instead of having this vague gray area where peopl...

I took part in the Open Content Licensing for Educators online course that ran all last week.  It was run by the team at WikiEducator and was a great insight into the many copyright issues that can be addresses by creating Open Educational Resources using clear and open licensing terms. I know that many educators don't think in terms of "licensing" their work, but really, whenever you make something that can be used to help either you or others teach, it's a "resource" and the way that you indicate how you are prepared to let others use that resource can be considered a "license". The thing that became screamingly obvious as I worked through the online course content last week was that... a) All educators need to get much, much better at MARKING our work (where we're allowed to) with some form of designation that indicates how we wish to share it. We all produce resources, but very few of us consciously consider marking those resources with a ...

Although I've not managed to keep up fully with the Open Content Licensing for Educators course being run by the WikiEducator group this week, I have managed to spend enough time with to do a bit of thinking about copyright, Creative Commons , and what all this stuff means to me as an educator. The course has been a good introductory overview of these issues, although I was already fairly aware of much of  the information being shared. The real value was in connecting with other educators from all over the world and hearing so many different perspectives on how traditional copyright can be so debilitating, especially in the developing world. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on this copyright law stuff, but I have been taking a keen interest in the work of the Creative Commons folk for quite a while now and I try to take every opportunity to promote the benefits of the Commons. Reading through the forums, it's clear that this hasn't been the case for everyone, a...

I've been following a discussion online about school Acceptable Use Policies for using computers. AUPs are documents that many schools get students to sign which outline the rules for using the computers. Students - sometimes quite young students - then have to sign it like a contract, a sort of in-writing promise that they won't do the wrong thing; visit banned websites, try to hack the system, abuse the equipment, etc . The contracts are usually enforced by people who rarely read the Terms of Service on the websites they visit themselves. My own personal view is that getting kids to sign a document saying they will do the right thing is ‎rarely responsible for actually getting them to do the right thing. The best you can hope to achieve ‎with an AUP-style document is the chance to wave it in their face when they do the wrong thing... but ‎really, what positive thing has that achieved other than the opportunity to lord over them about the error of their ‎ways?‎ (Unless you c...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Larry Lessig is one of my heroes. This is a terrific video that ought to make you very angry (or at least, damn annoyed!) The question is, what will you do about that anger? Are you in this fight? And what part are you, as a modern educator, playing in creating this important reform? Recorded at TEDxNYED

I was in a staff meeting at school last week where we were given a presentation outlining 10 common myths about copyright. I thought it not a bad summary of what many teachers just assume to be true. Ironically, I'm reproducing it below basically word for word as it was presented to me, but I'm told on good authority that the original creator has authorised its use for reposting. The other thing I really would have liked to have had included in the conversation was a little more talk about what the alternatives are. It's one thing to talk about what you can't do legally, but unless you provide a list of workable alternatives, simply making "though shalt not" pronouncements is a bit pointless. Copyright has a place, but in a digital world that place is changing dramatically. There is an obvious tension between the inputs and the outputs of copyright... if you are a content creator, you want the output of your work to be protected so others don't simpl...

The Internet has made it easier than ever to find virtually any digital resource we might want. The ability to locate, download and use a piece of music, a passage of text, a video or a photo for our own use is so trivially easy to do that in the excitement of knowing we CAN do it, we sometimes overlook the question of whether we SHOULD do it.  The idea of the Internet as a place where things are freely shared has become so much a part of our thinking that we sometimes believe we have a right to reuse whatever resources we happen to find online. One of the casualties of this cavalier approach to sharing can be a loss of respect for the intellectual property of others. In a world where everything appears to be so freely available, it is easy to overlook the fact that someone, somewhere, owns these resources.  We tend to rationalise our use of them, reasoning that if people put them on the Internet they must be willing to share them.  And that’s not always true.  Some ...