TY - JOUR
T1 - The Paradoxes of Open Educational Resources
AU - Cope, Bill
AU - Kalantzis, Mary
N1 - In 1998, Stanford University students Larry Page and Sergei Brin presented a paper about their doctoral research project at the Seventh International World-Wide Web Conference in Brisbane, Australia: “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine.” In their paper, they described the full text and hyperlink database of at least 24 million pages that they had developed, and the so-called “PageRank” algorithm that used the link structure of the Web to calculate a quality ranking for each Web page. Keyword search would bring up a huge number of pages in no priority order. However, by counting the number of backward links—other pages that had already cited a particular page—they were able to rank pages (Brin and Page 1998). A patent application for the invention had been filed several months before the conference, with ownership assigned to Stanford University according to the legal requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (Page 2001). Page and Brin’s research had been supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation under the US Government’s Digital Library initiative. The University did a deal in which it took Google shares instead of royalties, subsequently selling its shares for a tiny fraction of their later value. This is how oligarchies are born in the twenty-first century. However bad such deals are for the original public sector or the host institutional investors, Big Tech relies for its own profitability on the protection of intellectual property rights.
Open Educational Resources, capitalized and more frequently known by the acronym OERs. Open access scholarly publishing applies to the research and publication outputs of scholars working in higher education, widely used as teaching and learning resources. The foundational statement of principle is to be found in the Budapest Open Access Initiative of 2002: By “open access”…we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. (Willinsky 2006, 27) The sponsor for the conference, the Open Society Institute, funded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros was subsequently renamed the Open Society Foundation.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - The era of digital media has spawned a number of "open" movements. These represent new domains of "social production" resistant to commercialism: open-source software, open access scholarly publishing, and Open Educational Resources (OERs). This article focuses on OERs, while also ranging more widely to explore paradoxes in the idea and practice of "open." On the one hand, "open" movements make intellectual property freely accessible and reusable for all. On the other hand, this openness favors Big Tech companies that base their search and artificial intelligence businesses on open content. When content is not open, they treat it as if it were, copying copyrighted material without permission. The article explores the consequences of these developments for the economics of educational content development, contrasting such practices with traditional publishing models. With its high textbook prices and journal subscription fees, traditional publishing is far from blameless. However, in the "open" regime, the creative work of authors, publishers, and educational content creators is being pushed into the realm of unpaid labor. We conclude by suggesting some solutions.
AB - The era of digital media has spawned a number of "open" movements. These represent new domains of "social production" resistant to commercialism: open-source software, open access scholarly publishing, and Open Educational Resources (OERs). This article focuses on OERs, while also ranging more widely to explore paradoxes in the idea and practice of "open." On the one hand, "open" movements make intellectual property freely accessible and reusable for all. On the other hand, this openness favors Big Tech companies that base their search and artificial intelligence businesses on open content. When content is not open, they treat it as if it were, copying copyrighted material without permission. The article explores the consequences of these developments for the economics of educational content development, contrasting such practices with traditional publishing models. With its high textbook prices and journal subscription fees, traditional publishing is far from blameless. However, in the "open" regime, the creative work of authors, publishers, and educational content creators is being pushed into the realm of unpaid labor. We conclude by suggesting some solutions.
KW - Intellectual Property
KW - Open Education
KW - Open Educational Resources
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85179157685&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85179157685&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.18848/2691-1507/CGP/v21i01/25-41
DO - 10.18848/2691-1507/CGP/v21i01/25-41
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85179157685
SN - 2691-1507
VL - 21
SP - 25
EP - 41
JO - Information, Medium, and Society
JF - Information, Medium, and Society
IS - 1
ER -