South Kent College has become the latest institution to issue MP3 players to students. The college is issuing iPod nanos to enable learners to download lectures and other content from the college through podcasting technology. Podcasting, for the unfamiliar, is a system of distributing audio or video via web ‘feeds’, where new content is made available automatically to feed subscribers with ‘podcatching’ software such as iTunes or Juice.

Typically, this content is then synchronised onto a music player for listening. Mark Hunter, creator of the popular tartanpodcast (http://www.tartanpodcast.com), is enthusiastic about the medium’s educational potential. “Versatility is embedded in what podcasting is - user-created content. That means that every user can create content unique to them: their tastes; their passions; their vision; their message”.

South Kent is not alone in recognising the power of podcasting: many educational institutions now have podcasting schemes. Some, like Stanford and Wisconsin-Madison University, have set up ‘iTunes U’ sites with Apple’s assistance. Others, such as the University of Western Australia have created bespoke systems: UWA’s solution is now marketed commercially as ‘Lectopia’. By all accounts, both types are extremely popular. Indeed, the Wisconsin-Madison programme was initiated as a result of student and staff demands.

The policy of institutions distributing MP3 players to students is more contentious. The first institution to do so on a large scale was Duke University in North Carolina, where media reports suggested that students and staff were failing to take full advantage of the devices. A report in Duke student paper ‘The Chronicle’ even contained a plea for the programme to be scrapped, according to Christian Science Monitor. Beginning with the current semester, Duke will instead lend the devices to students, with a fee charged to those wishing to retain players after term.

Meanwhile at Strathclyde, some academics have been pushing forward with podcasting. Kevin O’Gorman, PhD student at the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, is creating ten video podcasts based on BBC archive material thanks to Higher Education Academy funding. The ‘Talking Hospitality’ collection takes in such themes as the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the indigenous hospitality of the Bedouin peoples. The BBC programmes were sourced through Spoken Word Services at Glasgow Caledonian University (http://www.spokenword.ac.uk).

Does this new technology pose risks to the traditional relationship between lecturer and student? Hunter sees podcasting as a way to “augment traditional learning” rather than replace it. O’Gorman concurs, seeing the mechanism as “another space for learning and teaching”. Lack of appropriate written evidence on subjects of interest led him to look elsewhere, and “constructing podcasts from BBC programmes has been a particularly rich theme”, he attests.

A wider podcasting strategy at Strathclyde is currently in development, according to Prof. James Boyle, Academic Champion for Teaching & Learning Through Technology. “Mobile devices, including the ability to work with podcasts, will have a major role in the future”, Prof. Boyle explains. He notes that Strathclyde has plans for deploying infrastructure to support technologies like podcasting: “Learning Services also recognise that their existing Streaming server (for streamed video and audio) should be extended to allow podcast downloads”.

The opportunity to be Scotland’s leader in academic podcasting is still within reach, if staff and students are willing to embrace the medium soon. Persuading them to do this shouldn’t be hard: Hunter suggests that part of the appeal of podcasting is the masses of free content for MP3 players. And who could say ‘no’ to that?

By Graeme West


9th October 2006

Australian High Court Deals a Blow Against Ubercopyright (Donna Wentworth):

The Australian High Court today brings us refreshing copyright sanity.

It ruled for the mod-chippers in Stevens v. Sony, the case in which Sony was suing under Australia’s anti-circumvention laws to stop people from modifying the Sony PlayStation to play cheaper overseas versions of games. Specifically, it found that:

[The] true construction of the definition of “technological protection measure” must be one which catches devices which prevent infringement. The Sony device does not prevent infringement. Nor do many of the devices falling within the definition advanced by Sony. The Sony device and devices like it prevent access only after any infringement has taken place…[In] construing a definition which focuses on a device designed to prevent or inhibit the infringement of copyright, it is important to avoid an overbroad construction which would extend the copyright monopoly rather than match it.

If I’m interpreting correctly (and that’s a big “if”), the Court has essentially said, “If you’re not using a technological protection measure to stop copyright infringement, you don’t deserve protection under copyright law. We will not uphold your ‘right’ to use technological protection measures to protect anything but copyright.”

In other words, the Court refuses to turn an appropriately limited monopoly right (copyright) into an unlimited “ubercopyright.”

Australian copyright expert Kim Weatherall has extensive analysis, explaining:

[Measures] like those used by Sony are about controlling use of and access to Sony PlayStation consoles. Sony controls all kinds of things about the way people use Sony consoles. For example: they control whether people can:

• play legitimately purchased games sold in overseas markets;
• play games created by someone other than Sony on the Sony console (something that cannot be done on a non-chipped console owing to the absence of an access code).

So while Sony can argue that it wanted to prevent piracy (it clearly did), and that the measures acted in part to deter piracy (they clearly could), Sony’s own approach to the measures muddies the waters. It doesn’t just act to prevent infringement, and that point is taken notice of by the Court here. One can’t help but suspect the legal reasoning would look different, in this case, if Sony only used its power over the console to actually prevent use of ‘pirated’ disks.

Very encouraging.

(Via Copyfight.)