iPods Valuable in the College Classroom?

Infonaut writes "The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article called When iPod goes collegiate, examining the iPods for students program at Duke University. It seems that while many students and professors find them valuable for classwork, this is America, so questions about intellectual property rear their ugly head: "Do they have permission from the person who wrote the lectures to share it?" asks one IP attorney, referring to lectures recorded on iPods."

Comments

Valuable? Yes.

[Neil Blender]

It's easier to zone out with a little music.

Re:Valuable? Yes.

[ShaniaTwain]

I'd say it depends on capacity, but its value probably averages around a couple of hundred dollars.

certainly nothing to sneeze at!

Ummm

[stoolpigeon]

The means to record and share recordings of lectures have been around for quite a while. I know back in the dark ages when I was in school, most profs already had policies in regards to this. Why would doing this with an ipod as opposed to a tape recorder be any different?

Re:Ummm

[grumpyman]

Yeah... same deal: just ask the prof. for permission. What's the diff? Tapes, iPod, MP3-players, laptops, vid-cams, mobile phone...etc.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would doing this with an ipod as opposed to a tape recorder be any different?

Because it mentions the ipod. Dispite the fact that other brands of MP3 players can do this and have a recording feature built in, that ipod brand name alone is enough to report about it!

Re:Ummm

[beef curtains]

Well, people generally get freaked out about the fact that, with digital recording, material can be shared with a huge number of people in a really short time.

Imagine how long it would take to copy & distribute those little microcassettes to as many people as you could reach via P2P.

So that's the justification behind some people's paranoia. But in reality, who the hell would want to "steal" some apathetic professor's boring-ass lecture on organic chemistry anyway?

Re:Ummm

[nacturation]

It's different because it generates publicity. Looks like their plan to dominate the media with iPod stories is working. Speaking of a generic recording device is completely uninteresting... but an iPod? Start the hype engine! Create controversy where none exists! Get it posted on slashdot! This is the Marketing 202 course that Apple and other media outlets excel in. How many people would click through to a Christian Science Monitor (hah, what an oxymoron) article about analog tape recorders? But if CSM spins it as an "iPod against the machine" story, it gets impressions which generates ad revenues for them.

Re:Ummm

[stoolpigeon]

It's like shooting fish in a barrel-- though this +5 wont last long because some dolt will mod me down as overrated since the whole frigging thing is so freaking obvious. As evidenced by all the poor slobs who posted the exact same thing but hit submit milliseconds after me.

I do think the article is interesting-- but the summary at the top of the thread looks like it was trying to hit the right buttons to get the green-light. Shoot, it worked.

Re:Ummm

[OpenGLFan]

It's different for the same reason that tape-trading wasn't a cause for an RIAA manhunt in the 80s. Copying a tape takes effort and time, while copying an mp3 takes neither. I'd LOVE to be redoing my undergraduate education now. Remember all the lecture-hall classes? Now everybody's got recorders that speak the same format -- and instead of having to borrow the tape from my pal, copy it, keep up with it, and give it back, I just ask him to IM it to me. Ten minutes later I have the entire hour-and-a-half long lecture (no more flipping tapes or keeping up with labels!).

It's different because it's easy enough for lazy students to do.

Re:Ummm

[rsborg]

This is the Marketing 202 course that Apple and other media outlets excel in.

Dude, I know Apple is popular, but I don't think it's quite made the status of media outlet yet...

Re:Ummm

[eh2o]

there is no difference; its just more likely to be a problem now due to the fact that improper distribution is an order of magnitude easier.

laws are like software... 90% of the requirements are unknown at the time of writing (and lawyers are like devious perl programmers... ;)

Re:Ummm

[lopingrhondo]

Yeah, thats exactly what the RIAA did. Ever hear of a little campaign called "Home taping is destroying music"?

Re:Ummm

[pokka]

Did you read the article? Because it's not about "iPod against the machine" and it's not written controversially at all. In fact, the Christian Science Monitor - despite the name - is a very reputable, non-biased news source. The article is also fairly thorough - especially for a non-tech news source.

The actual FA discusses why Duke thought it was a good idea to give iPods to students at all. The first question - why choose the iPod instead of a player with more function? The iPod requires additional accessories and hackery to do all the things that students want to use them for. Casual iPod users would find it difficult to share downloaded lectures, for example, because Apple makes sure that it's difficult to transfer files off of your iPod - protected or not.

And secondly, is it really a good idea to give them away without really coming up with good uses for them? "Let's give everyone an iPod first, and figure out how to integrate it into our curricula later!" That's certainly what seems to have happened - and that's how students feel as well.

If anyone's generating stupid publicity, it's Duke University. The article just tries to figure out what effect (if any) it has had on students and their learning and interaction methods.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great, but in true Slashdot fashion, you've neglected the fact that the Monitor isn't a religious paper. It's a reputable, independent publication similar to PBS in its own right, and while it isn't worth much for science journalism it's a great source for all things political.

Re:Ummm

[croddy]

perhaps because iPods are among the only portable music players left which do not ship with recording capabilities -- recording lectures with a Neuros is run of the mill, but with an iPod, you've overcome the limitations of the gadget.

Re:Ummm

[i.r.id10t]

How many people would click through to a Christian Science Monitor (hah, what an oxymoron) article

Yeah, I used to think that as well. Accidentally read a few of their articles, each excellent, first time I thought it was a fluke, second time a coincidence, 3rd time there had to be something. Seems the CSM has a rather good reputation for unbiased/unfiltered news, especially international.

Re:Ummm

[xavi62028]

If you are trying to put down a story because of its source you might want to consider a better target next time as the christian science monitor is a very respectable newspaper and has won numerous awards for its unbiased reporting and taking the high moral ground by not attacking people

Re:Ummm

[larkost]

As a kid my parents used to have a subscription and so I grew up reading the 'Monitor. There was a format change, and my parents didn't have the time, so there was a long period where I didn't read it at all.

Recently though, I happened on a quoting of an article somewhere and read one of their online issues. The next day I got myself a daily subscription to the dead tree edition (mailed to you) and am very happy with the decision. The articles are very well written (very rarely taken from Reuters or the AP), and always very careful about their bias (very unlike most media). And the reporters take the time to understand all of the issues, and don't just repeat the most sensational sound bytes from each side in order to be "balanced".

Despite being associated with a somewhat fringe church, their reporting is excelent and comprehensive. They do tend to take a non-the-world-is-going-to-end view on things, and there is one clearly marked article that has to do with "Christian Science" (the Curch of Christ, Scientist... wikipedia has a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_scienc e]good article[/url]), but that is sometimes also interesting.

I say this as a agnostic/atheist. Don't let the name dissuade you from what is probably the best weekday newspaper in the US (the New York Times would also be in the running, but is too much for me). Read one of the PDF papers that they will give you as a trial from their site, or check out some of the articles there.

Re:Ummm

[nacturation]

Yeah, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was media outlets other than Christian Science Monitor.

Re:Ummm

[nolife]

It takes exactly ONE person to transfer something to digital. That is not an order of a magnatude harder. I did not walk to school uphill both ways but I did a lot of analog copying when I was younger as did most people 30-35 and above years old. It is not a challenging task at all. Even though it is done in "real time", you set it up and walk away, when you get back it is done. Copying analog to your computer is no different.

Re:Ummm

[pokka]

I'm not spreading FUD. If you can't browse your iPod with iTunes and drag a song onto the music library (or onto another connected iPod) then "Apple makes sure that it's difficult to transfer files off of your iPod." Exactly what I said.

Regarding the directory structure - iTunes prompts you to move your voice memos to the music library as soon as you connect it - which, if you select the default action, puts them into a hidden directory, and then into one of 15+ hash directories. It's a total pain to find them - hence the meaning of the word "difficult."

Re:Ummm

[commodoresloat]

That doesn't explain why the intellectual property issues involving recording lectures would be different when an ipod is involved.

Re:Ummm

[eh2o]

making 10,000 tape-to-tape copies is at least an order of magnitude more effort than dragging a single file into your P2P shared folder.

Re:Ummm

[mcmonkey]

If anyone's generating stupid publicity, it's Duke University. The article just tries to figure out what effect (if any) it has had on students and their learning and interaction methods.

Duke sucks?

/It's not news for nerds?
//I'm in the wrong place, aren't I?

Re:Ummm

[pokka]

Did I say Duke sucks?

The parent to my post claimed that the Christian Science Monitor is generating stupid publicity (my words) to sell ads on their site.

I simply said that *if* someone is doing so, the only entity you could really blame it on is Duke. Which kind of ties in with the article - Duke chose to provide the flashiest, most popular digital music player to students, despite the fact that it lacks almost any features that would be useful to them (like voice recording without a separate $25 attachment, easy loading/sharing of files, etc..) It seems that the entire program might have to do with the fact that iPods are "cool" and Duke wanted to do something "cool" to get attention. The fact that they initiated the program with no actual plan for using the devices seems to reinforce that idea (although that doesn't mean it's true).

Re:Ummm

[flewp]

I assume he was making a reference to the fact that Fark.com headlines often contain "Duke sucks" when in reference to college sports. Hence the "//I'm in the wrong place, aren't I?" part.

Re:Ummm

[MoneyT]

The success of the iPod (over other similar devices) is testament to the ease with which people can be brainwashed by advertising and publicity.

Is a testament to the fact which so many geeks overlook; people don't give a damn about wizbang feature when it comes to their gadgets. No one cares if the player plays ogg-wierdNameOfTheMonth files. No one gives a shit if it can process files with bit rate of 2345098. No one gives two shits if it promotes open formats or closef formats or slightly shy formats. They dont' care what the impedence is. They don't care what the screen resolution is. They certainly don't give a fuck about whether it was the first, last or 800th to the market. They care about one thing. They want a product that works and does what they bought it to do. And people went out in search of an MP3 player (not an OGG player, not a video player, not a tape recorder, not an FM walkman). And people found their MP3 player in the iPod. That's all there is too it. All the wizbang features in teh world mean nothing if it doesn't do it's main feature right.

Re:Ummm

[pokka]

ahh sorry, that went over my head :)

Re:Ummm

[Koiu Lpoi]

As much as I wish it too (for better moderaton), this is not PhPBB. Try a href the next time.

Actually, is there a "Mod Points" system avaliable for PhPBB or SMF?

Re:Ummm

[Zachary Kessin]

IF I was a professor I would want people to ask me before they recorded my lecutres. On the other hand I would say yes. Hell if I was a prof I might well tape them myself and put them online for students. I had a few professors in college make up nice notes and post them on the class web page for sutdents. So a PODcast of the class might be a normal thing in 2-3 years.

Re:Ummm

[jack_call]

pretty much OT, but I gotta ask.
why is "Christian Science Monitor" an oxymoron? studying physics, has only convinced me (more) that there is a God.
I mean try explaining gravity otherwise, or "the big bang". We have NO idea how to explain it. Even Einstein admitted this in his later years.
Stating that christianity is anti-science is just plain ol' weird.

But when it comes to religion, there is about twice as many opinions as there are people, so let's not start a flamewar, please.

Re:Ummm

[papageorgio02]

but your parent is saying that you only have to copy it to digital one time from tape, and the result is the same as using an i-Pod.

Re:Ummm

[hawk]

I am a professor, and I allow taping--But I condition it on

1) Sharing the tapes with absent students, and
2) Turning it off temporarily at my request. There are certaint things that must be said at times that could be taken way out of context.

On the other hand, if we had those private "services" that send students to class to take notes and then sell them, I would indeed expect royalties from the "service."

OTOH, not only to I hand out copies of my lecture slides (overhead, not power point), reduced 50% with the left column blank, I also put them on the web for students.

hawk

Re:Ummm

[RealAlaskan]

The articles are very well written ... and always very careful about their bias ...

What does ``always very careful about their bias'' mean to you?

I read the CSM's web edition daily: it keeps me posted on what's happening in the middle of the political left. They have a very definite bias, and I wouldn't say they're ``careful'' about it; it affects the things they write about and how they write about them.

The bias seems fairly clear, so it's easy to keep it in mind, and form my own conclusions from the subset of facts they choose to present. That's a very good thing: bias is unavoidable, and the best thing you can do is show your bias clearly, so we all know what it is, and how it might affect your reporting. The worst thing you can do is try to hide your bias behind a false ``balance''.

Re:Ummm

[eh2o]

try digitizing 100 hours of lecture from tape (an entire semester's worth). have fun, see ya in a couple of days. the same thing from an ipod is just a drag-n-drop.

but if the ipod existed before P2P sharing and the internet, no-one would give a rats ass how easy it is to make a copy, thus my original comments about ease of distribution in light of these technologies, not specifically about the ease of getting the recording onto a computer (unfortunately I think this point was misinterpreted subsequently -- maybe I did not make it sufficiently clear, or maybe its just slashdot)

Re:Ummm

[nacturation]

See my other post on this -- I went into a bunch of detail there. In a nutshell, science is fundamentally not based upon faith. We don't have mathematical principles just because someone has faith that it feels right. I'll do a bit of handwaving here, but as I'm sure you know the general principle is that if there's enough proof, it's a law/principle/whatever. If there isn't enough proof then the data is examined and the most likely conclusion is determined based upon the evidence and it's a theory, subject to more evidence which will further refine, validate, or invalidate that theory.

Given that Christianity is founded upon faith, the exact opposite of what science is founded upon, I consider the phrase "Christian Science" to be an oxymoron. As my other post says, this doesn't mean that all Christians are unscientific -- I'm sure you can do physics with great rigour and discipline -- only that Christianity itself isn't based upon the scientific method.

I mean try explaining gravity otherwise, or "the big bang". We have NO idea how to explain it.

We have some ideas, some theories. However, why does not having an explanation automatically imply the existence of a higher being? This is the whole god-of-the-gaps approach. Anything we can't explain is attributed to some god. As time goes on, we find that we can actually explain more and more things, so less and less gets attributed to god. If we ever do find the perfect explanation for gravity and the big bang, does this mean that you'll no longer believe in a god? And you then have to consider the natural progression of your faith: if you can't explain it, you attribute it to evidence of a god. Can you explain god? If not, what do you attribute god to? Is there an infinite hierarchy of gods because you're unable to explain each one and must therefore relegate the explanation to something higher?

If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[stochastix]

I have the right to make a copy to listen to it later (or to share with other students).

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[nacturation]

I have the right to make a copy to listen to it later (or to share with other students).

Replace "lecture" with "movie" and see if your theory still applies. :)

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this was cover with the BetaMax lawsuits. Time sharing is perfectly legal, redistribution and selling the file is not.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[DarkHelmet]

I can't help but wonder if after a certain point, that instead of taking classes where there's an actual lecturer, that instead a tape of the lecturer from a previous course is instead used for a class.

On top of that, actual questions could be answered from TAs, or perhaps the professor himself or herself.

It makes you think about what is happening to education, and if this is a good or bad thing.

Thoughts?

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

well, in the movie scenario you're recording a recording of a film, in the lecture case your recording someone speaking directly - would there be IP issues if you walked down the street recording and picking up everyone else's conversations?
In response to your original point, yes, the theory does still apply, it's just that noone's told the IP lawyers yet ;-)

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[pilgrim23]

Your rights end where the briefcase, Armani suit, and custom tooled calf loafers begin...

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[01000011011101000111]

Good thing: Ideally, this would mean *everyone* could get lectures on key course modules by the best in the business... Imagine a course on games design, with lectures from Sid Meier, or general programming with lectures fron Knuth. Obviously with todays system, such lectures could only be possible at one university or a one off circuit at best... but with audio/vis recordings every university/college could benefit.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[stochastix]

You make a good point. However, there is a fundamental difference between entertainment and education. The latter has a "higher" purpose (at least meant to have). That is why society accepts the concept of a scholarship to pay for a student who cannot afford fees; I can't think of a society that pays for movie tickets for people who cannot afford them. And when I attend a class there are some things that I may not understand or remember very well even when I am paying attention. So having a chance to review the material after class is useful. Taking notes is just one of the many ways of preparing "review material". When I was in college many of my professors had recorded video lectures that were available on the class website for download. That being said, I would love a place where it is ok to record movies that you have paid to watch. (-:

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Clowning]

I am in law school currently and have heard of this happening at some rather expensive thrid-party study/review courses, especially bar-review courses. Actually, it's nothing new, my mother is an attorney and she told me that when she was studying for the bar exam the review courses were 4 hours at a time watching videos of the lecturer.

I've been through a number of classes where it would make very little difference if the teacher were real or a tape. Whether it becomes a problem seems more related to the students. If they participate in the discussion, a real teacher is invaluable. Otherwise, what's the difference?

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[lbmouse]

Replace "lecture" with "movie" and see if your theory still applies.

A movie, book, song, etc., is a creative work of value to be sold. Lectures are public domain just like free and open speech in a public arena. BTW - This comment is Copyright (c) 2005 lbm.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it is illegal theft of intellecual property.

What type of theft is legal?!

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[NaruVonWilkins]

Actually, even without paying fees, many universities will let you sit in on lectures. At that point, it's probably considered public domain.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Toresica]

However, there is a fundamental difference between entertainment and education. The latter has a "higher" purpose (at least meant to have).

Another difference - in order to see a movie, you *have* to pay.

Especially with first and second year classes, nobody's going to notice if a random person walks in and sits through the lecture. Hell, the prof would probably be pleased that somebody wants to listen to what he has to say.
With a movie, people check tickets.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[nasor]

" A movie, book, song, etc., is a creative work of value to be sold. Lectures are public domain just like free and open speech in a public arena. BTW - This comment is Copyright (c) 2005 lbm."

Please do a little basic research before you go spouting off as if you knew what you were talking about. Facts can't be copyrighted - but presentations of facts are copyrighted. A professor's lecture is considered a unique, creative presentation of facts, and is therefore copyrighted just like a book that the professor might write about the same subject would be copyrighted, or that a TV documentary on the subject would be copyrighted. You don't violate copyright law by taking notes on the facts presented in a lecture, but you would be violating copyright law if you recorded and redistributed the professor's actual lecture, because then you would be recording his actual presentation rather than merely the facts that he was trying to convey.

As to your assertion that lectures become public domain simply because they are performed in public, that's nonsense. I could present a copyrighted play, movie, or book "in a public arena" and it wouldn't change the copyrighted status one bit.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[nasor]

Something does not become "public domain" simply because it's presented in public for free. A movie studio could have a free screening of a new movie that was open to anyone, or an author could read his book to a public audience for free and it wouldn't change the copyright status.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Kadin2048]

If all the students are just taping the course, and the professor is just a tape of a prerecorded lecture ...

Couldn't everyone just save a lot of time and just email everyone the stupid lecture? Or for that matter, why bother leaving home at all? Just take it online.

While maybe this might appeal to some /.ers, it's not for me. Personally I'd have been pretty offended if I signed up to take a class and walked in to find a tape deck playing a recorded lecture. I'd drop that class pretty quickly, if I had the option. Now with that said, I have and do record lectures (not with an iPod, but with an Olympus digital recorder) and use them for later review, but I've never recorded anything that I wasn't actually there for. At my college, recording devices haven't become widespread enough for people to start trading recordings (I've only even been asked for a copy of mine once), and the few other people that do use recorders do so mostly in addition to paper notes.

Frankly I think that the new "notebook" document type in MS Office, which combines an audio recording with typed notes and knows where in the recording the notes were taken, is potentially more useful for students than an iPod recorder, because it combines regular notetaking skills with the ability to hear what triggered those notes. And I say this as someone who's not normally a fan of MS products -- it's fairly slick. If you're in an environment where lots of people have laptops and bring them to class, this might have a greater impact in the long run than a bunch of iPods. The impact where I am has been limited, because people don't bring laptops to class very often.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[farble1670]

why would you possibly think this?

if you pay to get into a movie, do you have the right to bootleg it? a concert?

you may indeed have the right, but it has nothing to do with you paying tuition.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[petermgreen]

i'm at the university of manchester in the uk (in the part that used to be umist)

ok so if a lecture grew to much bigger than its normal size people may start asking questions otherwise they'll just assume your a student at least in big first year lectures (your talking nearly 200 students in some) The timetable isn't really conviniant for dropping in to one lecture course though its not like thier

just as non students could drop into the various university catering establishments and buy a meal and noone would notice

one thing that surprises me though is the way the uni hide some things that you would think have little value. like the uni i go to require a login to download the past exam papers, crazy!

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[NaruVonWilkins]

My girlfriend, who teaches (at a university), tells me that you should be able to record video of a lecture and give it away for free.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[chris_eineke]

I can't help but wonder if after a certain point, that instead of taking classes where there's an actual lecturer, that instead a tape of the lecturer from a previous course is instead used for a class.

Naaah, why bother with showing up to classes then? Just have the prof upload the file to a FTP. But then I am not paying $3000C for tape recordings.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Dizzle]

Stay in your house. The grammar Nazis will be by shortly.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[dave420]

No, it depends what you paid for. If your fees bought you the right to sit in a lecture theatre and hear the lecture, then no, you don't have the right.

Why do people always equate being exposed to someone's work with the right to own a copy? Can you take the Mona Lisa off the wall of the Louvre and photocopy it? Heck! You paid to see it, so you have the right to see it at home, no? Exactly. No.

I don't want to sound like an ass - it's just all these imagined rights people pluck from thin air. Check the small-print.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

because noone's told the law makers yet, either

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[tgibbs]

You make a good point. However, there is a fundamental difference between entertainment and education. The latter has a "higher" purpose (at least meant to have).

As a lecturer, I'm not particularly concerned if people share copies of my lecture (unless I make a mistake, of course, in which case I wish all recording devices to magically malfunction).

When I give a lecture, I am providing personal guidance to the material. I am available to answer questions during and after the lecture. A recording may be useful to students studying for exams, either to jog their memories or if they couldn't attend to lecture and want to know what I emphasized. But it is not the same as being there. Most of the time, if I have a choice between listening to a recorded lecture or reading a text covering the same material, I'll do the latter--it's simply a more efficient use of my time.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[swv3752]

Depending on circumstances, the Professor's lecture could be a work for hire. If it is a public College, then it might be Public Domain or owned by the citzenry which amounts to much the same. Regardless, I doubt there is a Professor that would try to disallow recording or free distribution of his lectures.

I remember back in college working for the A/V dept. that a number of Profs would have us use the Auditorium's sound system to record thier lecture which they then made available in the Library. And the Library made machines available to make high speed dubs on cassette.

Re:If I paid fees to attend the lecture...

[noy]

That's what we do here in medical school. The lectures are taped (video), and we watch whenever we want, as they are available on a secure website.

In some courses, no physical lectures are offered - all are taped beforehand, rather professionally, with slides, highlights and all, and we can watch them whenever want. It works because here they are trying to cram as much information into us as quickly as possible, regardless of our tuition.

As for teacher contact, this gives us time for small group discussions, journal clubs, etc - we dont ditch the face time.

iPod? No, not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the Neuros Audio Computer? Now that's one slick piece of tech... and it records audio, unlike the iPod which needs third-party hardware.

Re:iPod? No, not really.

[TheKidWho]

slick?

you must mean ugly...

Illusory benefits

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Some of the most popular student uses included recording lectures, taking oral notes, and even using the devices to create electronic flash cards.

Professors reported that students seemed more engaged in classes where they could use the iPods. They also cited strong student use of the audio capabilities of the iPod in their presentations, and more accuracy in quoting from interviews they did using the iPods.


How long will this last? If a new device comes out, an iPod-killer so to speak, will students require those to succeed in school? If so, this says more about students and the education system than about iPods and their perceived educational benefits.

Re:Illusory benefits

[Anne Honime]

Not speaking of I ipod, but as a former assistant professor until last year, I've always forbade use of recording devices in my lectures.

Contrary to the stated comment, I noticed that most students would just relax, relying on the tape to be able to take the test later on in the year. They were less concentrated, and *my* job was more difficult into getting everybody's attention.

So after my first year, I've sworn not to let any electronical device interfere with my teaching. I've had very little complaints since.

Re:Illusory benefits

[venicebeach]

I actually find that when I allow students to record my lectures they pay more attention since they don't feel the need to write everything down.

I can't really imagine having a problem with the recordings for IP reasons though - it's not like lectures contain information that is not available elsewhere. I mean are they selling them or using them to learn from? Is there some black market for university lecture tapes than I'm unaware of?

Re:Illusory benefits

[Anne Honime]

Cultural differences, I guess. Anyway, I know that they'll grab 30% of the lecture at best, so I just make sure to clearly indicates what those 30% are, to have them listen during the 70% I don't really care about - provided they take enough care to see that the importants parts are build out of that chat.

As for the black market part of it, at least in France you're not very far away from reality. Actualy, I know that some professors sell the rights to reproduce paper copies of the lectures to the 'fraternities' [not strictly equivalent down here, but can't find a best match]. They in turn charge a fee for the work of typing from the tape and duplicating to the students. I personaly just hate that.

Re:Illusory benefits

[Kadin2048]

I had a physics professor that used to talk with reverence about a professor that he had in school, who used to not allow students to take notes in class. He felt that it was a 'mental endeavor' and that not having students obsessed with taking notes resulted in a more interactive class experience.

While I'm not advocating this position, I think it's an interesting anecdote. I've certainly found in my personal experience that some of my most memorable classes I have very few paper notes from, because I was either busy participating or just too enraptured with the lecture to write anything down. And while I doubt that the addition of any sort of recording apparatus is ever going to make a boring lecture that much more interesting (heck, I take notes in order to stay awake sometimes), I do wish i had recorded some of the more memorable lectures from my college career.

Re:Illusory benefits

[jandrese]

I had one of those professors. The lectures were about 10x more interesting and engaging, but his tests were terrible because everybody went off and studied what they found most interesting in the class (he tended to go off on short tangents about once every other day) and would be annoyed to discover that the test covered mostly the material they didn't find as interesting and had pretty much forgotten by the end of the lecture.

It didn't help that he was one of those professors that gave multiple choice tests where every answer was technically correct, but one was more correct than the others.

Re:Illusory benefits

[commodoresloat]

How the hell can you use an ipod to create "electronic flash cards"? Maybe that's the secret extra port on the ipod that slashdot reported a few months back.

I think the benefits professors are seeing from the iPods are actually coming from the reality distortion field that comes free with every unit.

Re:Illusory benefits

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Your third sentence answers your question. The reality distortion field creates holographs using song title (the content), order by genre (the subject).

It's quite ingenious really.

Re:Illusory benefits

[swv3752]

At my old College, the Prof's circumvented the "libraries" of the Frats by putting old tests and recordings of their lectures in the library. Some of the Prof's would provide notes for the whole quarter.

Re:Illusory benefits

[hawk]

That's why I hand out slides.

I was amazed at the obviousness of it the first time a prof handed them out. In fact, he'd discovered that the discount on the book for bundling something else with it (the slides) completely covered the cost to students--it was something like a penny's difference.

I stopped taking notes as a student (well, almost--a line or too in a 4x6" per class) when I discovered just how much more I could retain and learn by giving my full attention to the lecture (then again, my recall is good enough to correct other people's notes).

hawk

I pray

[dotpavan]

that my school gets a grant for those Playboy iPods..

So how is this any different

[Anonymous Coward]

... from handwritten lecture notes?

Re:So how is this any different

[nacturation]

... from handwritten lecture notes?

Unless you're really fast at shorthand and are taking dictation, handwritten notes aren't a verbatim copy of what was said but rather the important points that you think you ought to remember.

Re:So how is this any different

[Technel]

I agree, handwritten notes capture the professor's lesson anyway, how is that any different from storing the information through a different medium (which could be potentially more beneficial to you)?

Re:So how is this any different

[Vapebait]

So by your reasoning, ripping a dvd and compressing it with a lossy algorithm gives me the right to redistribute it?

Re:So how is this any different

[andreMA]

handwritten notes capture the professor's lesson anyway

That depends in part on how good a lecturer the professor is, in particular how many false starts and tangents s/he takes.

A student can waste a lot of time and effort on a 2 minute digression that sounds relevant but turns out to meaningless in context.

An accurate record (tape, MP3, hired court reporter, genetically engineered super-parrot, whatever) lets you make several passes through the lecture, separating the wheat from the chaff.

I suspect that those who object to their lectures being recorded fall into three groups:

1. The shy, who may simply dislike being recorded and/or photographed, although they've overcome their dislike of public speaking;
2. Those who perceive ((rightly - possible profits) or wrongly (simple ego)) some diminution of value for having been recorded;
3. The pretenders: those who realize that if people can review what they say in detail, they'll find it lacking in content and/or uninspired.

Re:So how is this any different

[Kadin2048]

I think there's a fourth category. From personal experience, I know that some particularly, er, animated professors dislike being recorded because they don't want to censor themselves.

There were a few professors that used to end up with quotes on the Daily Jolt website with regularity...I can imagine that a few juicy audio quotes, widely shared, might put a dent in a young professor's career. And this would be unfortunate because some of these people, despite (or perhaps because of) the occasional profanity or humorous exaggeration, are among the best lecturers I've taken class with.

Re:So how is this any different

[Canis Latrans]

Another way that it's different from handwritten lecture notes: You can take a quick glance at your lecture notes and decide which ones you want to study. However, finding the right spot in the lecture where he goes over the stuff you're interested in could take a lot of time, scrubbing back and forth through the audio.

When I took university courses, I found that the lecturers usually spent 90% of the time babbling, and only 10% of the time saying things that were relevant and worth writing down. So, handwritten notes are a concise summary of your own understanding of the crux of what the lecturer is saying.

College lectures are usually boring enough to put half the class to sleep the first time they hear them. How many people are actually going to want to hear the lecture a second time over?

Re:So how is this any different

[andreMA]

Point very well taken; I see that as a valid concern. Especially if John's parents happen to hear the professor "they paid good money for" gore a sacred cow of theirs.

VERY valuable for language learning

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, you could accomplish the same thing with anything that plays recordable media, but I absolutely love having the ability to listen to French lessons during my walk to and from campus, as well as I'm walking around the apartment (roommates don't like boring language tapes). Sure, the people around me get freaked out from time to time when I occasionally repeat "je voudrais de fromage" or something like that slip, but I really have found it a great tool for improving my pronunciation and comprehension.

Why iPods?

[elid]

iPods, without a $30 add-on, can't record. What else are non-music students doing academically with the iPods?

Re:Why iPods?

[Eu4ria]

i think if u run linux on it u can. there was some ghetto rig on "Attack of the Show" the other day about recording one ipod to the other, out on one to input on the other and they did it with a linux booted ipod and no adapter. Was eve able to go to a higher bitrate like that too.

Re:Why iPods?

[amliebsch]

That fact immediately set off my BS detector. There are a myriad of less expensive, more capable, full-color units with high-quality built-in recording (iRiver H320?!?) whose only disadvantage to the iPod is the inability to play iTunes DRM'ed songs and lack of Apple marketing.

Re:Why iPods?

[astralusion]

yeah we did get one with the iPod...so it wasn't like we as students had to pay extra...i'm not saying that the iPod is the best product out there, just that we had the recording issue taken care of for us.

Re:Why iPods?

[Capt'n Hector]

Transferring lab data in STYLE, that's what!

Re:Why iPods?

[mrchaotica]

Maybe the University already has a service agreement with Apple, and they would rather deal with a known entity with a known-good service reputation than make a completely new agreement and buy an unknown-quality product?

(I don't know if Duke had an agreement with Apple or not; I'm just guessing.)

Re:Why iPods?

[2nd Post!]

Well, what can you do with audio, in general?

Store lectures
Store conversations (for language)
Audio flashcards (for any subject)
Audio books (for stories)
Performances (for actors and storytellers)

Re:Why iPods?

[NightHwk1]

I remember reading that the audio out jack will also serve as an input. Something about speaking into the left earbud...

And there's this: http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000147025394/

Re:Why iPods?

[amliebsch]

valid reasons to make that choice.

Valid academic reasons? Does the iPod support ogg vorbis? Does it support any non-proprietary audio formats other than uncompressed audio?

Re:Why iPods?

[child_of_mercy]

i think they use the headphones as mics,

although if you've got that far you should be able to plug a mic in.

Re:Why iPods?

[MoneyT]

Does it matter?

Re:Why iPods?

[KC9AIC]

According to apple's site, the iPod is compatible with AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF AAC by itself isn't proprietary, and MP3 is a standard.

Re:Why iPods?

[amliebsch]

AAC by itself isn't proprietary

Um, are you sure?

Re:Why iPods?

[KC9AIC]

Well, you're correct. But it's only as proprietary as is MP3 and WMA.

Re:Why iPods?

[DSLAMngu]

They did have an agreement. The day they gave the things out, there were news vans, iPod posters, and a tent full of Apple employees pretty much right outside my window. Apple and Duke turned the night into a huge event.

Another point: we have our own service team down here and boxes full of replacement iPods.

YES!

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

For $10,000 a year in tuition, yes, I do own the lectures!

Re:YES!

[Anonymous Coward]

$10,000 per year is not tuition, it's daycare for brats like you.

$40,000, now THAT's tuition.

Re:YES!

[ari_j]

That's all you pay? What kind of crappy two-bit backwoods state school do you go to? If it's my alma mater, will you say "hi" to the Delta Zeta girls (the "EZ DZs") for me? ;-D

Re:YES!

[Horkdoom]

And for $32,000 I should own more than just the lectures.

Re:YES!

[patio11]

Only $10,000? Dang, man, you're lucky.

Re:YES!

[suwain_2]

Funny, for $40,000 a year, I don't!

Re:YES!

[davesag]

Way back when i went to university, the computer science department would let you buy all of the lecture notes for the semester, in advance, for around $10. It was an awesome deal; cheaper than photocopying them in fact. Now I hear they still do the same but the notes are all available electronically in advance free-of-charge through the department's intranet. Of course there were no university fees at all when I was there. Nowadays those free notes probably cost you $500 but the cost is hidden in your fees.

Re:YES!

[Gulthek]

That wouldn't even get you one semester at Duke.

Re:YES!

[hawk]

First of all, alumni, taxpayers, and other contributers are paying more than that for your education--your tuition is a relatively small part of the cost.

Secondly, I, like most faculty, am subsidising you at a multiple of my faculty salary. I could make several times as much in industry, but I think this is more important. The dollars that faculty give up because they think that educating you is a worthwhile thing simply dwarf the dollars you pay to be there.

hawk

iPods in Classrooms

[SpottedKuh]

Infonaut writes "Blah blah blah..."

Huh? Sorry, I was listening to my iPod while you were talking...

Not exactly

[ishmalius]

They are iValuable.

Hey. The Apple section is just a shilling section.

[James A. Y. Joyce]

"Hey, Taco, let's post yet another story about something that's been done for decades with tape recorders...only now it's with IPODS!!!!!"

Yeah, amazing. How is using a modded iPod (they can't record out of the box) different from using a tape recorder? The hard disk? Whoop-dee-fuckin'-do.

Unclear about the reason for the article

[winkydink]

Substitute pocket tape recorder for iPod and many of the concerns are the same.

I stikes me that this is the result of, "hey, I have a great idea... let's give all the frosh iPods!"

"Uh, what will they do with them?"

"I dunno, we'll figure something out."

It sure seems like the Duke program could have been better thought out, though sometimes the best ideas for a device are not envisioned by its creators, so something good may come from this.

Wht I really want to know is why the fvck does Duke, a school that costs a gazillion dollars a year, need to get a grant to give its students iPods?

Re:Unclear about the reason for the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Wht I really want to know is why the fvck does Duke, a school that costs a gazillion dollars a year, need to get a grant to give its students iPods?

Because they're already spending the tuition they collect on other things. If you want to add some new bells and whistles, but still want to keep all the things you're already spending money on, you need more money.

(Well, assuming that you're not wasting money to begin with, which we all know that fine educational institutions never do.)

P.S. This lecture, "Stuff Costs Money", is copyrighted 2005 by Anonymous Coward as my own intellectual property.

Re:Unclear about the reason for the article

[op12]

Looks like they didn't just wing it with the ipods. Some courses have projects making use of them. (Last semester too)

Why just iPod, why not any recorder?

[EtherAlchemist]

How is it different from bringing any other type of voice recorder, digital or analog, into a lecture and recording it and then sharing THAT recording? Does the fact that it's digital make a difference? That it's being done on an iPod? Is it ease
If Duke students were given tape recorders or any other brand of MP3 player with voice recording, would it STILL be an issue/article?

Re:Why just iPod, why not any recorder?

[Kadin2048]

Nothing really, that I can see. I have an iPod (but no recording attachment, which I guess the Duke kiddies also got for free), but long before I had that, I had an Olympus DS-330 recorder.

It uses some proprietary recording format, but the software will convert it to AIFF as you download it to the computer. Although they now have ones with a lot more recording time, I see no reason to replace it. I suppose if I didn't already own one, I'd probably just get the $30 recording add-on for my iPod instead of a standalone device, although the Olympus is significantly smaller and lighter.

If Duke had distributed these to everyone, I suppose we'd be having the same issues. My point is just that the iPod isn't the first device since the analog mini-cassette recorder to give students the capability to record and share a lecture. And as I said in a post further up, in an environment where laptops were ubiquitous, there are programs that do audio recording and note-taking at the same time, and produce a single document that you can share with others.

Permission from whom?

[Ossifer]

Who owns the IP on the lecture? The professor, or maybe it's the university who paid for it... Seems that a simple university policy could deal with this...

Re:Permission from whom?

[DustyShadow]

If it's a public university wouldn't the taxpayers technically own it?

Re:Permission from whom?

[mp3phish]

Any evidence to back this up? Programers are hired for their expertise in deciding what to do in a program, not merely telling him/her to program a very well defined list of features (sometimes it is though). So the programer owns the particular realization of what is a very broad project to implement for a given problem.

Still confused?

It may be that the law protects the IP for professors. I don't know. But somehow I think it has a lot to do with the policy of the university. Unless the professors have a contract in place preserving their copyright, or there is a state law which preserves it for them while working for the state, then your argument is pretty groundless.

Then again, I don't know either way. I'm just pointing out that the only way for the professor to keep his copyright on a lecture would for him to have a contract or a state law which grants him those rights explicitly. And I am currently unaware of any such contracts or laws (but I'm sure they exist in some places and instances.)

They sure are.

[JoaoPinheiro]

They're the best way to keep someone awake during class. Well, that and the NES emulator on my cell phone =P

Re:They sure are.

[01000011011101000111]

You have a nes emulator on your phone? What phone's that (I'm due an upgrade in about 6 months, and I *love* nes games)?

Re:They sure are.

[JoaoPinheiro]

It's a Nokia 6600 but the emulator should run on any Symbian 60 based phone.
There is also a Gameboy/Gameboy Color emulator and a *gasp* SNES emulator (although it's too slow on current processors).
- NES Emulator
- GB/GBC Emulator
- SNES Emulator

IP Attorney is a dolt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright applies to works "fixed in a tangible medium."

Lectures, by and large, are NOT fixed in a tangible medium... unless the professor is literally reading word-for-word from his notes, the lecture has not been fixed into a tangible medium and is therefore not subject to copyright.

In fact, it only becomes subject to copyright when it is recorded on the iPod (and is fixed in a tangible medium).

Depending on whether a classroom is considered a "public area" this could mean that the student, not the professor, holds the copyright to the recording so produced. If it is not a "public area" I'm not sure what the statute is, though, and whether or not you would need permission of the professor to do so.

Which brings up the issue of permission; most professors I knew were more than happy to let you record their lectures in college for a classmate provided you asked first. If the professor's lecture is his own work (and one presumes it is), he has the right to allow you to make copies (he holds the copyright) and the problem is solved.

Simply put, lawyer is being an asshat and looking to stir up more controversy. Oh, and our IP laws are f*cking broken.

IANAL, TINLA.

Re:Valuable? Yes. Here's why:

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. AC's 10 step plan:
1. Listen to iPod during class
2. Ignore professor
3. Cheat on the homeworks
4. Freak out b/c you don understand
5. Cheat on the exam

6. Make an A
7. Cheat in all other classes
8. ???
9. Live a fraudulent lifestyle
10. Profit!!!

iPods Valuable?

[Aeiri]

iPods Valuable in the College Classroom?

Uhh, yeah. iPods are about $300, and they don't lose their value when they go into college classrooms...

You Are Not Your Gadgets

[Horrortaxi]

Being the Mac, iPod, and gadget in general fan that I am it pains me to say this, but I don't see the point in this. It's cool, but that's all.

I was in college in the early 90's and recorded my lectures on a $30 tape recorder--and it did me no good. Recording lectures doesn't help everyone. I also didn't have a computer. I had a 3.5gpa though so I did something right.

Neat gadgets do not make you a good student.

Re:You Are Not Your Gadgets

[cowscows]

Well, it seems to me that you're over-generalizing a bit, and that this could be useful to some people. Of course, a university giving everyone an iPod might be over-generalizing in the other direction, but it makes for an interesting experiment.

Some people remember things better when they hear them. A lot of people are the opposite way. You could tell me your name 30 times before I remembered it. But if you're wearing a name tag and I read it once, I'll probably never forget it. The human brain is a strange thing.

Re:You Are Not Your Gadgets

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, I can't imagine benefiting from recording lectures unless I had some voice dictation software to run them through. I can see where the iPod would come in more handy here at that than a tape recorder would, though, seeing as how it's digital and all.

Re:You Are Not Your Gadgets

[michaeldot]

I was in college in the early 90's and recorded my lectures on a $30 tape recorder--and it did me no good.

The trick is to also play them back. Recording alone just doesn't do it.

Let me go on record for a moment to say:

[twofidyKidd]

Goddammit I hate IP attorneys.

...and all of you have full rights to use that whereever you want.

Re:Let me go on record for a moment to say:

[01000011011101000111]

Prior Art! I have a txt file of that statement from 1990... Someone gimmie a lawyer!

Re:Let me go on record for a moment to say:

[AvantLegion]

Goddammit I hate IP attorneys.

...and all of you have full rights to use that whereever you want.

Under what license?

Re:iPod vs. tape recorders

[snookerdoodle]

"...IP lawyers get all busted out of shape by something like an iPod when audio recording has been around in classrooms for ages.

Maybe it's because now they will be able to make..." a ton of money on various consulting and legal fees.

Mark

Re:Hey. The Apple section is just a shilling secti

[op12]

How is using a modded iPod (they can't record out of the box) different from using a tape recorder? The hard disk?

In the discussion of making copies of lectures, it's something that's widely available, and in some cases provided to students by the school. That gives everyone the means and ability to do it. So more people are more likely to do it than before.

Permission

[racecarj]

You would think the $30,000+/year I'm paying in tuition gives me a "license" to share a lecture with my classmates.

Also, how many people outside of those in the class are interested in it anyway?

I've found

[aftk2]

that, while iPod's are certainly valuable in college, it ain't in the classroom.

what country again?

[clockwise_music]

>this is America

No it's frigging not. I'm not in America.

Please repeat after me: "Other countries than America exist."

Re:what country again?

[coopex]

You must be new here.

Re:what country again?

[yfmaster]

Yes, but the article was talking about Duke University, which is in America. Please repeat after me: "Read the freakin article"

Useful in teaching languages

[adamfranco]

Here at Middlebury College we are working on projects to use iPods as study aids in foreign-language courses:

http://segue.middlebury.edu/sites/achapin-ipod

The two uses are as follows:

1. Give students mobile access to our databases of tens of thousands of vocabulary audio files while using the rating system to sort known versus unknown vocabulary.

2. Allow students to record and hear themselves speaking vocabulary and other exercises.

Also as a bargaining tool

[EmbeddedJanitor]

"Listen up or I'll take away your ipod"

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[Neil Blender]

"Listen up or I'll take away your ipod"

How about, "I'll give you an iPod if you pass me."

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Stupid lawyers.

Sue me for sharing th enote I take, too. Forking morons. Mini-cassette has been doing this for forking years.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[Fareq]

Re sig:

no, we have 10, and other people just *think* we have sixteen.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[Petrushka]

Stupid lawyers.

Sue me for sharing th enote I take, too. Forking morons. Mini-cassette has been doing this for forking years.

At my university, for several years now students have had to sign a disclaimer form before being allowed to record lectures. This is precisely for IP reasons. And, mind you, this is not in the USA.

As for notes taken by students, they are clearly the IP of the student writing them. Lecture notes written by the lecturer, however, are the IP of either the lecturer or the university, depending on university regulations. At one university I was at previously, my department had a strict policy of lecturers not posting their notes on open-access websites, for that very reason.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[kyojin the clown]

So, the information the professor gives you is his intellectual property is it? what about the parts he was taught by someone else? if you pass the information on to someone else, is it your IP or the professor's IP?

at what point does 'learning' become 'IP theft'? something is seriously wrong with the culture at your university, and with society in general, if knowledge is going to be wrapped up in disclaimers and intellectual property rights.

in fact, it sickens me.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[Uart]

It isn't the information itself that is protected so much as it is the words that convey that information.

Hence why the student's notes, containing that info are not illegal.

So, basically, you would be correct, if "learning" only amounted to memorizing, verbatim, various sentences, paragraphs and phrases about a subject, and then repeating them, once again verbatim, at correct intervals.

Sounds like what a parrot does. While you could potentially teach the Parrot a bunch of phrases about World War II, you can't really claim that the parrot has that knowledge, because he cannot reconvey it in his own terms.

Just a thought.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[kyojin the clown]

my point was more 'why should a professor's lecture be his IP?' - he (most likely) did not invent or create the subject of his lecture.

if i tape the news, am i violating the newsreader's IP? the situation seems fairly similar to me.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[circusboy]

he did, however, develop his/her own point of view on a subject, which is what the university is paying him to teach. If all the notes on a teacher's views are available for public consumption, there would appear to be less incentive to pay the huge amounts of tuition money that colleges (in much of the US) require for your attendance.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[Uart]

In an introductory class, that may be true, but most professors do spend a lot of time on research, etc. Publish or perish, right?

They do have to produce original works, and most classes, especially at higher levels do include a lot of what the Prof. has learned from their own research in them.

Besides, if I wrote a book about the Civil War, should that be public domain because I didn't start the war? Of course not, the book, regardless of its topic is an original creation and therefore should be protected. However, there is nothing that protects me from someone reading my book on the Civil War and using the knowledge gained from that to write their own book -- but they can't use my words.

If you tape the news, you don't violate the newsreader's IP. If you re-broadcast/re-transmit the news, you violate the IP of the station, who wrote (or at least paid the guy who wrote) the news report, and also spent a lot of money producing the broadcast (lighting, editing, paying personalities, etc.).

Sometimes the anchor writes their own script though... then we're getting closer to the same situation.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[kyojin the clown]

Good points. I guess you are basically right, however it still really pisses me off that instead of using technology and communicatiosn media for the betterment of mankind in general by sharing the wealth and knowledge, we are creating laws and disclaimers to prevent it.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[danila]

No, he isn't basically right. Your original comment was correct, and your "when does 'learning' become 'IP theft'?" is very insightful.

To even think about protecting professors' lectures by IP laws is sick beyond belief. It is horrible that there are people in the world for whom it's not morally repugnant.

Re:Also as a bargaining tool

[highdefinition]

My damn history teacher here at OSU tried telling us that her lectures were copyrighted and property of hers and any loaning of notes to other students was strictly prohibited. Stuck up hack of a teacher.

Audiobooks

[MHobbit]

Just record audiobooks, and buy some cheaper iPod so the school can afford it. 20GB version of the iPod is obviously a bit too expensive, and the people at Duke who took the initiative to buy those iPods should have thought of cheaper models... even the iPod Mini.

I highly doubt one lecture will take more than 200MB? Unless... nah, no professor can be THAT boring... :-/

Pity iPod Recording Quality is *So* Poor

[meehawl]

Seeing that iPods cost so much it's a shame Apple has seen fit to limit their recording ability so they sound like scratchy tin-cans on the best of days. I've heard them and it's not pretty. I recommend a non-limited recorder with a *real* pre-amped mic.

Re:Pity iPod Recording Quality is *So* Poor

[poopdeville]

Yeah... I can hardly get -60 dB out of the built-in, Apple manufactured microphone.

Oh wait... I made a poopie.

Re:Pity iPod Recording Quality is *So* Poor

[kryptKnight]

Umm, iPods are MP3 players, Apple never intended for them to be used as audio recorders, and they have no control over the quality of third party dongles.
Your argument is similar to saying Sony has limited the PS2's cookie baking ability so that the cookies taste like garbage even on the best of days. Check out an oven with real cookie baking skillz!

Re:Pity iPod Recording Quality is *So* Poor

[michaeldot]

Umm, iPods are MP3 players, Apple never intended for them to be used as audio recorders, and they have no control over the quality of third party dongles.

The microphone add-ons may be made by third parties, but the firmware that drives them is very much Apple's. Pre-3G iPods could not record at all, the accessories only became possible because Apple added the innards.

The sound recording is limited to 8 KHz WAV format, either because of limitations of the support chip, or because the cosy relationship Apple has with the record companies saw them want to limit the use of iPods for recording concerts, etc.

I have a 60GB iPod photo and I love it to bits, but I also have a Belkin Voice Recorder, and though it's functional, the sound quality is utter crud, and I know full well who is responsible for the poor recording quality...

As a lecturer

[orin]

I've worked as a contract lecturer at an Australian University. Not only did I record my lectures, I made them available on the subject website with my lecture notes (including the world's worst powerpoint slides). My department also keeps an audio library where any student can drop by the office and, in exchange for their student card, borrow the cassette for any of the last semester's lectures.

The real issue...

[Urkki]

Who cares about recorded lessons? The real issue is, does a student have a right to remember or use, let alone share any information gained from a lecture (or a book or whatever) without written permission from the lecturer (or the author or whatever)? After all, isn't that protected IP?

I mean, just think about it... The student might some day be a lecturer himself, so what right does he have to distribute the IP he may have memorized?

I wonder why for example NSTA hasn't taken such a firm stand on IP issues, like MPAA and RIAA have. Such lackluster attitude towards these serious issues will undermine the future of modern society!

Re:The real issue...

[QuantumRiff]

because their the NSTA. (National Science Teachers Association). IFF they added "of America" to the end, that would make them an evil *AA, and they would have to sue the pants of anyone and everyone that has ever thought of a scientific idea!

Apple is paying for this

[Animats]

Duke is a bit vague about how much Apple is paying them to do this, but there's definitely Apple money in this:

• Q: "What services are Apple providing?"

  A: "Apple is providing project management expertise and technical and functional resources."

In my day

[EmbeddedJanitor]

the lecturers threw blackboard erasers at people who didn't listen. I guess throwing an ipod is new.

Re:In my day

[mrchaotica]

In your day, people used to listen to music with blackboard erasers? How did that work?

legal issues?

[blew_fantom]

when i took business law back in the day, the lecturer was a former chief prosecutor and had lots of experience. but if there was one policy he enforced, it was that we were NOT allowed to record his lectures. that sucked, since most of the test material was from his lectures. his stated reason was that because he will (and did) say controversial stuff, as well as mentioning specifics of certain cases (without naming names), if there was a recording of what he said out there, it *could* be used against him. it was his way of protecting himself. so i imagine in this day and age of mp3's and decentralized distribution, i can see how a) some professors could have a problem with their lectures free floating out there or b) see devices such as an iPod as the greatest invention since the typewriter in helping them teach...

Re:legal issues?

[VoidWraith]

That's a very good point. I know that I have had more than one teacher whose policy (for small classes) is that whats said in there stays in there. I hadn't thought of it as related to this until now.

Re:legal issues?

[5KVGhost]

That's silly. Seriously, a classroom lecture is not a private or privileged conversation in any way I can see. Except insofar as you choose to extend a courtesy to your instructor, I don't see how they can possibly enforce a ban on recording.

I'm sure there will be resistance, however, until it becomes so ubiquitous as to be unstoppable. In my experience many instructors spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about someone stealing their precious teaching materials.

Copyright issues? WTF???

[taustin]

There are no copyright issues whatsoever in recording someone speaking. The spoken word does not qualify for copyright protection. Period.

Title 17, 102(1):

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression

The spoken word is not a tangible medium of expression.

When it is recorded, the recording can qualify for copyright protection (if it's original enough, and meets all the other requirements), but that copyright belongs to the person making the recording, not the person being recorded.

There can be other issues regarding the use of someone's voice, but those are not copyright issues.

The professors quoted in this article desperately need a remedial course in copyright law.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[WillAffleckUW]

There are no copyright issues whatsoever in recording someone speaking. The spoken word does not qualify for copyright protection. Period.

Actually, OTOH, there are some legal restrictions on recording someone's voice without permission in the State of Washington, especially in moving pictures (e.g. video with sound), they busted some people filming cheerleaders here under that law.

However, lecturers by default, based on university and research policy, normally grant you that right unless they advertise otherwise. If it's in an auditorium at a school/college and they don't tell you they can't, it's almost always an acceptable and encouraged use.

Otherwise you'd spend way too much time taking notes.

[note - I'm guilty of taking notes a lot, but that's what works for me in memorizing sometimes]

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing the issue of the copyright on the recording of an audio work (P) vs. the copyright on the written version of the same work (C). While a recording of plain spoken word doesn't necessarily benefit from (P) protection (as you say, depends if it's original or not), the text conveyed by the word most certainly.

Put it another way, reading a piece of copyrighted text doesn't instantly make that text public domain.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[IamLarryboy]

First of all, I would like to state for the record that I am against all copyright law except insofar as it prevents fraud. (ie. You have no moral right to prevent me from doing whatever I wish with any work/idea I know/possess. However, I cannot claim that I created a work if I did not in fact do so)

That being said, in regards to copyright law as it stands (all Berne convention signatories) the parent is wrong. Speech may in fact be in-eligible for copyright. However, the prof most likely made notes, and otherwise prepared for his lecture. These are eligible for copyright and gain copyright protected status the momment they are created. The recording of the lecture could be considered a derivative work of the profs preparatory work. Thus both the recorder and the prof would have copy control over the recording and it would require both their consent to further distribute it.

IANAL. Any laywers or other IANAL's please correct me.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[PepeGSay]

Parent is correct as to my understanding as well. Though I'm not a lawyer either.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[dvdeug]

The spoken word is not a tangible medium of expression.

Sure, but the notes and outlines his lectures are based off of are a tangible medium of expression.

that copyright belongs to the person making the recording, not the person being recorded.

Copyright requires creative expression. Simply recording something does not a creative expression make. I've never seen anything that would indicate that this is true, and I have several books that were dictated to someone else, and the copyright was listed as the speaker, not the recorder.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[blanktek]

Slashdot: home of the armchair lawyers.

Seriously! Why does everyone here claim to be experts on all types of law, IP and otherwise? I am no lawyer, but I know that lawyers study hard in law school and for the bar for a reason: the law all in the details.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[mrchaotica]

However, lecturers by default, based on university and research policy, normally grant you that right unless they advertise otherwise. If it's in an auditorium at a school/college and they don't tell you they can't, it's almost always an acceptable and encouraged use.

They'd better let you record what they're saying so that you can learn it, otherwise what the fuck are you paying them for?!

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[ccady]

Typically a speaker is reading from notes. If this is the case, then the words are indeed copyrighted and fixed in a tangible medium and it is not legal to record them without the permission of the copyright holder.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[thisissilly]

Not quite, if I understand things correctly. The recording would be copyright jointly by the person doing the recording (fixing it in a medium), and the writer of the notes (since the recording is a derivative work). You would not require the speaker's permission to record them assuming the speaking was happening in a public place. You *would* need the writer's persmission to *distribute* the resulting recording however.

Much stupidity might have been avoided if "copyright" had been called "publicationright". People get their knickers in a twicst over "copies", when redistribution is what matters.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[WaKall]

How does the parent post apply to bootleg recording of concerts? These are not legal to record, and thus are not legal to distribute.

Somewhere in there is the catch that the act of recording itself is not allowed, so the recorder doesn't actually have a valid copyright. Can't the professor have an explicit no-recording policy, or "you can record but not distribute" that you have to agree to if you're going to be present?

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[nasor]

As others have already pointed out, while a purely extemporaneous lecture would not be automatically protected under federal copyright law, the instructor's note that he used in the lecture probably would be, assuming they're reasonably specific. It's the same principle that allows you to have a copyright on a publicly performed play; the actions and speech themselves aren't copyrighted, but the script on which they are based is copyrighted.

However, there's another element that should be considered. Most states have something called "common copyright law" that grants copyright protection to things that have an element of creativity and commercial value, but haven't yet been fixed in a permanent media. So even though federal copyright protection wouldn't automatically kick in, state copyright law could still prevent you from recording and distributing an instructor's lecture.

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[cfulmer]

IANAL, but...

That's not quite right either. In the US...

1. When somebody is just speaking off the cuff, not from prepared notes, then it's not fixed in any tangible medium of expression and thus ineligible for copyright protection. When the work is fixed in notes, or the person speaking records it, then it is under copyright.

(Note that this isn't true for musical performances -- see 17 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1).)

2. You cannot create a derivative work without permission of the original author. 17 U.S.C. 106(2).

Re:Copyright issues? WTF???

[serutan]

I sure hope some legislative genius figures out a way to clean up the mess that the content industry has made of the copyright system. I hate to think of the my grandkids living in a world where every transfer of information involves a constant stream of fees paid to people who create nothing. The metering and enforcement requirements will pretty much put an end to any present-day concept of privacy, and copyright infringement (oops sorry, I mean "theft") could rival drug abuse as a prison recruitment program.

Students will listen to a whole lecture...right...

[ibn_khaldun]

As an information provider in this environment, let me assure you that the likelihood of a student who hasn't had sufficient interest to make it to class listening to an entire lecture, probably recorded on a crappy omnidirectional mike, with lots of extraneous noise [insert South Park fart jokes here], and no visuals [Hey Ashley, I missed calculus class! No problem Zach, I've got it all here on my iPod!] approaches zero.

Duke either has an IP lawyer with too much time on his/her hands (probably) or a few professors who took way too many drugs as undergraduates and forget the nuances of the experience (probably)

Apple is paying for this

[VoidWraith]

...in exchange for vast amounts of advertising. Works for everyone.

Educational usage is a lot looser

[WillAffleckUW]

For example, it's permissable by default to take notes in any class unless they tell you otherwise, including voice recorders.

I used to get a lot of my notes from the projector notes at the library all the time, and listen to the tapes of the lectures, as a study aide. That way I could really LISTEN to the lecture, and take key notes, but not get hung up writing things down otherwise.

This is also why most universities have exemptions for copying materials - frequently a paper may be in an out of print book, or the prof ran out of copies, or there weren't enough books for the course.

Of course, I'm sure a lawyer or RIAA agent wearing black raybans will try to scare you otherwise, but let's get real, people.

[this is just my personal opinion, IANAL but I have slept with a number of female ones ...]

Not very if...

[BlacBaron]

... you stick the recording through some voice recognition program afterwards ... ... you'll still have great difficulty in understanding what was written.

Quotes

[irefay]

How are quotes any diffrent? Does the newspaper have to ask permission to publish something that someone said? How is it diffrent... seriously I want to know.

Maybe not Copyright..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

But do they have permission to record the person speaking?

In Massachusetts, where I live, it's against the law to record someone speaking without their permission.

Re:Maybe not Copyright..

[rcpitt]

lecturer works for university

university gives students recording device

university either has something in place that allows them to have lectures recorded, or allows them to allow others to record.

No problem. Either that or the university's lawyers should be flogged.

Re:Maybe not Copyright..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I'm not quite sure what you said, it seems to be something along the lines of "The university gave the people a device that lets them record, that means they also gave the students permission to record".. and if that is what you're saying, you're wrong.

If I want to record you, you have to say "You can record me". If the student wants to record someone, the someone speaking has to give permission to be recorded. So does anybody who may speak during the recording session.

We were going to set up a webcam in one of the A+ comp repair classes when I was going to High School (Oh so many years (1) ago) but we ended up being told that we couldn't by one of the teachers, because we couldn't get permission from every single person who will or might enter the room.

You can't record anything people say or video of anything they may do, without their permission.

Re:Maybe not Copyright..

[HybridJeff]

"You can't record anything people say or video of anything they may do, without their permission."

So what would you say about the surveliance cameras that are evreywhere nowadays? Or reporters bringing cameras on scene and recording live news? Or any other countless situation where people record events without the consent of those being recorded.

Im pretty sure this isnt illigal, otherwise there would be no such thing as the papperatzi. (Which, would actually be an incentive to passing laws that make recording oters illigal).

Re:Maybe not Copyright..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

If you're in public, it's not against the law. Or if you're a public figure.

We're talking private citizens.

A horrible, terrible program

[iammaxus]

The free iPod thing at Duke is a horrible, shameless way to buy students.

1. They've got lots of middle-to-upper-middle class students with parents that are paying for college. The students often have a large part of the decision power.
2. Duke offers the students iPods to buy their vote of approval, then simply tacks on a few hundred to the bill. (and don't give me any crap about it not adding to the bill. It's someones money spent on something that could have been spent somewhere else. That's that)
3. Students go to Duke
4. Profit

Being a high school, senior fresh out (almost) of the application process, I see that this fits Duke's reputation among high school students extremely well. Duke is very popular among the jock/suburban/upper middle class kid kinda person. People who've got life going pretty easily and all that really matters is the schools good sports teams and the "cool" factor.

Re:A horrible, terrible program

[astralusion]

no offense but Duke is very popular among the smart kids, sure it's preppy but (and i'm discounting the legacies here) unless you have some brain's or some athletic prowess you aren't getting in. just saying that people come to duke for reasons other than the fact that they have good sports teams and are "cool"

Re:A horrible, terrible program

[Amigori]

I bet the local community college had trouble accepting you, judging by the blatant ignorance of your post.

1. The majority of the student body at any university in Duke's class/caliber is going to be "middle-to-upper-middle class students with parents that are paying for college." Do you think that tier is cheap? How many full ride scholarships will they give out? And I would certainly want my say in where I would be spending the next 4-5 years. What if your parents wanted you to study arctic wildlife at UAF and you wanted to study beach wildlife at UCSD? Wouldn't you want a say in that? If not, have fun on the frozen tundra. I'll be on the beach with the girls if you need me. Insert obilgatory Girls/Slashdot comment here.
2. Did you honestly evaluate the colleges that you applied to by the (pseudo) free trinkets they gave you? "Hey Ma! Isn't this frisbee neat? I want to go there 'cause they have ultimate frisbee intramurals!" As for who gets the bill, I'm absolutely sure that its tacked on somewhere to the student's bill. Probably something like "Electronics Lab Fee" "Portable Lecture Device Fee" "Insert some stupid name for a fee" or even under "General Fee."
3. Duke's reputation and offerings are stong enough that they do not need to lure students with an iPod. Academics, Athletics, etc.
4. Profit? Perhaps, but that comment has no bearing in this discussion, regardless of the /. joke you are trying to pull.

As for someone "fresh out (almost) of the application process," I see someone pissed off because Duke did not accept them. Collegiate sports do build the popularity of the school and I see no reason to bash them. They build comradery among the students and certainly contribute to the overall atmosphere of the school.

As for my own opinion of Duke's iPod program, now that I've rebutted your post, I see it as a positive. Yes, you can put music on there; yes, you could never use it for your studies; but, the potential is there for you to use it to record lectures on, transport large chunks of data from the ASTR lab to your dorm computer for further evaluation, or to store the entire works of your collegiate career, from ENGL-101 to your senior thesis. Isn't that what college is about, developing potential?

Amigori

Re:A horrible, terrible program

[VoidWraith]

One thing about your rebuttal there, the reason lower-middle wealth and below students do not get to choose where they go to school is because they can't pay for it. Their choices are limited to what they can afford, and in that case the parent usually has at least a veto.

Re:A horrible, terrible program

[Overzeetop]

I decided to reply to you rather than mod you down.

The parent actually does make a good point. That fact that you go to Duke and believe that you are so intellectually superior that you and Duke were meant for one another regardless of the promised trinkets has nothing to do with the truth in his argument.

Students considering Duke will be smart or, as you have pointin particular concerning round-ball sports. It is common knnowledge, though apparently not to Duke enrollees, that colleges at the top levels of academics are in fierce competition for the smartest, most successful students. It is also common knowledge that practically all colleges at this level have very similar tuition and fees. An interview session I had with an MIT examiner (many years ago) admitted as much.

So, here's how it stacks up:
1) Great academics - very nearly equal
2) Quality of Envorinment - Varies a good bit
3) Cool bonuses
4) Price of education - very nearly equal

(You'll notice cast is #4. That's 'cause there are a lot of kids for whom cost is no object. It's somehting for the parents to worry about. Maybe no t in your case, but is quite a few.)

If you've got acceptance letters from three or four Ivy league schools, you're probably choosing based on the "little things." Nice campus, close/far from home, close to "fun", whatever. All but the anti-social have a little voice in the back of their teen mind saying "choose the 'cool' school."

Now, by standard marketing logic:
iPods are hip.
Duke gives iPods to new students.
Duke is hip.

No, not everyone will fall for this ploy. But SOME WILL. It doesn't make them bad, it makes them human. And Duke will get a few extra of that "top-notch" pool that all schools covet.

iPods are no more useful in the classroom than any handheld digital recorder, and a bit less useful because of the iPod->computer path obstacles. It has lots of uses, but no more than any digital recorder. It's a marketing ply, and nothing else. iPod takes "cool" and makes it "really cool".

*shrug*

Re:A horrible, terrible program

[DSLAMngu]

Money for the iPods and accompanying services comes out of a $500,000 technology initiative fund. If anything does come out of the c/o 2008 tuition, it'll paying for future technology education (or shameless marketing) initiatives.

Unlimited distribution

[3770]

Hmm... I think it is because it is in a digital format that potentially can be distributed to millions of people.

A tape cassette doesn't inherently share that property.

Re:Unlimited distribution

[zakezuke]

Hmm... I think it is because it is in a digital format that potentially can be distributed to millions of people.

A tape cassette doesn't inherently share that property.

Back in the late 80s I noticed many university book stores offered tape copy kiosks that would allow you to bring in a cassette and high speed dub to either one or several copies. In fact, this is what many a garage band used to get their material copied, as well other spoken word media. The quality left much to be desired as they were hardly ever maintained, except by those using it to promote their bands, and even then the bookstore usually didn't let you align the heads.

Re:Unlimited distribution

[dave420]

it does when you digitise it...

Question

[Aggrav8d]

"Do they have permission from the person who wrote the lectures to share it?" asks one IP attorney

Do lawyers actually have the right to make work by stirring up trouble and finding reasons to sue people? Isn't that a bit like an auto body shop that covers the streets in nails & broken glass?

In my day...

[argent]

In my day students got a 300k quota on a timeshared UNIX system that was so slow that during finals week it wasn't unknown for your login to time out while getty was trying to load login to display the login prompt. Running CPU-intensive programs like NROFF was enough to get your account suspended.

An iPod has more computing power and storage than the entire undergraduate computing center did back then.

In my opinion, students should buy their own iPods, if they want them.

Re:iPod vs. tape recorders

[snuf23]

I love getting modded redundant when I reply to a post that had NO replies when I submitted it.
Maybe next time I should just type one sentence instead.
Oh well, here's hoping for an offtopic as well!

Lawyers....

[Savage-Rabbit]

Do they have permission from the person who wrote the lectures to share it?" asks one IP attorney, referring to lectures recorded on iPods.

This is almost funny, I thought that sharing knowledge is what learning is all about! Is there no limit to what these slimebag IP lawyers will try to profit from? What will these intrepid legal eagles tackle next? After all one might actually argue that the process of learning is coping, or downloading somebody elses IP into ones brain. Will students still have permission to record lectures with their brains or do his concerns with IP theft end with iPods and tape recorders?

One thing I am sure of, I wish digital voice recording had been this easy back when I was at Uni. If I was a Uni student today I would definetly record all key lectures with my iPod and store them on my Linux boxen and I could care less about IP.

Re:Lawyers....

[tchdab1]

Copyright and ownership is a self-perpetuating beast. It extends itself and soon libraries are illegal, sharing anything is illegal, and ideas must be rented. "all your thoughts are belong to us", unless you can prove they haven't been thought before. OK, mod me troll.

Re:Hey. The Apple section is just a shilling secti

[adam1234]

"Hey, Taco, let's post yet another story about something that's been done for decades with tape recorders...only now it's with IPODS!!!!!"

Yeah, amazing. How is using a modded iPod (they can't record out of the box) different from using a tape recorder? The hard disk? Whoop-dee-fuckin'-do.

Yeah, I don't know what all this technology buzz is about. Sheesh, I still use my abacus and slide rule and they work just fine.

Permission from the school or the prof

[sPaKr]

Arn't the lectures a work products of the prof while employed by the school? Doesn't that mean that the prof doesn't get a vote and rather the school owns the lectures and thus holds the rights to deciede who can copy what. If I don't get to own my source code at work why do professors get to own the lectures? Now the school may just defer to the professor but then shouldn't we just ask the schools to put down a good policy. As a student you pay the school, not the teachers so the school should listen as students are their customers.

Wrong tool for the job

[Aphrika]

While the iPod is probably being used to get headlines and generate column inches for the Uni, the iPod simply isn't a great tool for kids at college.

How about a Palm? Pocket PC? Treo? Creative Nomad, Olympus dictaphone for Pete's sake? Lots more features designed to assist you plan, organise and take notes, moreso than an iPod. Even cheaper Flash players have built in dictaphones, radios and suchlike. Probably cheaper too - a Palm has Bluetooth a camera, voice recording. See what students can do with that.

So while I think iPods are great as MP3 players, I'm pretty sure that the real value here is probably why we're discussing it; publicity.

And if that's the motive then sorry, but it's a misuse of funds.

Depressing

[Godman]

Collegiate students have so many ipods that they are using them to record lectures?

I'm to poor to even afford one to listen to music.

Damn College kids anyway

good read about how PR spead information

[goon]

It is timely that Paul Graham has just written an article (The Submarine) about PR companies doing precisly this. One of the standout lines is ...

• ... If anyone is dishonest, it's the reporters. The main reason PR firms exist is that reporters are lazy. Or, to put it more nicely, overworked. ... [Paul Graham, The Submarine, APR2005].

Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Lectures are public domain just like free and open speech in a public arena.

Lectures held in a classroom at a university are not public domain. Your professor owns the copyright on them. The lectures of high-profile profs are in some cases recorded and broadcast or sold on tape for lots of money. Just because your prof isn't a celebrity doesn't mean his rights are reduced. Although the copyright resides with your professor, most universities also automatically have some claims to distribution rights. (This would be set by your prof's contract with the unversity.)

At my university, the official policy is that you may record lecture for your own personal use if the prof permits it. *Most* profs have no problem with this, but some do not permit it, and that is perfectly within their rights. (Note that "fair use" as applied to recordings means that, if the prof were to make a recording available to you, then you could copy it for personal use. It does not give you the right to make a recording of the lecture in the first place.) If the prof does not allow you record the lecture, you should take notes during the class. If you have a disability which makes it difficult for you to take notes, you can have a note-taker assigned from disability services. (My sister made use of that once instead of trying to record the lecture. She finds notes more useful than a verbatim recording.) In practice, though, even the profs who have a "no-record" policy will relent in that circumstance.

Re:Not true

[ortholattice]

At my university, the official policy is that you may record lecture for your own personal use if the prof permits it. *Most* profs have no problem with this, but some do not permit it, and that is perfectly within their rights.

You are paying for the lecture, and the professor is performing it as a work for hire - that is what he/she is paid to do. At least that should be the relationship between the professor and the university. If not allowing recording inhibits the learning process, that is a very serious matter. For example, I do not have a good "auditory" memory but am more of a visual person, so I always had to record the more difficult classes to go over the words later. This was years ago, no questions asked. Has the IP fetish gotten to the point where now some professors don't allow recording lectures anymore? If I went to school now, would I have to have a note-taker assigned to me from disability services for all my classes then? And what if the note-taker can't take good notes (by not having the prerequisites and being unfamiliar with the material)? Seriously, I'd be up in arms about something preventing me from getting the education I was paying through the nose for.

But what's the point?

[Oyume]

Even if we ignored the copyright issues, what's the point of recording lectures? This year I recorded 2 weeks worth of my Graduate-level classes before I realized, "Hey, when am I going to have time to listen to this?" It's much better and easier to take NOTES, catch the important tidbits, write it down... that way you can skim through your notes later and refresh your memory...

Listening to a 3 hour lecture 1x is more than enough!

for second language aquisition

[gabeschine]

an example of ipods used a little differently than most people have been talking about. here, Middlebury College's summer language program is using it for vocab quizzing and tracking. it's a pretty cool concept.

their website and associated paper are located here

Headline: MPAA Sues Man Over His Memories

[gearmonger]

Headlines from the Future: MPAA Sues Man Over His Memories

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has sued Jack Murthy of Winnetka, IL over alleged copyright violations related to Mr. Murthy's memory-enhancing brain implants.

Full story here.

It's gonna happen...don't say you weren't warned.

Re:Headline: MPAA Sues Man Over His Memories

[Detritus]

I expect that in the not too distant future, electronic devices will be widely used to assist people with sensory or neurological defects, and to enhance "normal" people. Some people have natural gifts that allow them to remember and reproduce, images, music, the spoken word, etc. What happens to "intellectual property" and "no pictures or recording allowed" when these artificial sensory augmentations become common? Is the RIAA going to ban me from concerts or sue me because my audio processor implant has a memory chip? What if I wear a computerized vision correction/enhancement device?

What movie was it in

[WormholeFiend]

Was it in Real Genius that people left their tape decks in the classroom to record the lecture, and in the end the teacher left his own tape there

Yep

[Mr. Underbridge]

I can't help but wonder if after a certain point, that instead of taking classes where there's an actual lecturer, that instead a tape of the lecturer from a previous course is instead used for a class. On top of that, actual questions could be answered from TAs, or perhaps the professor himself or herself.

My grad advisor did that. Guess he didn't want to spend time on a class anymore, so he taped it and showed that during successive years. A TA had all interaction with students.

It makes you think about what is happening to education, and if this is a good or bad thing.

I don't think it's good. Makes you wonder why kids would go to a "good" school if they get taught by TAs - I could go to a small state school and get actually get taught by profs.

Re:Yep

[petermgreen]

yeah a good lecturer or professor (the title professor seems reserved for the more senior ones here in the uk) will interact with the group and adjust his lecturing based on what he thinks the groups strengths and weaknesses are. you won't get that with a recording of a lecure. i'd be pretty pissed if the person supposed to be doing a lecture just used a recording from a previous year.

they put signs up in our classrooms this year

[artifex2004]

We're no longer allowed to record our classes with cameras or audio gear. They claim it's because the material they're teaching in the classrooms is actually licensed from someone else.

These are Cisco cert classes, but still... it's not like they do more than recite the slides that are printed in our books, anyway.

What the hell?

[DaveCBio]

There far more suitable alternatives that would cost far less for recording lectures. Why the hell does it always have to be some trendy device? I'd be pissed if they were spending a portion of my tuition on iPods.

So I guess we need iP for iPods

[michaeldot]

Let's see, Intellectual Property Of Duke School (IPODS).

Old news?

[audioinfektion]

seems that this was mentioned quite awhile ago.. months even... Kinda shy to call dupe, but definately not new news...

Interestingly

[MichaelPenne]

in the Chronicle of Higher Ed a few weeks back they covered this issue. In that article, it seemed that the main opposition to the ipod giveaway were the upper classpeople who didn't get one:-).

Steve Sloan has some nice podcasts about the use of ipods in education from a prof's POV here:

http://www.edupodder.com/session_detail.html

palmpilots would make more sense

[Robocoastie]

palmpilots would make more sense with sd cards for sound. The IP "issues" is assanine though. Bunch of hype over a nonexistant problem.

Linking on Slashdot

[adorai]

In a case like this, was it wise to link the Christian Science Monitor's main page? I feel like that wasted a click for me, and it's trivial to get from the article itself to the CS Monitor's main page. What do others think? Should the poster have linked "iPod" to Apple's website? I think linking to a higher level of a domain linked elsewhere in the post is useless.

IP Lawyers

[timmarhy]

i have a solution to the question posed by this IP lawyer - lets burn all IP lawyers at the stake, so they STFU and stop popping up with kind of drivel

No profit?

[Roger W Moore]

To quote the article:

Rogerson says that as far as his lectures are concerned, his students are free to record anything that comes out of his mouth and use it for their own purposes, so long as they don't profit from it.

That's a sad comment on the usefulness of his lectures! :-)

Belkin Mic

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: Duke students got Belkin microphone attachment with the iPod, so you could record lectures from the get go with the attachment. I know because I was one of the 1600 students that got one.

Nobody's using this for studying...

[MagicDude]

Let's face it, Duke is using the IPod to lure students to their school by waving a shiny toy in front of them. They're justifying it by saying people can listen to lectures on them. The student's thing its a great idea, because it doesn't affect them whether they're paying an assload of money, or a slightly larger assload of money for tuition. But really, people who don't care to go to class aren't going to care to listen the the lecture anyway; not that there's anything wrong with not going to class. I infact prefer to study from the book rather than be yapped at for two hours while zoning in and out. Also, consider that listening to audio recordings of lectures in math, science, or engineering is pretty useless without being able to see the equations and diagrams that are so essential to those subjects. The phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words" seems quite aplicable to this situation. Can you imagine trying to learn differential equations without seeing the manipulation of equations first hand by the professor? Audio lectures could be useful for more concept based courses, like history or philosophy.

What a waste of $$

[dantheman82]

I'm in an expensive school similar to Duke, and they "gave" us a laptop with all the latest stuff on it. It of course cost us extra in each semester bill, so I sometimes wonder if they instead had a grant so we could buy our own laptop and pay a lot less than the high amount they charged us. Ipods seem like an even bigger waste of money - maybe Tablet PCs or quite possibly laptops...but iPods?

We at Duke agree

[DSLAMngu]

Overall, this is an extremely well-elaborated and accurate article. However, here are some links to what Duke's Chronicle has been saying, in case you were curious:

iPod Experiment

Duke iPod program to continue next year

Also, you can go to The Chronicle and search the archives for "iPod" and get any number of negative student editorials on the topic. Basically, all of us at Duke agreed that the project was a marketing campaign, plain and simple; on the other hand, you won't see us complaining. We got free (as in, paid for by a fund accumulated from previous years) iPods, and next year's freshmen will get them if they take the appropriate classes.

In addition, Carolina can go to hell. Go Devils :-P

Re:We at Duke agree

[Progman3K]

Duke sucks!

Fapfapfapfapfap

Do Some Research

[meehawl]

Apple never intended for them to be used as audio recorders, and they have no control over the quality of third party dongles.

Your analogy is flawed or, rather, you are too passive. These are not "third party dongles", these are licensed and manufactured in partnership with Apple (that provides the firmware support and allows access to the iPod's innards). You don't get Apple's blessing, you don't get very far. Look at the incredibly slow progress the iPod Linux has made relative to, say, RockBox. This is because Apple actively works to lock out unauthorised development.

The iPod's hardware seems well capable of supporting high-fidelity recording, both analog and digital. The PortalPlayer PP5002B chipset (and derivatives on current models) used in all the big iPods since the early days is capable, according to PortalPlayer itself, of encoding MP3, WAV, AIFF, WMA, and ATRAC3 at up to 320Kbit/s.

A little over a year ago iPods switched to the Wolfson WM8731L ADC/DAC ($5 each in small lots!), which can sample at 44.1kHz, 48kHz or 96kHz. I haven't kept up with current iPod offerings because they are of little interest to me but I would assume Apple has not regressed on the ADC capabilities. It's hard these days to spend more than $3 on a signal chip and *not* get high-quality ADC. I note that most of the other players based on a similar PortalPlayer/Wolfson platform (eg Samsung, Philips, iRiver) offer high-fidelity recording.

So you see you are wrong. The iPod's lack of high-fidelity sound recording is not the fault of "third party dongles", it is not a limitation of iPod hardware, it is simply that Apple has chosen to intentionally limit the available quality of the recording function. As to why Apple would choose to cripple the iPod this way, many people probably have different opinions on that. personally, I feel that it's Apple's way of making nice with the RIAA.

"Time sharing"? I doubt it.

[commodoresloat]

So if you pay for a ticket to a movie you can bring in a cam and record it to watch it at home? I think the MPAA would have an argument with you there.

BS

[commodoresloat]

This is a false dichotomy with no basis in law. There is no distinction between "creative work" and "free and open speech" in any legal sense. A lecture is both of these things, and the lecturer owns the copyright to the work he or she produces.

I call BS

[commodoresloat]

and not just because slashdotters don't have girlfriends. I teach at a university too, and I think your imaginary girlfriend is wrong. I mean, sure, perhaps you should be able to do these things, but the fact is if you did that you would be violating copyright, and a professor could sue you for infringement.

Re:I call BS

[NaruVonWilkins]

Only if the lecture is copyrighted. She's laughing at you, by the way.

Re:I call BS

[Albio]

By nature of the lecture being composed and presented by the speaker, it _is_ under copyright.

Re:I call BS

[swv3752]

There is a strong case that a Prof does not own the the copyright on the lecture instead it is a work for hire.

As most Uni's are public, they are Government Institutions and thereby any works for hire should be Public Domain.

Re:I call BS

[NaruVonWilkins]

Composed, yes. If a professor has notes and speaks based on that, it's not composed.

Bob Dole

[glrotate]

When Bob Dole was a law student at Washburn he had to tape the lectures. He was unable to take notes in class because of the injuries to his arm.

That would be a major waste of time.

I Did this

[aerozeppl]

Back during my undergrad years before we had ipods i would listen to a "walkman" and take a test. I would finish before everyone else in the class and they would give me strange looks. Good times.

iRiver H320

[cschmidt]

If the Duke faculty would have done their homework they would have decided on something like the iRiver H320 -- color screen, plays OGG files, built-in mic, FM receiver, displays photos, etc. Far superior to the iPod IMHO, especially for the intended use.

Unless they're getting kickbacks from Apple as some other /.ers have suggested.

stupid questions

[UltraAyla]

people wouldn't ask questions like that if it wasn't something like an ipod. People have been recording lectures for years on tapes, and yes probably sharing them - just because it's an ipod doesn't mean that everyone is eagerly waiting to go home and upload it to the internet. Ipods aren't nerds only. They're mainstream - half the people using them have no idea what's going on or how the magic box works Also - Newton's work doesn't have a copyright on it. Neither did the death of Julius Caesar. Teachers giving such information out to their students (while doing a good job and working hard to make it teachable) aren't putting out new ideas (usually - that's what dissertations and the like are for) and therefore shouldn't get quite the same IP rights. I think that the industry just needs to back off and realize that this is good - they're sharing for EDUCATION! yeesh

Re:stupid questions

[wk633]

The works of Bach are in the public domain, but a particular performance of a work by Bach can be copyrighted.

Consider history books. The events described may have occured a thousand years ago, but the book itself is still under copyright.

iPod *least* useful for this purpose

[Xenna]

The lack of a built in voice recorder is precisely one of the reasons why I did not buy an iPod.

Most other MP3 players (like my iRiver) have excellent sound recorders on board without needing attachments.

My GF records all her lectures on her Clie (the only thing we still use it for, the recording qualitity is great) and then puts them up for download for her school friends. The easy of sharing is what makes the real difference.

I'm not sure how the article is a shill for Apple

[Infonaut]

The gist of the story was that there is an ongoing debate about the utility of iPods in the college classroom. That alone makes it hardly a shill for Apple.

Since the iPod is a very popular tech gadget, and it is being extended beyond its original function, the merits (or lack thereof) of this new use seems to be worth discussion in a geek forum.

Also, the impact of computer technology in classrooms has been a hotly debated topic for some time, so it seems to me worth discussing this latest round in that debate.

Yeah, amazing. How is using a modded iPod (they can't record out of the box) different from using a tape recorder? The hard disk?

Not having used an iPod in a classroom, I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the issue. But I am curious to read what other people think about it, and I'm guessing you fall into the "iPods are of limited utility in a classroom environment" camp.

Computers

[suwain_2]

I go to a school that provides laptops as part of the tuition.

I'm not sure if it's an actual law or just college policy, but they've been very clear in informing us that, before recording a class, we must obtain explicit permission from the professor.

Of course, I don't know anyone who routinely records classes.

Pictures

[suwain_2]

I know the generally-accepted rule is that, in public, you can take photos of people. (Of course, "homeland security" trumps this right. The commercial use of photos is also generally not permitted: I can't take a picture of someone and use them in advertising.)

In most cases, if you're in public, you can't complain that I took a picture of you without permission. Why isn't audio the same? Or is it?

I can understand a private institution making its own rules that one must abide by, but what's the general law? Can I record you while you and I are walking down the street?

Re:Why IPOD specific

[wk633]

Um, ya. Ok. And I thought Hunter was dead.

Saved my degree

[jago25_98]

Playing back lectures while in bed just before sleep probably saved me failing my degree.

For consealment put the recording device in the leg of your boot; hence the phrase.

You shouldn't have to ask for permission, that seems strange because it is. It's already in your head. But I do understand the territorial pissings of the modern word, yes.

And next week...

[advocate_one]

we'll be reading about the IP issues of using camera-phones to record what the lecturer has written on the board...

Sheesh, back in my day, I used a little dictaphone device to record the audio and a Polaroid camera (remember them???) to take photos of the blackboard at stages during the lecture... and that was back in the 1970's

Re:Hey. The Apple section is just a shilling secti

[Tim C]

And mini tape recorders *aren't* widely available? C'mon, they're a fraction of the price and can be bought in most stationary/office supplies shop!

Serious point

[Lifewish]

I'm currently running a forum for people who do maths at my uni (and any others if you wanna drop by). One of the things that we want to do with it is start putting up lecture notes. The problem is the same one: at what point do said notes cease to be property of the lecturer?

If we recorded the lectures and posted the audio files, that would definitely be copyright breach. As would a complete transcript of whatever the lecturer wrote on the board. If we abstract it, does that mean it's a new work or is it still derivative? What if we need to stick a proof up? Without putting appreciable time into finding a new proof (not likely to happen) we're stuck with using whatever the lecturer put up on the board.

The fundamental problem is that copyright is a very hazy concept in academia. Works tend to be on the very limit of what is copyrightable - you can't copyright truth. Students copy from postgrads who copy from PhDs who copy from Professors who copied from other students when they were undergrads.

You can't copyright truth, but you can copyright layout. If we put lecture notes up online which, due to the fact that they were written down in the Statistics lecture course, are identical in layout to the lecturing Professor's new book, is that plagiarism? It's very hard to draw the line, and I know that our university maths society has taken down its lecture notes due to just these issues.

So, to summarise, the uncertainty is screwing us over.

What's the news?

[octal666]

So students are recording classes, why is this slashdot news? Because they use an iPod. It's just another mp3 playing toy, plus, it's white, nothing more.

ObPython

[Dogtanian]

$40,000 a year? That's nothing!

When I were a kid, we sold ourselves into slavery, paid one of our own kidneys every year for four years, it were uphill both ways and we were glad of it.

Kids today, don't know they're born...

CSM troll ...!!!???

[pbhj]

"Christian Science Monitor (hah, what an oxymoron)"

Hmm, yeah, all Christians are unscientific ... like Isaac Newton, Planck and Faraday for starters (just off the top of my head).

I'll assume you're an atheist ... isn't agnosticism the only really scientific viewpoint. Anything else requires faith. My personal faith experience is as real to me as any other sense data - that's why I believe. How about you?

Re:CSM troll ...!!!???

[nacturation]

I'll assume you're an atheist ... isn't agnosticism the only really scientific viewpoint. Anything else requires faith.

Depends. Some people call themselves atheists because they actively believe that there is no god. In other words, they haven't considered much in the way of evidence and they base their decision upon faith. In the traditional meaning, atheist is a combination of the prefix a- (meaning "not") and theist. So an atheist literally means "one who is not a theist". It's subtle, but it's the difference between "I believe on faith that your religion isn't correct" vs. "I just don't have beliefs one way or the other concerning your religion". It's as if someone asked you "Do you believe in Glork?" Given that you know nothing about whatever Glork is (a theory? a religion? a method of cooking?) you would be considered an aglorkist. Of course, not believing that something is true is different from believing that something is false.

To me, agnosticism is simply "I need more data", which is a perfectly valid position to take. Based on the evidence I've seen, I have come to the conclusion that first of all there is enough data to make a determination, and secondly that there is no god based upon that data. I didn't make that decision based upon faith. I considered the data, determined that it was overwhelmingly on the side of "there is no god" and arrived at a conclusion.

On the other hand, Christianity doesn't follow the scientific method. You can't examine the evidence and arrive at a conclusion. The majority of the evidence is that some people wrote something down and other people collected the parts that agree and assembled it into a book called the bible. This is much like all the other religious texts which claim to know the truth. Now, you could go out into the natural world and look around you and consider that one possible hypothesis is that this world and universe was created by someone, and that many current religions attempt to explain who that someone is. But I fail to see how one can logically deduce that the god of Christianity is that someone. Even if you could, you would have to judge the likelihood that that particular hypothesis is the most reasonable one. And if you could do all that, would belief in a god still require faith?

At any rate, you say you had a faith experience which for you constitutes sufficient evidence to determine that god exists. Actually, I think that's wonderful -- the notion of a higher being looking out for your best interests must be very fulfilling. My experiences have all been overwhelmingly in the negative, and what I consider to be biblical nonsense and contradictions are too numerous for me to consider it seriously. Buddhism actually makes more sense, but that too doesn't really have any evidence other than the teachings are often based upon sound principles, as are some Christian teachings, Muslim teachings, native Indian teachings, etc.

Anyway, my point in all that is not to say that some Christians aren't scientific in their line of work -- just that Christianity itself is not scientific for the simple reason that proper science doesn't operate on faith. So the name "Christian Science" is an oxymoron, though the contents of the publication would appear to be generally solid and factual.

Fair Use

[AlgoRhythm]

Am I the only person here who understood that any educational use is allowed as 'Fair Use'? So, as long as they aren't selling it, can't students use and share recordings of lectures (assuming they were given permission to record in the first place)?

Digital does not mean different

[csoto]

It's no different than photocopied lecture notes. Digital means of delivery doesn't change any of the fundamentals of "intellectual property." Copying without the copyright owner's permission is illegal, no matter the means.

No, it's not the information

[hawk]

That's missing the point entirely.

It's the *presentation* of the information which is the professor's intellectual property.

Happily telling the world all the facts he told you isa legal.

Selling recordings of the lecture is not.

hawk

no, no, NO!

[hawk]

That's not the issue at all.

You have an *absolute* right to use that information. The information isn't IP *at all*.

It's the lecture presentation and content that's protected.

You can even write your own book explaining every last thing you learned to the world, and earn billions in sales without owing a dime to your prof (though a thanks would certainly be in line--and maybe even a nice bottle of single malt :)

hawk

No, there's not

[hawk]

There's not even a weak case.

If the university specified how and what to do, perhaps. In the typical university, however, the faculty receives, at most, a paragraph from the course catalog listing topics. We take it from there, designing from the ground up.

The situation may well be different in those web-based mills. They generally *do* specify what is to happen, and how it is to happen.

Consider a typical trip to a children's photographer. The parents exert about as much creative control as a real college or university does with its professors. "Make nice picture of kids" is the charge and the photographer keeps the copyright (which is why more copies are so expensive). The university says, "Teach these topics," exercising no more creative control than the kids' parents.

hawk

Re:No, there's not

[swv3752]

Actually, the Photographers have a nice form that says they keep the copyright. If you didn't sign those forms, but just paid for the pictures, it would be a work for hire. Might want to check what your contract with your Uni says, because unless there is a specific exemption, then your lectures are a basic part of your service and would be a work for hire.

Re:No, there's not

[hawk]

If you didn't sign those forms, but just paid for the pictures, it would be a work for hire.

No. That's just incorrect. They're *notifying* you to cut down on illegal copying.

Might want to check what your contract with your Uni says, because unless there is a specific exemption, then your lectures are a basic part of your service and would be a work for hire.


Again, that's just plain wrong and inconsistent with the law.

In fact, Penn State has had to deal with the situation in web coursers that were much closer to work for hire and in which faculty then claimed intellectual property rights. Faculty now have to sign over IP rights which they would otherwise own.

Work for hire requries *much* more than hiring someone.

hawk

even worse

[hawk]

Some years ago, Penn State filmed the lectures of a popular engineering professor.

After he died, they negotiated with his widow, and a dead man taught courses . . .

hawk, who wishes that he was making this up

I have a professor

[Nf1nk]

Jeff Jones at cuesta college in Ca. I use his name freely because he is proud of his techinque. For his classes you buy a copy of his notes at the book store or print them from his website yourotherteacher.com he has all of his lectures recorded there. If you are taking a class from him he gives you a free pass to the site. But when you take a lecture from him he expects that you have already watched the pre-recorded aspect, and are ready with questions. It works pretty well for his subject matters;
He teaches, statics, strength of materials, Autocad, and smoe other basic engineering courses.