Yes, the professors are indeed objecting. Several professors at Duke University are considering class-action lawsuits (see this story from Duke's newspaper).
In that article, Linda George, a professor of sociology, states that her claim of intellectual property stems in part from the 'spin' she puts on the topic. Now, if that's her intellectual property, I frankly don't want it--I don't want spin; I want facts. Specifically, I want a clear, well-presented, thorough summary and analysis of the material.
But that's an interesting point in itself. Other people argued that notes are a summary of a creative process, analogous to a review of a concert (IANAL and don't know the legal terminology). Ideally, though, a lecture is itself a summary of a series of creative events (specifically, the research, the literature, whatever). It's the review of the concert, not the concert itself. Those reviews are copyrightable, and if you reprint all or part of it without permission, you've violated that copyright.
I don't necessarily think that that's what the students are doing (maybe they're reviewing the reviews), and, in fact, I don't think the professors should be able to claim IP rights to their lectures. When I prepare a lecture and draw on materials I learned in others' lectures, have I stolen IP? When I design a research project using information I learned in class, have I violated IP rights? What if I put up a webpage for my lab and it uses some information I learned as an undergrad? IMHO, defining a professor's lecture as IP dangerously restricts the free flow of information.
Perhaps the universities recognize this issue as a problem (because it encourages laziness and allows people to get information without paying for it) and are merely choosing a course of action that they think will work.
Slashdot Mirror
In that article, Linda George, a professor of sociology, states that her claim of intellectual property stems in part from the 'spin' she puts on the topic. Now, if that's her intellectual property, I frankly don't want it--I don't want spin; I want facts. Specifically, I want a clear, well-presented, thorough summary and analysis of the material.
But that's an interesting point in itself. Other people argued that notes are a summary of a creative process, analogous to a review of a concert (IANAL and don't know the legal terminology). Ideally, though, a lecture is itself a summary of a series of creative events (specifically, the research, the literature, whatever). It's the review of the concert, not the concert itself. Those reviews are copyrightable, and if you reprint all or part of it without permission, you've violated that copyright.
I don't necessarily think that that's what the students are doing (maybe they're reviewing the reviews), and, in fact, I don't think the professors should be able to claim IP rights to their lectures. When I prepare a lecture and draw on materials I learned in others' lectures, have I stolen IP? When I design a research project using information I learned in class, have I violated IP rights? What if I put up a webpage for my lab and it uses some information I learned as an undergrad? IMHO, defining a professor's lecture as IP dangerously restricts the free flow of information.
Perhaps the universities recognize this issue as a problem (because it encourages laziness and allows people to get information without paying for it) and are merely choosing a course of action that they think will work.
--leighton