In discussing copyright with my colleagues, and thinking about the future of “ownership” of ideas, I’m thinking that we’re going to see already seeing society value free sharing over the legalities of restricted ownership. Much the way teachers and librarians panicked about the free authorship of wikipedia and the way record companies are floundering about the electronic distribution of music, the benefits of freely sharing ideas will certainly outweigh any attempts to retain the traditional, heirarchical structure of copyright.

The same way the iPod and iTunes eclipsed the record industry’s long established system for the distribution of music, Creative Commons (and others freely sharing their works) will eclipse the machinery of the old industries. Already it seems that only those who benefit from the retention of restrictive copyright laws are interested in perpetuating this outdated system.

Even if, as a society, we decided to re-think copyright laws, I don’t know if it’s even necessary. It’s so clear that the culture of remixing, mashups, and selecting to share, will cause a paradigm shift that will soon overshadow any attempts to retain such rigid structures. After all, we only need to examine the way the younger generation views copyright (ask them, they’ll tell you!). Soon enough, they’ll be the ones “in charge.”

There was a time when non-priests were not allowed to read the Bible, and then innovations, like the printing press, put formerly restricted knowledge into the hands of the “masses.” Society didn’t decide as a whole that this was acceptable or preferred, it just happened.

As educators, we need to be aware of the way these types of societal trends may shape or change the way we use, access and create information and ideas. For me, I prefer to expose students to Creative Commons as an empowering example of how we can all be part of a shared vision for the future, how we can all benefit from the expertise and creativity of others, and how we can truly support and value independent thinkers and artists.

I am also committed to discussing and understanding with students the ease with which technology allows us to “borrow” someone else’s work – and how important it is to give credit to the original work. One of my wonderful colleagues, Susi, explained in our small-group discussion that our idea of right and wrong is firmly developed by age 7 (further reinforcing my belief that lower elementary is the place to start having these conversations).

We need to be modeling attribution, and talking about what “stealing” looks like online, and how easy it is to give proper attribution so that students truly understand why it is so important. It can be difficult for students to understand that attribution of an idea to someone else makes your work even more powerful – you’re demonstrating you’ve done your research, you’re building on anothers’ idea and you’re able to combine the experience and expertise of others into your own original thoughts.

Interestingly, after taking another look at ISB’s Elementary School Acceptable Use Policy, copyright is only specifically addressed in relation to software (ie: no pirated software allowed – a major problem here in Thailand). I wonder why we aren’t specifically outlining expectations for using information or creative works?

What do you think of copyright?

stolenmoments by renedepaula
Moveable Type Gallery by Xosé Castro

The first: Teenagers’ Internet Socializing Not a Bad Thing by Tamar Lewin:

“…their participation is giving them the technological skills and literacy they need to succeed in the contemporary world. They’re learning how to get along with others, how to manage a public identity, how to create a home page.” – Mizuko Ito, lead researcher on the study, “Living and Learning With New Media.”

The second: Becoming Screen Literate by Kevin Kelly

“When technology shifts, it bends the culture. Once, long ago, culture revolved around the spoken word. The oral skills of memorization, recitation and rhetoric instilled in societies a reverence for the past, the ambiguous, the ornate and the subjective. Then, about 500 years ago, orality was overthrown by technology. Gutenberg’s invention of metallic movable type elevated writing into a central position in the culture. By the means of cheap and perfect copies, text became the engine of change and the foundation of stability. From printing came journalism, science and the mathematics of libraries and law. The distribution-and-display device that we call printing instilled in society a reverence for precision (of black ink on white paper), an appreciation for linear logic (in a sentence), a passion for objectivity (of printed fact) and an allegiance to authority (via authors), whose truth was as fixed and final as a book. In the West, we became people of the book.

Now invention is again overthrowing the dominant media. A new distribution-and-display technology is nudging the book aside and catapulting images, and especially moving images, to the center of the culture. We are becoming people of the screen. The fluid and fleeting symbols on a screen pull us away from the classical notions of monumental authors and authority. On the screen, the subjective again trumps the objective. The past is a rush of data streams cut and rearranged into a new mashup, while truth is something you assemble yourself on your own screen as you jump from link to link. We are now in the middle of a second Gutenberg shift — from book fluency to screen fluency, from literacy to visuality.”

Along with an older article from the New York Times,

The Future of Reading: Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading by Motoko Rich:

“Clearly, reading in print and on the Internet are different. On paper, text has a predetermined beginning, middle and end, where readers focus for a sustained period on one author’s vision. On the Internet, readers skate through cyberspace at will and, in effect, compose their own beginnings, middles and ends.

Young people “aren’t as troubled as some of us older folks are by reading that doesn’t go in a line,” said Rand J. Spiro, a professor of educational psychology at Michigan State University who is studying reading practices on the Internet. “That’s a good thing because the world doesn’t go in a line, and the world isn’t organized into separate compartments or chapters.”

It’s interesting to see more established publications trying to document and understand this shift in literacy, especially considering that many people still believe that literacy is solely being able to read and write in printed form.

This is something I would like to bring to our discussions of reading and writing at ISB. Although I make an effort to bookmark everything I come across, I’m sure I’ve missed quite a bit.

Do you have any resources, especially from more “established” or “traditional” media outlets, to share? I’m looking specifically for concrete, research-based (like this BECTA report or this recent MacArthur Report), examples or articles that would help people outside the educational technology field better understand this shift.

What are your thoughts on the concept of literacy? Does your school have a definition that reflects our changing and expanding understanding of literacy?