When we start thinking about hot button issues in the education industry, one cannot help but consider the “open content” debate. The EDC, in the past, has been following this issue in a number of blog posts, which can be viewed here, here, here and here!
While the definition of open content material has not changed much, it is an evolving discussion and is something that is very present in our lives, take Google Books or Google Scholar for instance. These tools are used on a daily basis. Did you know they were considered pioneers of the open content movement? I, for one, did not. In a previous post, I discussed the top 6 technologies featured in the 2010 Horizon report, which included open content. To break it down, the idea of open content serves a purpose of addressing the barriers associated with the pursuit of knowledge, such as cost of textbooks and regional accessibility of resources. Open content would make academic material freely available and accessible on the web, consequently eliminating the aforementioned barriers, but creating a whole new list of potential issues.
Consider textbooks as a perfect example. Finding the right textbook that includes all of the material teachers wish to cover that is sold at a reasonable cost can sometimes be compared to a number of overused clichés that include: slaying a dragon and climbing a mountain. Teachers have, at least in my experience, developed ways to go around said dragon/mountain by assembling a “coursepack” (photocopied articles, chapters of books, bound together in one book) or photocopying these chapters or articles and uploading them to the learning management system (LMS) used at their institution. Both of these, of course, come with a cost that is fractional in comparison to buying a textbook from the campus bookstore. The fees associated with coursepacks are brought to you as a result of the Access Copyright law and the “pay-per-use” licenses as well as fair dealing. Even though coursepacks reduce textbook cost, open content would eliminate cost altogether because the content would be publish freely online.
Opencontent.org breaks down the various privileges that are featured by open content.
1.  Reuse – the right to reuse the content in its unaltered / verbatim form (e.g., make a backup copy of the content)
2. Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language)
3. Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other content to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup)
4. Redistribute – the right to share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixed with others (e.g., give a copy of the content to a friend)
So that leaves us with the issues(?) surrounding open content.
What happens to copyright owners? One of the most popular licensing sources for open content is a large not-for-profit organization called Creative Commons. Users who apply for open content licenses have a list of four different licenses you can choose from: attribution, share-alike, non-commercial, no derivative works. In other words, if done properly, you can make your copyrighted material as “open” or as closed as you want. In the instance of attribution, people can freely use your copyright material and its derivative works, but only if they give you credit in a way specified by you. Then there is non-commercial licensing, which limits the use of your copyright material to non-commercial uses. These licenses can also be combined to create a unique one that suits your needs, for instance, attribution-non derivative, rather than using the individual licenses.
How “free” is free? According to an overview article written by policy strategist for open access research, Peter Suber, open content literature focuses “on literature that authors give to the world without expectation for payment.” He argues that scholarly articles are typically written by authors interested in “advancing knowledge in their fields and careers” and not necessarily the financial aspects, which differs them from musicians and filmmakers. This all to say, while the scholarly work may be free, the actual production of open access/content is not free. There will always be costs associated with the production of a scholarly work, whether it be some form of reimbursement for the writer, publishing or distributing copies for peer review sessions.
Who is to guarantee that the text is a reliable, factual source? We know scholarly work must endure a rigorous peer review session before it can be considered as a legitimate piece of academia. Fortunately, Peter Suber sums this concern up perfectly: “One reason we know that peer review at OA journals can be as rigorous and honest as peer review in conventional journals is that it can use the same procedures, the same standards, and even the same people (editors and referees) as conventional journals.”