I think it's unfortuante that more OER proponents don't see commercial entities not as a threat, but instead as a useful vector for transmitting awareness about the materials we're developing.  In the long run, we have as much to gain from the relationship as they.  I elaborate here.

-=Steve=-

Steve Foerster 310 days ago

In response to Ahrash and Stephen's clarification:

I believe the intention with the formulation, as Stephen has articulated, was to imply preference or inclination toward.

As an open debate about things open -- I have indicated to both debaters that they are free to post comments and join discussions on the floor.

Wayne Mackintosh 310 days ago

Responding to Ahrash:

> Among the many different definitions of "favour" are these two contrasting meanings: "to prefer" versus "to accommodate."

There isn't any widely used sense of 'favour' that means merely 'to accommodate'. The sense of 'favour' used here is one that, as the word suggest, implies a preference or inclination toward.

Stephen Downes 311 days ago

Responding to Jacky Hood, who says:

> Force is the method favored by those that say education is a 'right'.

> OER should be a commercial endeavor

It would be interesting to see how commercial endeavours functioned without some sort of property rights that protect the ownership of those who have something to sell. If the owner is not able to protect their goods by force, either directly or through a proxy (usually government) then it is not possible to require a commercial transaction; the other person just takes what they need.

It is very misrepresentative to suggest that those people working for rights are engaged in some sort of enterprise requiring force while those engaged in trade and commerce are not. My observation is that the police and security guards are generally protecting those who *have*, and not those who *need*.

Stephen Downes 311 days ago

I am also interested in getting clarification on the specific meaning of the word "favour" in this debate. Among the many different definitions of "favour" are these two contrasting meanings: "to prefer" versus "to accommodate." These different meanings have very different implications for the purpose of this debate, as the former definition implies that OER are created with an intention and preference for commercialization, whereas the latter implies that OER are created with no prejudices regarding desirable forms of future use, whether commercial or non-commercial.

Can someone clarify which meaning we are debating here?

Ahrash 311 days ago

There are only four ways in which people can share the services and objects they create:

* by trade (i.e., commerce)
* by charity of the producer
* by third party subsidization (e.g. advertising, grants, donations)
* by force (theft, slavery, confiscation, taxation)

Trade starts as barter but soon a medium of exchange emerges. At that point, one party buys (receives the services or goods) and the other sells (receives the exchange medium). The medium is usually currency but it can be gold, diamonds, cigarettes, candy, carbon credits, frequent flier miles, coupons, or anything that has recognized value and lasts for awhile.

Both parties profit in barter and currency exchanges. They each value what they receive more than what they give up. The person receiving currency takes the greater risk because the value of the currency could go down before it can be used to purchase goods or services.

Even if the marginal cost of the next instance of a good or service is very low: e.g. pharmaceuticals and digital materials, it is the initial creation of the good or service that must be rewarded with other goods/services or a medium of exchange.

Third party models work in some cases but they remove some of the decision-making from the buyer and seller.

Force is the method favored by those that say education is a 'right'. Rights are restraints on others. For example, a person's right to life, liberty, and property means that others must refrain from violence, imprisonment, and theft. To say that someone has a 'right' to goods or services means someone else has an obligation to provide those goods or services without compensation, i.e., the producer (or third party payer) has his/her rights violated.

The best business model for open educational resources is very-low-price, very-high-volume. Digital goods have a global market and so volume can be very high. With very high volume, prices can be quite low, on the order of pennies.

The difficulty is finding a payment method that does not cost more than the item being sold. Here we can turn to the telephone companies. A telephone operating company executive once told me, "We are not a phone company; we are a billing company." The phone companies have reduced the cost of billing to a fraction of a cent. There are many other benefits to delivering OER on phones, including the fact that people expect Internet content to be free but expect to pay for content on phones.

The very best reason that OER should be a commercial endeavor is because both producers and consumers of educational resources deserve respect. Producers should not be seen as people whose creations are not good enough to receive something in return. OER consumers should not be objects of pity and charity.

So what does it mean for the producer to both receive compensation for his/her output and for that output to be 'open'? The seller is allowing non-traditional uses of the output, e.g. making copies, remixing, etc.

In a sense, using OER is like renting a car. Some rental car companies say 'you cannot go out of the country; you cannot drive off-road, etc." An 'open' rental company puts fewer restrictions on the renter.

My husband and I once bought a house with a covenant that said we would never create alcoholic drinks on the premises.

A producer of OER certainly has the right to refuse commercial use of the output. However, the output's spread will be very limited. Commerce and trade cause services and goods to keep moving. Restrictions stop that movement. A house with covenants will be harder to rent out or sell. Instructors and students will reject OER with restrictions (NC, ND, SA) in favor of those with CC BY licenses.

Regards,
Jacky Hood
Director, College Open Textbooks
http://collegeopentextbooks.org
hoodjackylene@fhda.edu 650 949-7091

Jacky Hood 311 days ago

I aggre with Joris Komin.

Armando Altamira 311 days ago

Great post/argument, David. I would be more bold, however, in making the claim that embracing derivative commercial uses of OER is a _good_ thing in itself, and not simply a position we should take based on the legal complexities of defining/enforcing an NC license.  

Ed Bice 311 days ago

Joris Komen 311 days ago

My first perception is that open knowledge can be used to build a livelihood that is suitable for a civilized society. But fortune hunting using the open knowledge will make it cease to be open.

Anil Prasad 311 days ago