Unit 7: “It’s the way you ride the trail that counts.”

Tomas Lapinski came to speak in our class about the ins and outs of the TEACH Act. Regardless of how unlibrarian-ish of me it may seem, I have never heard of the TEACH Act (*gasp!). Yes, it's true. Somehow, freshman woes and other plagues of high school seemed to have been demanding my attention at the same time in history, so cut me some slack here...

The TEACH Act signed in by President Bush brought some pretty weighty changes on distance education as we know it. After reading about it in Lapinski’s article and in an ARL issue brief, however, I can’t say we seem like we have it figured out entirely yet. It was interesting to compare the pros and cons with the TEACH Act, seeing as it seemingly provides a lot more leniency for use of copyrighted materials in distance education. However, Lapinski pointed out some of the drawbacks that I would otherwise have missed. Not only does TEACH introduce potential licensing provision problems, but it also makes it difficult for users to negotiate between multiple copyrights on works (Lapinski gives the example of a CD of Copland and the copyright – or lack thereof – of the music versus copyright on the sound recording).

Right away, I thought the TEACH Act didn’t sound so bad. It seemed to make available many more resources than had otherwise been accessible by distance students. As one who has taken online/distance courses (not really from a distance, however, as I’m still here in MadTown), I can definitely speak to the importance of having materials that provide the equivalent experience of the face-to-face instructional setting for use at the learner’s convenience within the time appropriated to the course. The only streaming I have had in courses were voice lectures and voiceover tutorials created specifically by instructors. Speaking of which, the whole issue of MIA materials still has me hung up in not understanding exactly what it means. When going through the readings, I felt like the moment I understood what TEACH meant, it was explained further that just re-confused me.

I agree with Lapinski in that the “compliances” required by TEACH is troublesome on multiple levels, most significantly (from my experience and perspective) that user rights would be more dependent on institutional compliance. Yet, this too could be debated. Have user rights ever been independent from the institution providing the resources for one’s education? As a student using materials, it’s easy to overlook the licensing details and the remote access clearance and the copyright stipulations. But at the end of the day, we as users are quite dependent on our institution. I think the problem comes into play when that dependency shifts from the institution to an entity beyond the institution that is demanding compliance with non-institutionally created rules and requirements. That’s the kicker.

With the test coming up this Friday, I’m going to be spending a lot of time with this and our other readings from the semester, trying to weave some common themes between them other than “copyright.” The TEACH Act is one that I’m still trying to place my finger on, as the Lapinski article wasn’t exactly a “bit of light reading.” Although he did a nice job explaining what it meant, the Act itself is just very wordy and circular, in my opinion. At the end of the day, I’m still going to ride the trail more traveled and wave my white flag of Fair Use until they take me in for good. Apparently, that seems good enough for now, to at least act with good intentions and to be willing to a) change or b) argue your case if someone thinks otherwise.