One group that took up this challenge (at the urging of another Harvard Law professor) was based in Jamaica and led by Sarah Hsia Hall, a Harvard Law graduate. This group aimed to explore a simple question: “How can we shape copyright law in a way that enables us to better mobilize our creative content?” Jamaica has a remarkably high debt-per-capita ratio, but it also has Jimmy Cliff, Toots and the Maytals, and Bob Marley.
“Copyright mobilizes creative content, and creative content is what Jamaica does best,” says Hall.
Like the enrolled CopyrightX students, Hall’s group watched Fisher’s lectures each week and met in a small group. “I would edit the reading for length because my crew was not a set of hard-core academics,” she said. When she could, she used examples from Jamaica of the issues they were discussing. Her class included law students, one of Jamaica’s biggest music producers, the head of the country’s IP office, a high-ranking judge, an art critics, a visual artist, a prolific reggae writer and singer, and a record distributor and house music producer. Copyright discussions can get rowdy, and with such a diverse group of students with strong opinions, there was always some discord in the discussions, Hall said.
“They were hearing perspectives that they’d never heard before,” she says. “The judge would say these things and the whole class was like ‘What??’ But it was great because they got to see what the practical judicial perspective is versus the creative perspective.”
Although, in the lectures, Fisher presents various ways of understanding the law, he, too, has a perspective, on how both copyright and legal online education should work. To get a better sense of his view on copyright, check out Lecture 10 from CopyrightX. To get a better sense of his view on online legal education, consider applying for the class next year, when it will be offered again.
“The goal is to create, in an online setting, the kind of supervised discussions—discussions moderated by people who know the subject—that grip people and direct them along paths that are enlightening. It’s that combination that creates value,” Fisher says. “My goal is to make that value available widely, without charging.”
Disclosure: CJR has received funding from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to cover intellectual-property issues, but the organization has no influence on the content.
I was a participant in the Harvard CopyrightX course/experiment. A number of the points in this article are incorrect, as follows:
1) Although it was suggested that the final exam could be completed in 4 hours, one could take up to 24 hours to complete it. Of the class members I communicated with afterwards, none spent less than 8 hours, and one took as long as 16. I would agree, though, that the exam was grueling and mind-bending.
2) The attrition rates for the CopyrightX course were likely distorted by the fact that it was not open enrollment. The article cited that over 4,000 students applied and only 500 were selected. One should assume that Harvard knows how to select law school students who have a high probability of seeing the program through, and that similar heuristics were used, including those that boost the number of females and foreign students in the class. Using their 2/3 survival statistic, it would be 333/4000 = 8.325%, so more than 90% of those that applied did not make it to the end. Actually, in my group, only 1/2 remained and were still attending as of mid-semester, so the 2/3 survival rate may also be inflated. Of course we don't really know how many of the other 3500+ people would have survived to the end, but Harvard should not be claiming a better drop-out rate than traditional MOOCs, since they front-end biased the experimental group. Had it been a random selection of applicants, they might have been able to make that claim, but that was not the case.
3) The class was divided into two groups with respect to the readings. Only half of the class focused on "dry case law" while the others were predominantly given summary articles that discussed legal theory and international perspectives. This may have also affected the retention and success rate.
4) Certainly the opportunity to receive a certificate of completion from Harvard Law School provides high incentive for the participants. Were this course stated as emanating from Rutgers, for example, there might have been a different outcome. Unfortunately, we do not have an adequate control group to assess this factor.
5) Harvard has not yet issued the final exam "grades" which will determine another measure of success of the course. They also plan to analyze the statistics gathered. The author should revisit their conclusions again after this information becomes available.
Still, it was a valuable, though tedious, experiment to have participated in and I was glad for the opportunity to have attended.
#1 Posted by RTMercuri, CJR on Thu 23 May 2013 at 08:41 AM
You provide an interesting statistical analysis, thank you. I also participated in the course and note that (in our tutorial group at least) we were encouraged to participate in whatever means suited us best, choosing from options including - contributing to chat forums, commenting on readings (if using the NB software), or participating in live group meetings.
You observe that "Actually, in my group, only 1/2 remained and were still attending as of mid-semester, so the 2/3 survival rate may also be inflated. " - it is possible that the other half of your group were participating in other ways. I'm unclear how participation is tracked in the software but perhaps they have data on how many hours students were logged in for each week, how many posts they made, etc...
#2 Posted by BHS, CJR on Thu 23 May 2013 at 07:51 PM
You provide an interesting statistical analysis, thank you. I also participated in the course and note that (in our tutorial group at least) we were encouraged to participate in whatever means suited us best, choosing from options including - contributing to chat forums, commenting on readings (if using the NB software), or participating in live group meetings.
You observe that "Actually, in my group, only 1/2 remained and were still attending as of mid-semester, so the 2/3 survival rate may also be inflated. " - it is possible that the other half of your group were participating in other ways. I'm unclear how participation is tracked in the software but perhaps they have data on how many hours students were logged in for each week, how many posts they made, etc...
#3 Posted by BHS, CJR on Thu 23 May 2013 at 07:53 PM
Did Prof. Fisher really say "congenitally"?
#4 Posted by Ral, CJR on Sun 9 Jun 2013 at 06:02 PM