Blackboard now owns WebCT and ANGEL. 2008 higher education CMS usage table adapted from the March 2009 ITC Distance Education Survey

This most recent acquisition is a surprising but not unpredictable indicator of Blackboard’s lust to dominate the higher ed CMS market. In 2006 the US Patent Office awarded Blackboard a broad and hotly contested patent on learning management system features, which Blackboard immediately used to sue its next largest commercial rival, Desire2Learn. And though Blackboard was successful in its legal actions, twice since then the US Patent Office has rejected the original 44 patent claims, first in March of 2008 and again in April of this year.

Blackboard, however, presses on, appealing the rejections, fighting with Desire2Learn in the courts, suing the US Patent Office, and even filing more patents (including one detailing a 3D learning environment, and a set of claims in Canada[!]) on which they can base new lawsuits against D2L.

As ITC noted in its March 2009 survey, ANGEL had gained considerable market share in the US, putting it in the #2 slot against Blackboard+WebCT. What once looked like good news for Angel has become a nightmare for an CMS consumer market in need of diverse and innovative choices, and a looming shadow for other CMS producers, as Blackboard continues to thwart and denigrate healthy competition in the field of e-learning. At this point I’m continuing to put my faith in Moodle, the popular open source CMS, and wondering if US antitrust law contradicts Blackboard’s aggressive behavior.

(For those of you who have been in a coma for the last 13 years, MP3 is the most popular digital audio file format. It uses a lossy encoding and compression technique to ensure small file size while preserving audio quality.)

A lot of the “MP3″ legal concern is over MP3 encoding or decoding technology, but the patents also affect the distribution of the .mp3 file itself. Emusic.com is just one of many who pay a patent royalty for the distribution of it’s MP3s. But what about educational institutions? For instance, MIT OCW uses MP3 technology for compression of audio lectures; do they pay off Thomson for each file?

Not likely. Thompson’s web site declares…

A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like).

However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

This appears to exempt non-profit educational usage, so I e-mailed Thompson directly. Reeder Grant of Thompson replied swiftly and courteously:

If you are not receiving, or you do not anticipate receiving more than $100,000 annually from mp3 distribution activities, you do not need a license. From your described use below (distribution of non-profit educational MP3s), it would seem that you would fall into this latter category of not needing the license.

Good news, right? Based on this information I suggest the following options for educational creation and distribution of .mp3 (which in no way should be considered legal advice):

1. Proceed. Create and distribute .mp3s without a license if they are clearly for non-profit educational purposes. But make sure you use a legally purchased and licensed, or, even better, an open source MP3 encoder like LAME (open source MP3 encoders have been specifically ignored by the legal actions). And consult a lawyer.
2. Contact the patent holder(s). I would go with Thompson for the above-stated reasons. Then consult a lawyer.
3. Break into the open. Use a different, widely supports audio compression format. OGG seems to be the most popular “open” lossy audio compression technology. OGG is not natively supported by iTunes or Windows Media Player (two of the most popular desktop media players), but plug-ins are available for both (make these available to users on the file download pages). No lawyer required.

Hardcore edupunk’s might lean toward option 3, but while nearly everyone is ready to play an MP3 in some form or another, few are ready to play an OGG, and less are comfortable with the change of file format.

(I will add that though I’ve never played with OGG, I am fascinated by the claim that OGG can “contain” lossless audio file information from other formats such as FLAC. FLAC is an open “lossless” audio compression codec, and I’ve always ripped my CDs as FLAC and MP3 simultaneously using EAC, Mareo, and LAME [FLAC for archive, MP3 for portability], but this FLAC + OGG marriage may be more suitable in the longterm.

(If you’re thinking of trying OGG, audiophiles recommend that you not “transcode”, that is, convert from MP3 –> OGG. Convert from CD, original WAV, or other “lossless” format.)

P.S. With respect to the original ITForum question, I should point out that Audacity is not a MP3 encoder as implied, nor does it contain an MP3 encoder, thus exempting it from the patent licensing bane. Audacity is an audio file editing software that uses it’s own file format. Audacity does, however, work with external MP3 encoding software (like LAME). Basically Audacity triggers the external encoder to compress the audio file.

The following table is adapted from CreativeCommons.org:

Name	Characteristics
Version 3.0 Licenses:
Attribution
CC By. Usage requires citing, referencing of the creator/source. For OERs this is the most “open” license, in my opinion. Unlike Share Alike (see below), it does not mandate any particular license on subsequent adaptations or derivations.
Attribution-NoDerivs
CC By-ND. Usage additionally mandates that no derivative works or adaptations may be made. For OERs I think this is most applicable when a creator is concerned about losing the integrity of the original work if adaptaions, derivations, or remixes are made.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC By-NC-ND. Usage additionally mandates that no commercial use will be made of the work, whatever that means. This is for paranoid creators of OERs, or those who legitimately want to protect the integrity of their work..
Attribution-NonCommercial
CC By-NC. See above. I think this is an underused license in OERs, as it stipulates non-commercial usage but doesn’t limit adaptations to using the same license.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC By-NC-SA. Usage additionally requires that any derivatives, remixes, or adaptation of the work be licensed under the same Creative Commons license. This seems to be the most common CC license for OERs, as it stipulates that all uses are non-commercial, presumably “for educational purposes only”, and preserves the open-ness of the work and any and all future derivatives.
Attribution-ShareAlike
CC By-SA. See above. This is a common CC license for OER where the creator wants to forever preserve the open-ness of the work and all derivatives.

Additionally, there are two notable licenses in draft on the Creative Commons wiki:

Creative Commons Zero (CC0)

According to Creative Commons, Creative Commons Zero (or CC0)…

…is a protocol that enables people to WAIVE to the fullest extent possible under applicable copyright law all rights they have and associate with a work so it has no (or minimal) copyright or neighboring rights restrictions attached to it.

In the US we typically call such works “public domain”, but some writers (e.g. Terry Hancock in FreeSoftware Magazine) have noted that public domain is not a license at all, while CC0 will be.

Creative Commons Plus (CC+)

Creative Commons Plus (or, CC+) is simply an existing Creative Commons license plus “some other agreement which provides more permissions” or, perhaps, requirements. For example, Creative Commons refers to a commercial license “tailored for specific uses with specific names of copyright holders”.

Commentary: I like the idea of both of these additional licenses, as Creative Commons has made the idea of sharing works more accessible and understandable, but is not yet sufficiently encompassing for all uses. Plus and Zero seem to fill the gaps, and for open education might provide creators and institutions with flexibility while still conforming to the Creative Commons label in such a way that basic usage is more instantly understandable (without reading through paragraphs of legalese).