Fair Use, Media and Education in the Digital Age

Up until now, I’ve been a bit confused about how best to approach the meaning of fairness in a thoughtful enough way to help inform this project. Again, this study is a further investigation into copyright law and its impact on the ability of teachers and students to share access to teaching and learning materials in the digital age. But after reading John Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness“, I believe I now have a much more solid foundation upon which to move ahead with this inquiry.

While I initially thought the jump from the Greeks to 20th century political philosophy was going to be great (while it still may be), Rawls’ essay was incredibly helpful to me in breaking down a number of important concepts that I had not yet sorted out; these being the differentiation between notions of Justice, Equality and Fairness. This reading not only helped me to gain a better understanding of these words, their meanings, and how they’ve been used, but it guided me closer towards finding a definition of fairness in the digital age.

I also want to point out that the wiki for this project was a very helpful tool for gathering quotes and parsing key concepts in the essay. This process allowed me to manipulate text and arrange my ideas in a much more configurable way than simply paper and pen would have allowed. This observation of educational uses of networked tools is also a key focus of this project (and my graduate program more broadly) in understanding their use and how others perceive and ultimately decide to use them or not as effective methods of online communication.

In my next post, I will present my analysis of “Justice as Fairness” and how certain concepts found within may help to provide a useful framework for approaching this study.

In Book IX of The Republic, Socrates deliberates with Glaucon on the virtues of man and State. After both agree that the rule of the king is “the very best” and the rule of the tyrant is “the very worst,” Socrates adds

“There can be no mistake, I said, as to which is which, and therefore I will at once enquire whether you would arrive at a similar decision about their relative happiness and misery. And here we must not allow ourselves to be panic-stricken at the apparition of the tyrant, who is only a unit and may perhaps have a few retainers about him; but let us go as we ought into every corner of the city and look all about, and then we will give our opinion.”

Glaucon responds

“A fair invitation, he replied; and I see, as every one must, that a tyranny is the wretchedest form of government, and the rule of a king the happiest.”

In this passage, fairness is measured by the degree to which both reach agreement. Which, in this case, is absolute. The virtue of a city is considered here within the context of extremes: tyranny = wretchedness and rule of king = happiness. Perhaps had there been a third person present who saw things another way, the invitation may not have been considered equally as fair. But, this is not the case. Therefore, fairness is measured by the fact that all parties involved see the invitation as legitimate.

Socrates continues

“And in estimating the men too, may I not fairly make a like request, that I should have a judge whose mind can enter into and see through human nature? He must not be like a child who looks at the outside and is dazzled at the pompous aspect which the tyrannical nature assumes to the beholder, but let him be one who has a clear insight. May I suppose that the judgment is given in the hearing of us all by one who is able to judge, and has dwelt in the same place with him, and been present at his dally life and known him in his family relations, where he may be seen stripped of his tragedy attire, and again in the hour of public danger –he shall tell us about the happiness and misery of the tyrant when compared with other men?”

Glaucon

“That again, he said, is a very fair proposal.”

Why does Glaucon believe that Socrates’ proposal is fair? At the very basic level, we know it’s fair because Glaucon says it is. He agrees with Socrates and does not offer any further response. What would make Glaucon believe that Socrates’ proposal was unfair? Perhaps, (1) Socrates might have presented his narrative another way, (2) Glaucon might have seen things differently, or (3) other people may have been present during the conversation offering an alternative, leading to further debate before reaching agreement on the fairness of Socrates’ proposal.

Therefore, we can understand the meaning of fairness, in this passage of The Republic, by the extent to which Socrates and Glaucon - all parties involved - reach agreement on the legitimacy of the issues discussed above.

The concept of fairness is at the core of this study. So, I thought I’d begin by taking a look at Wikipedia to see what others have contributed to this definition. Next week, I’ll be reading Rawls and the following a look at the Fairness Doctrine. In the meantime, I’m studying Plato, The Republic and Aristotle, The Politics.

I’m excited the Center for Social Media just announced their upcoming event titled “Mind-Forged Manacles: The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy” on the first day of this project. The event at Washington College of Law will address many of the issues I’ll be exploring in this study, including

• “What do teachers know (and don’t know) about copyright?
• How does copyright confusion limit the quality of student learning?
• What are effective solutions to this problem?”

In addition, this course will explore the concept of “fairness” across a wide range of disciplines. The goal is to develop a framework for investigating the challenges facing educators and students in the digital age.

To learn more about this course, visit the description and wiki.

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to watch this event live, but I look forward to seeing the archive online.