IP - Intellectual Property - A Contentious Issue

If increasingly more educational content is going to be delivered online (or remotely from a centralised source), which to me seems a logical extrapolation of the pressures of financial expediency and technological innovation, several issues will need to be discussed and solutions agreed.

One such issue is the hardware infrastructure necessary to deliver the content, which I intend to discuss at a later date.

Another and more contentious issue is who will own the (copyright) rights inherent in such delivery and of equal significance, what and how will they be paid for their rights of ownership?

My starting point for such discussion is an example of the 3rd party public usage of commercial CD's in the music industry and the manner in which rights are allocated and accrue payment.

Essentially there are two copyrights inherent in the public use (performance) of a CD. (What I am discussing here is not personal ownership but the non-domestic use of a CD, ie in connection with a business). If we take an example of such usage with which we are all familiar: the 'performance' of CD's on radio shows (Radio 1 & 2 etc). Every time a commercial, (copyrighted) CD is broadcast, two separate and distinct fees (royalties) are payable: one in respect of the physical copyright, the CD itself which is generally owned by the Record Company and the second, in respect of the Intellectual Property (IP), ie the song, which is generally owned by the songwriter (but that is not always the case).

The two fees are based on the amount of usage in time (hours, minutes & seconds) and also the size of the audience ie Radio 2 pays a higher usage fee than Radio 1 which in turn pays a higher usage fee than regional radio.

Fees (royalties) are collected by specific agencies: PRS (for songwriters) & PPL (for record companies and the musicians involved in the recording) with distribution on a number of set distribution dates throughout the year.

I think this is a good model to take as a starting point, primarily because it ensures that the content creators, the teachers and lecturers who prepare, deliver and source the educational content, maintain their ownership rights and are similarly reimbursed for the usage of their materials based on the extent of that usage. And equally, the educational institutions that supported the development of the materials will also benefit via a kind of mechanical copyright. 


Such a system could usher in a new form of funding for non HE educational establishments, who could easily benefit from the development of online materials featuring their own staff. And those staff too, who excel in delivery and the development of content, could be earning significant royalties. 

Any comments?