Voice Recorders for class? Forum

[Bildungsroman]

Besides, if recording was not allowed, you can always suppress it in the future.

That seems naive.

[gothamm]

Having microsoft word for mac in notebook view's feature of recording audio notes embedded with typed notes has done wonders for me, at least in UG. Not sure how helpful this would be in LS, but i would imagine so.

[r6_philly]

Besides, if recording was not allowed, you can always suppress it in the future.

That seems naive.

The other alternative is to body search the students and disallow all laptops.

[Citizenlawyer]

I have found out that my recorder still records crystal clear when in the bag. Time to get surreptitious.

[AreJay711]

I can see the problems with microphones. I have said things in class that I don't believe anymore or admitted was a problem with my position / reasoning which would make me look stupid out of context or if I ran for office. I don't really care because I have no desire to do such but some people might.

[chup]

Besides, if recording was not allowed, you can always suppress it in the future.

That seems naive.

The other alternative is to body search the students and disallow all laptops.

But see Honor Code.

[Citizenlawyer]

How does recording lectures qualify as lying cheating or stealing again? Can you point to a specific honor code provision that you are trying to apply?

[r6_philly]

Besides, if recording was not allowed, you can always suppress it in the future.

That seems naive.

The other alternative is to body search the students and disallow all laptops.

But see Honor Code.

Which part of the honor code does it violate? I never actually read a law school's honor code. Not trying to argue, genuinely curious. Do you have a link to a copy of it?

[BlakcMajikc]

I just read Vanderbilt's and George Mason's honor code (I googled: law school honor code) and didn't see anything about it. In general, they only referred to lying, cheating, stealing or a combination of those things.

I'm not really seeing where a voice recorder wouldn't be allowed. The Mac recording thing sounds like a great idea.

[r6_philly]

I feel that we pay tuition for the right/license to consume lectures for personal/academic use. As long as you stay within the scope of this permission/license - for personal consumption - you should be able to record it. Under fair use or whatever unless you explicitly agreed not to in a contract or license agreement. I see a problem with sharing, but not with recording/reproducing for personal consumption, during the semester.

But I need to go to law school to figure out if this is the right understanding.

[Bosque]

Ok, I need to get back to my Patent reading, so I will make this quick. But I wanted to say two points.

First, it doesn't matter if recording lectures is not strictly outside the letter of the honor code, it is still against the spirit of the code. You have to follow both. In fact, I think most honor codes explicitly say this. Clandestinely recording lectures doesn't really mesh with promoting honesty or trust in the law school community. In any case, I am pretty sure most honor codes make it an explicit violation to engage in conduct the professor has prohibited, so at least in the cases where they explicitly put it in the syllabus, this should not be a question.

Second, HELL no is attending law school an explicit OR implied license for the professor's lectures. Your notes are noninfringing because they are recording the information conveyed. Those are unprotectable ideas. The professor (or possibly the school under work product doctrine) retains the exclusive right to the expression those ideas are contained within, i.e. the lecture. Further, personal use is not an automatic defense to copyright infringement like a lot of lay people think. Copyright is NOT just the right to exploit, it is also the right to exclude. Unless you get explicit permission, this IS an infringement. Personal use can be weighed under one of the statutory factors of fair use (which is a defense, not proof of non infringement-important distinction), but it is by no means dispositive. Fair use is powerful, but not a free pass. More often, people don't get sued for personal use because it is not worth the cost it takes to litigate. Litigation cost is not a concern for an honor code violation, so it doesn't really effect you.*

Best advice I can give you? Rather than just going ahead and recording, just ASK your professor if you can record. Easiest fix. Either they let you or they don't, and then we don't need to have this discussion. Or, if you are terrified of what you will do when one inevitably says no (and knowing lawyers, I will bet your five cents to my dollar at least one will), go ask your judicial board or honor code council or whomever runs it for an official opinion on the matter. That way, you KNOW if it is a violation of the honor code. All doing it without talking to anyone does is give the impression that you knew what you were doing is wrong.

*I would like to add a disclaimer that this is a very symplistic and general explanation of the copyright issues involved. But I really don't have time to write a treatise right now.

[r6_philly]

Before this gets lost in the threads - I do have permission because of disability. Just stating my opinions.

[r6_philly]

Fair use is powerful, but not a free pass. More often, people don't get sued for personal use because it is not worth the cost it takes to litigate. Litigation cost is not a concern for an honor code violation, so it doesn't really effect you.*

When did limited, academic use of copyrighted material without prior permission become not fair use?

More interestingly, if your interpretation is correct and classroom recording is indeed infringing, wouldn't Microsoft be liable for contributory infringement since there is no other non-infringing use by design (since it is made solely to record class notes).

There is also a report going around today that schools are installing spy cams in classrooms and there is no expectation of privacy in classrooms.

[Citizenlawyer]

spirit of the honor code is the kind of spirit I would love to imbibe.

[Bosque]

When did limited, academic use of copyrighted material without prior permission become not fair use?

Course packs. Have to pay a license for them. Just one example off the top of my head. Taking little quotes out of a book you are using to support your scholarly work? CLEARLY ok. So (ignoring the honor code for a second) you could probably use the recorder to take snippets of what the professor is saying and be just fine. But copying the whole of a work (the whole lecture, or if you are doing this the whole semester, the whole series of lectures for the course) is not fair use, just as you couldn't photocopy a whole book because you are using it for "academic" reasons. There is a limit.

More interestingly, if your interpretation is correct and classroom recording is indeed infringing, wouldn't Microsoft be liable for contributory infringement since there is no other non-infringing use by design (since it is made solely to record class notes).

Wait, recording classroom lectures in their entirety is the ONLY use that program can be put to? Really? I think you are severely underestimating both the program's capabilities and the ability of Microsoft's legal team. They may have been marketing it as a note taking tool, but there are plenty of instances in which it would be non infringing. You can record small snippets, you can record where you have been given permission, you can record yourself, you can record minutes for a meeting, ect. ect. Would the Betamax opinion come up in any litigation over this? Of course, it ALWAYS comes up. Would it pass the test handily? You betchya. No way Microsoft would be liable here.

There is also a report going around today that schools are installing spy cams in classrooms and there is no expectation of privacy in classrooms.

I don't really want to get into privacy issues here (partly because I am not all that familiar with the relevant law), but the honor code is a much higher standard than what is legal. You might not have a legal expectation of privacy (so the police would be able to tap the room, or the school can chose to record whenever they want), but that still doesn't make it ok for YOU to record under the honor code.

spirit of the honor code is the kind of spirit I would love to imbibe.

I believe that is single malt scotch.

[r6_philly]

Course packs. Have to pay a license for them. Just one example off the top of my head. Taking little quotes out of a book you are using to support your scholarly work? CLEARLY ok. So (ignoring the honor code for a second) you could probably use the recorder to take snippets of what the professor is saying and be just fine. But copying the whole of a work (the whole lecture, or if you are doing this the whole semester, the whole series of lectures for the course) is not fair use, just as you couldn't photocopy a whole book because you are using it for "academic" reasons. There is a limit.

Is this your opinion or is there case law?

I don't really want to get into privacy issues here (partly because I am not all that familiar with the relevant law), but the honor code is a much higher standard than what is legal. You might not have a legal expectation of privacy (so the police would be able to tap the room, or the school can chose to record whenever they want), but that still doesn't make it ok for YOU to record under the honor code.

Who determines how to interpret the "spirit" of honor code? Which section and what's the language, I still haven't actually read any honor code, and I genuinely want to see this. I don't know how to feel about you expecting everyone to abide by the "spirit" of a "code" which is not explicitly expressed. I wouldn't have any expectation to expect anyone to assume what the spirit of something that is not codified.

[r6_philly]

quote fail.

ETA:

If someone choose to only record snippets (what defines the limit to what is a snippet anyway) by periodically stopping, it should be fine in your opinion?

[r6_philly]

quote fail.

ETA:

If someone choose to only record snippets (what defines the limit to what is a snippet anyway) by periodically stopping, it should be fine in your opinion?

Actually, 1 lecture is only a snippet of a complete set of knowledge - the course. There is no clearly defined start and end to the material covered in a lecture, and having learned only knowledge contained in that lecture would not qualify you for the entire course unit. If you can copy a chapter or a section of a book/work - bound by a single relevant idea/subject, which is used widely in course packs - you can argue 1 lecture as the same.

[BlakcMajikc]

Vanderbilt's Honor Code

George Mason's Honor Code (LinkRemoved)

Pepperdine's Honor Code

I won't get involved with the legal debate as a 0L, but still not sure how the "spirit of the honor code" has anything to do with recording... I am definitely considering it as an addition to my note-taking for classes in the fall.

[r6_philly]

Vanderbilt's Honor Code

George Mason's Honor Code (LinkRemoved)

Pepperdine's Honor Code

I won't get involved with the legal debate as a 0L, but still not sure how the "spirit of the honor code" has anything to do with recording... I am definitely considering it as an addition to my note-taking for classes in the fall.

From Vandy's violation section:

viii.Instructor-prohibited conduct: Any act expressly prohibited by the instructor, when the student knew or should have known such act was expressly prohibited by the instructor.

ix. Unfair advantage: Any act not listed above, when the student knew or should have known such act could give the student or another student an unfair academic or professional advantage.

That's only sections I could see being applied to this.

I guess the point is it's nice to seek clarification. It may be an advantage to be able to listen to a lecture twice. But how is that unfair if everyone could do it and it's not expressly prohibited?