Berklee Shares is neither (full) cooperation

It happens that I just came to read Lawrence Lessig’s post Berklee’s lessons for everyone: too late to include it on my last post MIT OpenCourse Ware is not (full) cooperation.

I think that some of the comments left there are my own opinion.

In one hand:
By allowing unlimited public access to these materials, there’s no additional cost to the students
Why not provide information that has already been created for another purpose to people who can’t fit in those seats, if there’s no additional cost to the institution?” by Adam Kessel on Nov 10 03 at 4:32 PM

In the other hand:
If you think that these lessons are somehow even close to the lectures, labs, individual instruction, or in-depth theory that is taught at Berkelee, you’d be mistaken.” by john on Nov 10 03 at 2:21 PM

So, going back to my last post’s conclusions:
1.- Do it: share information. And this is G.R.E.A.T.!
2.- Content is not enough to walk the way from information to knowledge.


If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:

Peña-López, I. (2003) “Berklee Shares is neither (full) cooperation” In ICTlogy, #2, November 2003. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from

Previous post: MIT OpenCourse Ware is not (full) cooperation

Next post: Soft and template updates in WP blog

1 Comment to “Berklee Shares is neither (full) cooperation” »

RSS feed RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Your comment: