I would far prefer more educational institutions take this stance than the opposite, which is “here is some [propoganda], believe it, don’t question it, trust it, trust us (snigger)”.

But, loved your podcast. They have “we don’t have any clue” written all over it - they try to use old times mechanisms and think it works. :o(( (What are 5000 layers on the bottom of the sea? A good start. )

http://blog.contentious.com/archives/2004/08/04/contentious-copyright-notice

Yes, it’s more “plainly spoken”, but the general intent is still intact:

No stealing (plagiarism), no reprinting anything in whole or in part without (at a minimum)
full attribution/linking, or prior written permission.

Which is what Pearson Ed seems to be saying, just meaner sounding.

In reading Pearson’s copyright notice, I was led to one of 2 conclusions:

1. They are clueless, and someone convinced them that this was the only way to
tell the hoi polloi that they are protected by copyright. Dollars to donuts
says that the majority of site users fall well within the stated terms and conditions
laid out in the notice, however, yes, the legalese-mania is both off-putting and
overblown.

2. Something happened that prompted this response, such as stolen (plagiarized)
material(s), materials repackaged and re-sold without permission, or they sued
someone/got sued and got their collective keisters handed back to them in court.
This is comparable to complaints about “warning labels on everything”. There’s a
reason, unfortunately.

On the up side, keep up the good work with the podcasting. You’re sounding more
comfortable with the medium, and I look forward to hearing more.