UK Schools to Indoctrinate Respect for IP Laws? 228
4/3PI*R^3 writes: "Alan Docherty, the editor of Internet Freedom News has an interesting piece in Salon's Technology & Business section. Apparently, the Creative Industries Task Force wants teenagers in the UK to learn the evils downloading MP3's, e-mailing newspaper articles, and exchanging JPEGs. As quoted from Prof. Jessica Litman of Wayne State University, "Many of them believe, for example, that if you buy a CD, you buy the right to share it." Minds are so much easier to manipulate when they are young." Heh. For the record, since I've read some of Litman's work, I should point out that her statement quoted here is definitely intended to be ironic.
Intellectual Property (Score:2)
And if you look at the government back in those times, you'll realize the corporations wrote the laws back then too. As unions formed to counter the brutal methods, laws were passed to counter the efforts of unions. Might as well have been a decree from some boardroom, much like the DMCA was.
But the new drive is for the control of information. DMCA is just the first salvo of a barrage of laws that will be coming. Each new law will place further controls on computer ownership and operation. If scientology can purchase a city (and the police force!), then Time/Warner can purchase a state. Get ready to have your doors kicked in people. Maybe not today or tomorrow but in the near future.
I predict by 2005, it will be a crime to not run software that tracks IP usage on your machine. By 2010, critical mass. Salt to taste.
1984 (Score:3)
Re:FYI, your education is copyrighted. (Score:4)
We now have a hugely prescriptive National Curriculum that dictates what must be taught and how many hours should be spent on certain subjects. All of this is coupled with enormous amounts of paperwork.
The result has been to narrow the subjects taught to UK kids as a whole, and to remove much of the flair with which some of these subjects were taught. Not surprisingly, we now have a teacher shortage as well.
"New Labour" here in the UK appear committed to mass-producing corporate drones with as little individuality as possible, and at the lowest possible cost - our Education services are woefully underfunded and stretched to the limits. For example, my own school will now be renting the taps (faucets) in the kids toilets because it will save us a few pounds over the next few years. Our 10 year olds are being taught in classes of 36-37 kids. And our school is succesful, over-subscribed, and turning away applicants!
At this rate, it won't be long before they are insisting on Japanese-style "rote" education in enormous class rooms.
Missing the point slightly.. (Score:4)
I still fail to understand why people would rather use a product illegally while complaining about the ethics of that product's sale, rather than just finding an alternative solution or method of purchase. If you feel you're being taken for a ride over CD prices, buy them online, import them, whatever. By all means take a stand, but don't actively make the problem worse..
Being in small bands and struggling to get by gives you a new perspective on this isuue - you realise that people have no sense of proportion and won't stop to think 'this person is operating on virtually no funding from a backroom, I think I'll help to financially support him in return for the product he worked hard to produce'. Once they get into the habit of taking copies of everything, we all suffer. Who do you think is less likely to be harmed by this behaviour - Joe Public, or BigBadCorporation(tm)? And who, out of those two would you really like to see prosper, due to the often innovative and exciting products they produce?
Exactly.
So maybe it would be a good idea to consider exactly *why* you feel teaching children the law is a bad thing...
Some schools do the exact opposite - Xeroxing (Score:4)
Re:pretty good (Score:2)
"Hey kids, do any of your parents or friends have MP3 players? They're not bad people, just doing a bad thing..."
Re:The reasons why this is NOT ok. (Score:2)
Actually, it's legal in the US. The RIAA is reluctant to admit it though. As long as you aren't selling the copies for profit or distributing on a massive scale, it's legal.
Re:Protecting profits...once again. (Score:2)
Once we know something, it's ours as well as whomever thought of it first. The law was once somewhat reasonable on this issue. We simply had to refrain from competing commercially with the original creator for a relatively limited period of time. After such time we could do as we liked with the information. Today, IP corporations are trying to make their control over ideas and other sorts of IP absolute and perpetual. We should not stand for it. Violating such laws is simply not immorral at all. It's us or them. Do we plan to allow the collective creativity and knowledge of this country to be locked up and only be accessible through fees paid to the holders of the information? Sounds like a bleak future.
Re:BS alert (Score:2)
Copyright law was supposed to be a bargain. Creators would create new music and such and we, the people, would agree not to compete with them commercially for a period of time. That bargain is long gone, since that time, copyright has been extended well beyond any reasonable period of time, and our rights to non-commercial use have been severely curtailed. Copyright is not a bargain anymore. It's a exercise in abuse of government power. It's corporate welfare. It's a unilateral declaration that we have no right to the ideas and information we know and have access to. Everything that should have been public domain by now was stolen from us. I think we have a right to take what we want now. We've been swindled long enough.
Won't be long (Score:5)
If you have 3 pepsis, and you drink 1 pepsi, how many cool refreshing pepsis do you have left?
Pepsi?
Partial credit!
Re:No, sorry. (Score:2)
First of all when someone distributes your music you should thank them! That means there will be more people that hear your band and maybe you'll create more fans.
If you don't want people to hear your music for free don't record anything. Just charge for live performances.
You are in a position of a horse-n-buggy driver at the beginning of the 20th century. Your profession is being eliminated by technology and you better adapt.
P.S. Copyright violation is not stealing. You still have the recording in question. It's quite different from stealing physical objects.
Discussion of GPL (Score:3)
Re:Won't be long (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? Depending on how that little deal is constituted, that smacks of illegal kickback to me...
No, **:YOU** misunderstood. (Score:2)
The rest struggle to live, or repay their RIAA "loans".
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Re:BS alert (Score:2)
That explains why many of my CDs are imprinted with a notice that states that I'm not allowed to lend my CD to anyone. As it turns out, those thoughtful record companies are just looking out for my being able to hear the music that I've paid for which, of course, I can't if I've lent it to you. God bless them one and all. I also noticed, during a rather cursory check on a number of my CDs, that this verbiage is present mainly on CDs that were produced by record companies based in the UK or other European countries. Interesting, eh? Soon, even lending will be immoral. At least in the UK.
You should know by now that today's capitalism has no need for critical thinking. (And Consumer Reports is probably a communist front organization as well.)
--
Re:FYI, your education is copyrighted. (Score:2)
What does that mean in the UK? In the U.S., you'd think that meant charging admission to hear music that was recorded on a CD. However, bars and other businesses have to worry about the ASCAP ``cops'' coming into their business and busting them for playing music. So over here, it appears that if anyone spends money on a beer (or anything) while some music is playing in the background it's ``for-profit'' use. (At least that's I remember discussing with a bar owner one day after asking him ``Why do you guys play the radio now and not those excellent collections of taped music like you used to?'' The owner's reply was that the music was allegedly being used to attract customers so it was not not-for-profit use. Wonder the way the law can wangle any desired result out of vague wording, isn't it?) Either that or it's, somehow, covered under the phrase ``public performance''. I can see it now: ``Hey you! Turn it down or roll up those car windows or we're gonna call ASCAP!''
--
Re:Indoctrination From the womb (Score:2)
First, the obligatory IANAL...
Mainly, because, as I understand it, the standard record company contract spells out that this is ``work for hire''. If a band then provides the recordings to the world as a collection of MP3s, it is the band that's doing the stealing. The people who download them could be said to be receiving stolen goods. Well, one could construe it that way, I guess. If I am hired by Company X to perform some programming services under a contract that states that the Company owns the results of my work, then I cannot take copies of the code with me and distribute it on my own to other people. If I don't like the terms of the contract, I tell them so and we either agree to modify the contract or somone else benefits from my programming services.
What about the moral problem in signing a legal agreement that you don't agree with? I don't have a lot of sympathy for bands that are stupid enough to sign such a contract. Sure they see $$$ in their eyes and sign. But, if you're not creating music that's going to sell well, then go it on your own and distribute the MP3s on your own; at least you've cut out the middle man. But I don't think the band has a legal basis for taking the recordings and distributing them via the internet on their own; even if the record company had failed to do a decent job of promoting and getting sales. (They could always say ``Hey we gambled on these guys and lost. Not our fault that the public doesn't like their songs.'') The band could always, in theory, buy the rights to the music back from the record company, right? Or maybe they could hunt around find a lawyer who could convince a jury that the record company was somehow guilty of fraud and duped the band into signing the contract. Maybe we should lobby for the legal community to provide pro bono legal assistance for recording artists that wish to get out from under the legal thumb of the recording companies?
Sorry to offer a (probably) unpopular opinion. (And, before you switch on the flamethrower, you need to know that I think most recording companies are pond scum and I buy most of my CDs either used, from indie label websites, or from the bands themselves at concerts. Oh yah, I think that 99% of MP3s sound like crap, too.)
--
oh puhleaze (Score:2)
Currently, UK schools teach: the basic curriculum (for those of you who missed school, this is stuff like PHYSICS, or GEOLOGY... these are known as "academic subjects"). What is *NOT* taught is stuff like "what Microsoft wants me to know" or "how I can help ICI achieve their profit forecast for Q4 of 2002".</SARCASM>
Seriously folks - the only thing which isn't directly related to the curriculum being taught, is a) sex education and b) drug education. These are taught because some students could be directly harmed if they don't get to know the facts. When it comes to IP teaching, it's just a farce. Silly story, silly headline
Teaching the law is good.. (Score:2)
I sat through the computer classes many years ago, listening to the teach drone on and on about how bat 'piracy' was, and how it was illegal and frowned upon.
Didn't slow me down any.
No, sorry. (Score:2)
As for bands struggling to make it.. perhaps they should choose a new career? Who said anyone had a god-given right to make a living doing anything in particular? You deal with the circumstances at hand. If Music doesn't pay out for you, perhaps you need to find a more useful profession.
You misunderstood. (Score:2)
Re:No, **:YOU** misunderstood. (Score:2)
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2)
Even Microsoft softens this position a little when they print "Do not make illegal copies of this disk" on their CDs. Thus throwing the whole issue of the legality of copying back up in the air.
I would far rather children were taught to share first, and get into the legal intricacies later.
--
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2)
--
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2)
There is no grey area. You just have to learn to read copyright agreements - and some idiot is going to have to tell the Them, The Lawyers where to get off on all the legalese speech, too.
That way, you can just say "this CD is not to be copied" - if everyone *reads* what it says, no more problem.
As for your college friend, maybe they could've done things a bit differently: how about publicizing a few tracks of their own as freely redistributable tasters, then educate the rest of the world to point to said tasters instead of redistributing *everything*?
~Tim
--
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2)
First, the printing of `don't copy this, please' has to be done by the copyright holder, who would ideally be the original owner.
Second, I can see both "share first, then restrict" and "restrict first, then permit some sharing" approaches, and think both are less than ideal. That's why I'm saying I would choose neither, given half a chance.
~Tim
--
sorry for replying to my own post (Score:2)
I'm all for legal-discussions on copyright-laws, as long as they are not presented as morally wrong from the beginning.
The reasons why this is NOT ok. (Score:5)
The problem is that this sort of illegal activity is not in any way universially accepted as morally wrong. It is laws that were made for protecting the income of artists and corporations.. much in the same way that patent-laws were created.
It is still in some countries regarded as totally legal and within fair-use to share IP-protected material among friends as long as you don't charge for it.
I generally accept IP-laws as I believe it makes it easier to make a living out of arts, and thus making our quality of art higher. It is however a political issue, not a generally accepted truth, and thus should NOT be taught in public schools.
Morality is a personal issue, and I don't buy arguments that breaking the law is always immoral, because this would mean that doing political satire in a country where this is illegal, is immoral.
The only things that should be taught are issues that are beyond common politics. For example: murder, theft, etc..
Before tries to make the assumption; sw/media-piracy == theft, I have to say that this comparison is political as the person being "stolen" from in the act of pirating still has a copy of his/her own.. that is, it does not transfer property.
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
Gandhi's point if view isn't the only game in town.
Re:Protecting profits...once again. (Score:2)
Actually,
patents now expire after 20 years,
LetterRip
National Curriculum (Score:5)
Naturally such a document is a magnet to everyone with an axe to grind. It seems like everyone has something they want put in the National Curriculum. Most of these things are fairly worthy, like road safety, how to apply for a job, how compound interest works, and how to extract cube roots without a calculator. Most people think that their favourite author ought to go in the English section. And so on.
As a result of all this the first version of the NC had a bad case of bloat brought on by creeping featurism. After that a revised version was bought out which was slimmed down to the things that the education academics think that kids actually need to know. Copyright law is not (AFAIK) on the list.
There is still a lot of pressure for feature creep in the NC, but the people in charge of it seem to have learned how to say "no". You still get pressure groups of one sort or another popping up and asking for their pet cause to go in the NC, but nobody takes any notice. This is just another similar suggestion, and I don't think its going to go anywhere.
Paul
Re:Teach about fair use (Score:2)
Um, what fair use? In the UK there is no such thing. If you read the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [hmso.gov.uk] you will see that there is no mention of fair use, the closest thing is "fair dealing" which is described under "Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works [hmso.gov.uk]". You will not that while making a copy for personal _study_ is permitted, a copy for personal _use_ is not. So, even making an MP3 of a CD you own is illegal, regardless of whether or not you distribute it.
Fair use does not exist in the UK, so many things that you can do legally in the US, are illegal over here. And if there is ever an international agreement on copyright, which do you think is more likely to happen - fair use rights get eroded further (by legal or technical means) in the US, or the UK grant fair use rights to match those in the US?
--
Re:Indoctrination From the womb (Score:2)
We are saying that copying and sharing a CD is wrong, when artists have gone out and "leaked" their material on to the internet. SO the artists themselves are "sharing" the material. If the people who are literally making the material feel they want to share it, why should we say its wrong?
Also most people care only about the actual producers of content, singers, musicians, painters, authors, poets, actors, directors, graphic artists, etc.
They don't care so much about publishers, broadcasters and other middlemen. With the corporates tending to fall into this catagory.
A useful current example would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 6.
Re:FYI, your education is copyrighted. (Score:2)
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hey, That's Great. (Score:3)
Re:BS alert (Score:2)
I sense I'm being trolled, but what the heck, I'll bite the juicy worm on the end of the string...
> Our society has rules/laws to stop people...
No, our society has rules because people didn't behave themselves.
The way you teach the kid about armed robbery laws is to teach him that theft is wrong. If I steal your cookie, you can't eat the cookie. How would you like it if someone stole your cookie?
The way you teach the kid about dangerous driving laws is you teach him upfront that killing - even accidental killing - is wrong and to be avoided (how'd you like it if someone killed you?), and that when he gets behind the wheel (or the trigger, if you take him/her hunting), he's being entrusted with the lives of the people on the road or on the range.
I don't obey all intellectual property laws because I don't see all such breaches as immoral.
("See, if I copy your CD, you can still hear the music! We can both hear the music now! Do you feel like I've stolen anything from you?")
Other things that happen in intellectual property law, I do see as immoral.
("See? You made the pretty painting. You can make copies and sell them to the 20 people in your class for $0.05 each. I'm gonna go to my office, make 100 photocopies, and sell them to my co-workers for $1.00 each by telling them it's a school fund-raiser. I can make $100, you'll only make $1.00, but if you beg nicely, I'll even give you $0.05 for every copy I sell. How would that make you feel if I made $99.00 and you made $1.00 for that painting you worked on all day?")
> Would you want your children to learn about narcotics by smoking crack, or reading a book at school?
I'd want them to read books on critical thinking so they could yell "false dichotomy" when presented with one.
Re:Underestimating kids (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Underestimating kids (Score:2)
//rdj
What about the teachers? (Score:2)
...and, like in every other class, the teachers got a sample handout in 1990 from their curriculum suppliers and then photocopied it for each student every year since then.
Re:Indoctrination From the womb (Score:3)
But, whose morals are you talking about ?
Yours ? Jack Valenti's ? Rufus Shinra ? Osama Bin Laden's ? Ghandi ? Mother Teresa (I should hope not !) ? The RIAA's ?
I don't think we should be teaching them more than the most basic morals. To a point, they all have to be subjective. I say, give them knowledge, and let them decide for themselves.
There is no "UK Education System" (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
The point is, copying CDs doesn't make a person less of a human. Stuff like murder does, and teaching that kind of stuff to children might actually be useful. Teaching children that sharing is evil is only in the interests of big corps, it doesn't churn out prettier, kinder, purer teens for the betterment of society.
---
A Full Course of IT Ethics Would Be Nice (Score:3)
Re:FYI, your education is copyrighted. (Score:2)
This intellectual property thing is part of the "citizenship" idea. Basically, it's an attempt to instil American-style flag-waving patriotism rubbish into our classrooms; (c) Tony Blair 2001. Intellectual property is just one of the things our beloved government is trying to make us respect, including how "drugs are bad" and how "underage sex is bad" and so on. Ugh.
Besides, this is a Westminster parliament thing which applies to England and Wales only, so I and my brothers won't see the "benefits" (Scotland has nothing *like* the National Curriculum that England has.) And check out the Intellectual Property [intellectu...rty.org.uk] website, which is run on a very badly configured Solaris machine (check that combo box). Sadly, Netcraft doesn't say SPARC or i386...
However, the author hasn't looked at the Intellectual Property website itself. If you look at it, it gives a list of various items which are legitimately permitted: research, private study, critical analysis, teaching in schools and universities, and not-for-profit music playing. It seems to be slightly scaremongering. But it still has some points to make, and they're worthwhile: about exactly how weak-spined and controlled Blair is, and how it won't be improved by any of the opposition. Such a pity, really: we've got nowhere to go.
Re:The Bible is copyrighted (Score:2)
>At least some translations of it are. The King James/Authorized verison isn't but most of the others are.
In the USA, perhaps. The KJV is Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom.
> So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.
> If I do that with the NIV I'll probably get sued.
And a good thing too. It's rather like the reason we have licences such as the GPL, isn't it?
my plan [gospelcom.net]
Re:Won't be long (Score:2)
Piece of cake! None. You never owned the Pepsis, you just bought a license to drink it - nothing else.
-~^~^~-W3~0WN~Y00-~^~-!
- Steeltoe
Re:Won't be long (Score:2)
Re:Won't be long (Score:2)
Re:Won't be long (Score:2)
Another scam they have is steelcase furniture, departments are only allowed to buy steelcase furniture (which also sucks by the way), and the university has a special *deal* with steelcase to get a discount -- but your department pays an inflated price and the univeresity keeps the difference!
Universites are just leading the trend here, high schools, middle schools, grade schools, are all headed this direction as well -- so whats to think they'd have a problem helping out the RIAA for a few $$?
Re:The reasons why this is NOT ok. (Score:2)
Firstly, the example given in the Salon story doesn't work out anyway. If little Johnny puts (C) Johnny Bloggs, 2001 on his work, he's actually only half right - as far as I know, Johnny is legally a minor (juvenile). As such, he doesn't actually have full control over his works, in the sense that he is too young to be considered 'responsible' or able to meaningfully enter into contracts. Therefore, if this example were to be in any way meaningful, it would have to be made clear at the time that the legal guardians actually owned the copyright to the piece of work in any case.
Secondly, based on the first comment I just made, bringing IP into the classroom is likely to lead to a few complications. Teachers tend to assume that they largely have control over the childrens' work, and can publish it in newsletters, etc, maybe telling the child about it. Which is fine. But if you're going to bring IP into the forefront, the teacher should legally be forced to ask, not only the child, but the guardians who actually control the child's copyrighted works, and ask permission. Otherwise, barring agreements previously made between the child's parents and the teachers, there's no reason (other than bad taste) for the parents to refrain from sueing the school for stealing copyrighted works.
If we're going to bring IP into the classroom at all, actually getting the legal aspect wrong makes something of a mockery of the whole thing (hmm: a mockery of a joke. Brilliant).
In any case, it's true that this copyright exists whether or not little Johnny chooses to explicitly sign it onto the bottom of the page. However, to me, bringing legal matters explicitly into the lives of ten-year-old children is in extremely bad taste. They don't need it, and it's a bad precedent given that we should be teaching children the value of community, outdated and unprofitable as it is. Maybe the schools ought to all sit down together and thrash out an IP agreement between themselves and the guardians, then proceed on that basis, but for one, I'd rather it wasn't necessary.
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
Well yeah it kinda does. "United States copyright law considers copyright a bargain between the public and authors" (Stallman) [gnu.org]
Essentially ignoring copyright laws can be a form of civil disobedience, or boycott in which the public does not have to deprive itself of the object in question. Now I'll be the first to admit that, for the most part, this isn't the motivating force behind the majority of mp3 downloads. I'll also admit that this isn't even an effective boycott in the case of mp3's, since cd sales have, in my understanding, stayed stable or even increased since the explosion of mp3 sharing.
The concept is still however the same. If a corporation isn't behaving fairly, in your opinion, try to hit them where it hurts. It's easy to see that current laws are inadequate, and the patchwork laws that are being passed are even worse. Should the DMCA come up on a ballot it would most likely be voted down. Instead of protecting the people it protects corporations.
All in all I'm not saying mp3 sharing is right or wrong, but it can be a valid expression of civil disobedience.
In my outlook, I refuse to pay $10-20 for a cd that only has one good song on it, neither would I pay $3-5 if that song happened to be released as a single. If a record company made the song available as an mp3 for $1 I'd prbably pay to d/l it. Assuming that it didn't have any kind of copy protection on it. Additionally by downloading mp3's I avoid being taxed a second time on money that I've allready had taxed once. So I stop buyng cd's... no. I will still continue to buy cd's that are worth it (not just one good song), but I will never pay for a whole cd just to listen to one song.
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
Re:Underestimating kids (Score:2)
"...kids go out to do exactly the opposite of what they're told is wrong..."
Mmmm, double negative hell. Please pretend that I said "do exactly the opposite of what they're told".
Re:Question, teacher (Score:2)
Mind you, the authors aren't likely to come chasing royalty fees, and even people who can show they're decendents of WS (I doubt any decendents of Plato or the Bible authors are going to know they are), they're likely to get laughed out of court. However, copying something more recent that's just going out of copyright might lead to a more heated battle.
Re:Question, teacher (Score:2)
Re:Are they still wearing uniforms? (Score:3)
It used to be black blazer with school crest, black trousers, white shirt + school tie, but no-one used to wear the blazers so they gave up on that rule. Girls didn't have to wear ties at first, but then a lot of stupid parents complained that it was sexist to make their boys wear ties, so they became mandatory for girls. Nowadays though, they all wear yellow sweaters and the rules seem quite relaxed. It seems that the school gave into rebellion and met halfway.
As for the brainwashing thing - we didn't all dress alike. It may look that way from a cursory glance, but to those in the school we were all making our uniforms individual - doing stuff like wearing the ties backwards so the skinny part was at the front, wearing trainers or Doc Martens instead of regular shoes, wearing t-shirts that were visible beneath the fabric of the white shirts etc. We were forced to conform, but dressed as differently as we could within limits that had been set.
I don't think that uniforms is really a big problem (and it actually makes it easier to decide what to wear each day). But trying to turn kids into perfect consumers does suck, though I doubt it'll work (see my earlier post).
Underestimating kids (Score:5)
Don't assume that kids are little angels who wouldn't do something just because an authority figure tells them not to (I'd like to cite drug use and underage drinking and smoking as examples of situations where kids go out to do exactly the opposite of what they're told is wrong). You might persuade some kids to stop, but you'll probably make it more appealing to others.
Re:The Bible is copyrighted (Score:2)
Re:Protecting profits...once again. (Score:2)
I think its right that we teach children not to steal. Thats what copying tapes or software is, its stealing. Using as an argument that stealing is ok if the person already makes enough money, or if you think the price for the product is too high, or you don't support ther persons beliefs is just WRONG. You would be upset if someone did the same to you.
I commend the schools for teaching that theft is wrong. I must say I am quite upset that the parents of those children hadn't already taught thier kids that idea before the schools were required to though.
Re:Question, teacher (Score:2)
Re:The Bible is copyrighted (Score:2)
Revelations 22, 18-19:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2)
The real problem is that the original quotation was given without context. You assume that she was referring to "share" in the sense of copy, but what if she actually meant share? Then I most certainly have that right! There is no law in the U.S. or the U.K. that would actually prohibit me from loaning my copy of Atari Teenage Riot to my friend. Similarly, I CAN give my copy of Fallout to someone else if I'm done with it (even stronger, I can sell it-- at least in the U.S.).
This is all part of a rather evil redefinition of terminology to suit corporate needs. Copying became equal to stealing, and now sharing is becoming equal to copying. We now have people who think sharing is stealing. What kind of fucked up world is that?
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
Re:Indoctrination From the womb (Score:2)
Also, the legal and moral issues in rape are relatively stable, universal, and understood. The issues in IP law are evolving, dissonant, controversial, and muddied. Presenting it as a done deal is a disservice and a danger.
Is copyright infringement a crime? Yes. Is it a crime on a par with rape? No, not at all. In the limited time with the limited resources available to a school for a civics program, I think it immensely obvious that teaching about rape, murder, etc., is much much much more important than a four-week unit on copyright law.
ObAside: And I'd be mightily surprised if the issues of Fair Use and First Sale (assuming a British equivalent exists) will be raised and treated properly.
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
I don't know if the poster is from the RIAA, and I don't agree with him/her, but why on Earth would we need to "get it off slashdot"? Slashdot's only value is as an open exchange of ideas. Sure, that one is unpopular. All the more reason to protect it, I say.
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:2)
Exclusitivity (Score:3)
Re:Indoctrination From the womb (Score:3)
Just to show that there is a difference betweeen the two, and hence, at least possible grounds for having different attitudes.
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2)
Wanna bet? Check out the UCITA. One of the many nasties in it is that the only person allowed to use software is the original purchaser. I cannot resell it or even give it away. And it's been passed in one or two states. Not fun.
--
Re:Question, teacher (Score:2)
Exactly. And look at how widespread they are. Did the complete and total lack of copyright keep Shakespeare and Plato from writing? Granted, copying a book was a nasty, time-consuming process at the time, but still...
--
Re:*Sigh* (Score:2)
--
I don't want to pick but... (Score:2)
Does Michael maybe mean sarcastic?
Corporate Sponsoring (Score:2)
Does anybody really believe that a school system, which is notoriously underfunded, cooks up some braindead plan like this one, instead of focusing on the more important aspects of the education curriculum (you know, things like reading & writing, or math - which is hard - and such). Without being influenced, not to say bribed by the entertainment industry in this case and the corporate world in general? Not bloody likely.
I can see why a school, ill-funded and always under attack - might resort to corporate "sponsorship", but beware of the ghosts you might call into action by taking the easy route.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
The Bible is copyrighted (Score:2)
I haven't got a copy to hand to check but The Bible Society holds one of them, I think Hodder and Stoughton have another. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the theory behind it is not so much to prevent people acquiring it, or even to make money, but to prevent against someone changing the text.
So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.
If I do that with the NIV I'll probably get sued.
Re:The Bible is copyrighted (Score:2)
I'm from the UK too btw.
"And a good thing too. It's rather like the reason we have licences such as the GPL, isn't it?"
Actually it's the exact opposite. The GPL is there is preserve the right to change and distribute changes. Copyright here is being used to protect the integrity of the original. Although I agree it is a good thing.
Re:BS alert (Score:2)
Children learning about law is an academic activity-- usually referred to as "Civics Class" (in the USA, anyway). Children being told blatant untruths like "copying mp3s is illegal" (end of discussion) is not learning. It is misinformation. The law is a complex thing and often what is and is not illegal is a matter for courts and juries decide. Furthermore, in a democracy how to handle unjust laws is a very necessary topic of discussion. In fact, getting a bad law repealed or nullified often requires substantial law-breaking so that there will be test cases for the judges to weigh in on.
Go ahead and slide down your slippery slope if you like, but I prefer that school stick to critical reasoning skills and skip the propaganda. If you look at the situation objectively, you'll find that most people are "good" and "do the right thing" without having it spelled out for them in excruciating detail in school. I, for one, think schools should concentrate on academia (they seem to be having enough trouble graduating literate adults) than social programming (if you can't teach them to read, what makes you think you're qualified to teach them right from wrong?).
BS alert (Score:4)
Actually there are lots of circumstances where sharing is perfectly legal, in addition to being moral. Kids should be taught to understand that laws and social mores are complicated things and require the individual to apply a little critical thinking when venturing into the grey areas.
I am SO glad now that I went to a school where HD Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" was actually a required text and where there was no DARE program. Kids shouldn't be taught anything in school except academics, trade skills, arts, and whatever you'd call what it is you learn in Phys. Ed.
Morals, right and wrong, how to deal with bullies, how to say no to drugs are all lessons that belong at home. And if the parents don't teach them this stuff, well tough. Then the kids figure it out for themselves. As a parent it disgusts me how much time I have to spend with my child going over what she "learned" in school and applying critical thinking skills to it so that my daughter has a chance to form her own opinions about what she's been told.
Not such a bad idea... (Score:2)
I can see why the director of copyright would like to see this program implemented. And frankly, if it's closely regulated, it's a good idea.
I know this may go against the average Napster-usin', CD-burnin', Porn-downloadin' Non-consumin' consumer, but copyrights are there for a reason. It's the abuse of the system by people on both sides of this fight which causes so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Maybe a good thing (Score:2)
- Hyperbolix
Teach about fair use (Score:4)
Our story for today... (Score:2)
Our story for today, children, is how the drug company Glaxo Smithklein stopped the nasty South African government from stealing their patented AIDS medicines. The evil South Africans wanted to treat some of their sick people, without paying the patent holders. Thanks to the virtuous IP laws, Glaxo Smithklein made profits of $5 zillion last year.
Re:Indoctrination From the womb (Score:3)
The laws on copyright are quite clear about the legality of ripping and redistributing MP3s for the use of others who do not own the product - it is illegal ! You may not agree with the law, but the law is unambiguous here.
You might also think that stealing money from rich people should belegal, and you might justify that by arguing that some rich people do bad things, screw their employees, engage in morally questionable actions, blah blah...but you would be a fool if you believed it was legal.
As for argument that we should stop trying to "teach children morals and a sense of right and wrong"...I suppose you think that educating young people about what rape is, and offering any opinion about, say, forcing non-consensual sex on a drunken teenage girl would be wrong too.
Re:Missing the point slightly.. (Score:4)
Sure. And if I ever get nabbed for allegedly violating the GPL, I am going to cry 'civil disobedience' too. And alleged GPL violations of the GPL by, say, the Chinese - that's an entirely valid expression of nationals of a foreign country exercising their own rights to self-determination.
Protecting profits...once again. (Score:4)
Kids putting copyright symbols on drawings and papers? What's next...intellectual property contracts within a school system?
Before the DMCA came along and gave draconian legal controls to big companies, copyrights served only to protect the economic interests of content authors, granting a temporary monopoly to foster creative works in writing and the arts which were supposed to eventually be released into the public domain. They used to work just like patents...and fortunately patents still expire 17 years.
Regardless, I hope to see this one fall hard. I remember copying tapes on my dual-deck boom box as a kid, and it didn't hurt anyone. What the major media companies have to do is add enough value to their content to make the package worth buying.
Re:Indoctrination From the womb (Score:2)
I suppose you think that educating young people about what rape is, and offering any opinion about, say, forcing non-consensual sex on a drunken teenage girl would be wrong too.
That's a good idea, compare copyright infringement to rape, the record labels would be proud! After all, most pirates on the high seas were rapists as well, let's not forget that.
Remember kids, as soon as you hit that "Burn CD" button, you've commited RAPE!
Copyright law and Scouts computer badge (Score:2)
Re:anti-constituitional ? (Score:2)
Re:No big deal (Score:2)
Re:Are they still wearing uniforms? (Score:2)
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform and don't kid yourself"
Frank Zappa
and "We are all individuals and this is our uniform"
(Don't know who said it)
Simon
Don't worry.... (Score:2)
Anyway, the way the education system in this country is now, by the time it filters down to classroom level, MP3s, etc, will be way out of date.
No big deal (Score:3)
Realistically its got little chance of making it onto the curriculum ahead of more pressing matters (discrimination, vandalism, drugs, debt, etc.).
Even if it did slip in there for a half-hour lesson I hardly think the teachers are going to suddenly develop brain-washing powers of indoctrination just for that moment - British children have been ignoring what their teachers say for centuries and I doubt if they are going to change now.
It might even make a few of them think about an issue everyone tends to ignore - whatever conclusions they eventually come to this is a good thing.
--
Nic
Re:1984 (Score:2)
Just my opinion.
Re:Maybe a good thing (Score:2)
Re:Are they still wearing uniforms? (Score:2)
I might argue a religous school is more akin with brain washing, rather than a uniform per se.
I don't think I would worry about the telling the authorities bit in general, school children are second only to the mafia in the 'don't squeal' stakes.
And paying attention to copyright laws? Doubt it, I have more faith in them than that! ALso, unless the law can be effectively enforced it will likely be ignored.
And while there is an argument of 'harm to the copywriter' I don't think it'll sway that many really.
Re:Not such a bad idea... (Score:2)
sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Hold on a minute. With new increases to the length of copyright terms, that statement may not be in the public domain anymore. Better check.
Some people think just because they bought Shakespeare they have the right to share it with the world.
*Sigh* (Score:3)
*Sigh* Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. This upsets me on Slashdot to no end. If it's Open Source software, yes, you do. If it's just about anything else, no you don't. There was never any written or unwritten rule that said "everything on CD's can be copied". In fact, the rule should generally be viewed as the reverse: "nearly everything on a CD should not be copied".
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. If you made a Word document that you disavowed all personal copyrights to, yes you can share it. If the software is Open Source, yes you can share it. But no one has a right to share music or software that is owned by someone they personally don't know, regardless of their purported grassroots-it's-a-CD-company, we-have-a-right-to "reasons". When does the grey area start and stop.
I had a friend in college who absolutely hated Napster. The reason was that he was in an independent, yet popular, band whose music was being traded for free online. The problem: the band paid in full for their CD to be recorded professionally without a record label. It was something like $500 for 50 CD's, and they only had 4 songs on each of them. This was a struggling college band. But I imagine most Napster users would have argued "How was I supposed to know they paid? I thought it was an evil record company." Again, where does the grey area start and end?
Re:Underestimating kids (Score:2)
When the Hobbit came out it was retailed at £15, then well out of my league. So myself and some friends formed a cartell and pooled our money and baught one copy that we then coppied amonst our selves.
I can't rember how meny of us where in the cartell but I'm sure that their where more than 3 of us. So insted of selling x units at £5 where x was > 3
the softwhere house sold 1 unit at £15
They went bust soon after.
The morral of the story; If companies want to protect their IP rights and make money on them then DONT place such a high valu on any individual coppy
Question, teacher (Score:2)
Indoctrination From the womb (Score:3)
What he's really talking about is teaching children what the corporate community considers right or wrong rather than what may be moraly correct.
Whilst i agree that many of these things may be illegal (copyright breach etc) i question that they have any right to teach children what amounts to their views of the law - the laws on music copryright for example are based manily on the money and power of the RIAA and Recording Companies who conveniently ignore the fact that they screw artists for every cent they can make and engage in morally questionable actions in the pursuit of their 'rights'
So this is something we NEED to stop - enough - lets teach children morals and a sense of right and wrong and let them make their own decisions - not give companies the right to educate them about THEIR version of the world.