Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Captain Copyright Targets Kids 430

frank249 writes "The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency has set up a copyright education website called Captain Copyright. There is a section for kids with comic books and a section for teachers for grades 1-3, 3-6 and 6-8. An example of a grade 1 class activity: 'Present the following situation to students: Your friend is downloading a song off the Internet. In comes Captain Copyright. Ask: What do you think Captain Copyright will say? Encourage students to brainstorm. Then hand out (or read) Line Master: Some Copyright Laws.' In Canadian law it is incorrect to download a song unless you pay for it. They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Captain Copyright Targets Kids

Comments Filter:
  • by nlago ( 187984 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @07:19PM (#15458845)
    I definitely may be wrong here (never been even close to Canada), but I believe the tax on blank media came out long before music downloads appeared in the radar. Sure, the tax is supposed to compensate for informal, personal copying, by providing some extra revenue to the artists (yeah, right, to the artists... mostly... somewhat... err...). However, I doubt the letter of the law mentions "downloading", which (in this "interesting" world we live in) may make quite a difference.
  • by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @07:22PM (#15458862)
    "intellectual property" is a critical industry to the US economy

    It's only critical in that its current form & implementation will ensure that the U.S. is unable to compete technologically & economically with other countries that have "looser" IP protection.

  • by jgaynor ( 205453 ) <> on Friday June 02, 2006 @07:25PM (#15458888) Homepage
    Captain Copyright has heroically announced he's suing /. for copyright violation, after the vicious plagiarizers failed to read his site's asinine legal disclaimer [] and reproduced his valuable intellectual property. Additionally, poster jgaynor [] will also be sued for talking shit about captain copyright AND linking to his site in the same paragraph. Think that last sentance was hyperbole? Think again:

    "permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright."

    Holy Nutsack Cap'n Copyright!

    More making fun of this ridiculous attempt at a valid legal statement here [] (disclaimer: not affiliated).

  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Friday June 02, 2006 @08:14PM (#15459204) Homepage Journal
    You get to vote [] on the best way to contact Captain Copyright. I voted to:
    From: root@localhost
    Subject: CC Vote - Post A Torrent And Follow The RIAA

    I vote to post a torrent of the paper, wait for the thugs at the RIAA to find it, then follow the hit van to their house.

    A few million similar votes should get the point across.

  • Character names (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shish ( 588640 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @08:59PM (#15459454) Homepage
    An odd thing to spot, but I find it distracting that the bully is called Haskell (an alledgedly awesome programming language, that I've not had time to learn myself), and CC's scientist friend is called yuri (japanese for female / female reationships, often used online to mean "anime lesbian porn").

    Aside from that, the comic is rather lame -- it's so overdone, even a child should be able to detect the smell of propoganda...

  • Captain Copyleft? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02, 2006 @09:11PM (#15459490)
    I'm all for kids having an understanding of the law, but Captain Copyright seemed rather one sided to me. (That's putting it politely, some might suggest it is deliberately trying to distort children's views of what is copyright infringement).

    To balance things a bit maybe we need our own superhero to put across the story about fair use, balancing rights of the copyright holder against those of the public, and that it's fun and good to carry on sharing your toys with your friends - we need Captain Copyleft. is bought (I can't get as I'm not a canadian citizen), and I can provide hosting, but I have no artistic talent and can't write. Any slashdotters out there willing to step forward and provide content?

  • Re:Infringing? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by olego ( 899338 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @09:26PM (#15459550) Homepage
    I don't get something. From []:
    permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright
    Since when must I ask other websites if I may or may not link to them? Is there actually a law against hotlinking images and/or content, in the US or in Canada?

    In a broader question, I believe that I can't hotlink a photographer's images and claim that they are my own (even though many people can view source and see that I'm not hosting them) [am I right?], but what about dropping a href to that image?
  • Re:Not gonna fly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) * <> on Friday June 02, 2006 @09:46PM (#15459626) Homepage Journal
    I think kids will see this the same as they saw Captain Planet []: lame. This won't even have the TV show going for it, AND the fact that anything being pushed to them by teachers is automatically uncool.
  • by diablomonic ( 754193 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:33PM (#15459840)
    First off, I would like to say that I respect Jesus Christ the man, because as far as we can tell, he said some very intelligent and kind things and taught a tolerance and wisdom I would have thought very out of place in the times (could be wrong, I dont live then.), and was willing to risk everything to do so, without hurting other people in the process

    with that in mind, I am not at all religeous, but still have strong moral values, obtained as follows:

    - there is no god, natural rights or universal truths, only the physical world we live in (*)
    - therefore the only thing that matters is what we think matters, and by we, I mean any sentient being. The only tangible good is that which makes beings happy, and perhaps the increase in knowledge although thats more based on the first, and the only bad is that which makes us unhappy/causes pain.
    - from this I get a personal moral code based on individual freedom, not hurting others (unless they want it: sm etc) except in self defence, not killing others except as a last resort in self defence. Environmentalism comes into it because of the enjoyment people get from nature, but there is no such thing as un-natural in the end, unless we can step outside this universe to alter things against the laws of physics etc.

    The purpose of the above is to show that having a "god" define our morality is not neccessary, and I would argue that in general, most religeous people dont follow your logic of

    "I would tell my children, not to steal, rape, murder, lie, etc. because it hurts us and our fellow men, and show how it does. Then tell them how God says the same thing and that we got this knowledge from Him"

    but rather "dont do bad things or you'll go to hell" or even worse "dont do anything the church (any church) tells you not to, whether you think its right or wrong, and if you do something wrong, you must confess or repent or whatever, usually involving donations to said church." How can doing "good" out of fear of your god be better than simply doing "good"? Why would any reasonably decent person have to fear a perfect god? why would a perfect god design us to be lustful and then punish us for doing as our "design" tells us to?. Faith in the bible is a bad thing in my opinion (as opposed to seeking wisdom in the words of jesus, which may be quite sensible, so long as you make your own mind up about which parts are wise), its just a book! its missing large portions of jesus' intended wisdom (look up the council of nicea, gospel of mary, gospel of judas, gnosticism, trinitarianism versus jesus as a created being, and the way the christian church has consistantly twisted symbols of other faiths and beliefs into devil worship symbols, and the centuries long killing and destruction of wise/free thinking women (and men outside the church)and so on) , and is twisted into a guilt producing document, and then used incorrectly to justify wars for money and oil. By promoting blind faith in god/bible/church, discouraging free thinking, people become sheeple, and follow the (supposedly religeous) leader, even when he is "evil".

    Im rambling now. Basically, the bible is NOT jesus's complete and unmodified word, the catholic church and many other religeous groups have committed unbelievably "evil" acts according to my own personal code (and most other peoples), and the teachings of the church dont match up with what we can see jesus teaching: namely peace, love for fellow humans, forgiveness, not worshiping idols or money or gold, that sort of thing, not "X is sinful, Y is sinful, you are all sinners, confess (without righting the wrongs you have done) and give us money and you will be forgiven". From this we can see that blind faith in the church is stupid to say the least, and blind faith in the bible is also not a good thing (although I admit there is more wisdom in it than given by the church). your non catholic/protestant faith makes more sense to me than average christian "faith", and yet, you still say you dont question the bibl

  • by riot666 ( 978914 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:12PM (#15459976)
    No where on the page does it say that the information on it is copyrighted.... You are now entering... The Twilight Zone.. *music ensues*

No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham