Slashdot Log In
British Schoolkids Get Copyright Education
Posted by
michael
on Fri Aug 06, 2004 08:00 PM
from the don't-coupy-that-flouppy dept.
from the don't-coupy-that-flouppy dept.
Krafty Koder writes "The Register reports that British school children will be indoctrinated in copyright law , in a scheme backed by the music industry, as part of the government sponsored Music Manifesto initiative. In response, kuro5hin have posted an open letter on this issue." The U.S. has its own version.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Doubleplusungood (Score:5, Funny)
Jabber the Lawyer [aftab.com]
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:5, Insightful)
In any personal relationship, friendship and courtesy (and the sharing implicit in that, be it of emotions, ideas, music or more tangible things) are paramount. This interaction isn't present with most corporations, and certainly not most industry lobby groups. As Rousseau in 'Social Contract' (or perhaps, more accessibly, Lessig in 'Free Culture') would argue, we have no particular debt of respect or obligation towards them. As much as it hurts my rather Gandhian ideals, there must be SOME degree of simultaneity in trust.
Moreover, we've lost recourse in the legal system (here in the UK and otherwise), as it has 1) become far too complicated for anyone 2) become infested with large lobbying groups. 1) means we're down to such a level of nitty-grittying that it isn't possible, even with the very best of intentions (ie ignoring 2)), to create judgements which are universally (or even necessarily majority-wise equitable). The lawyers' obsession with precedent is depressing. 2) means that we are obligated at a grassroots level to promoting art libre.
All these lead to the inescapable conclusion that I will do what I feel just (note: not what I feel LIKE DOING a la Machiavelli). Teaching kids that copyright is the altar before which we must torture ourselves seems to be a dangerously flawed view of society, and of the way it should develop.
Lastly, it was (obviously?) a joke - lighten up!
Parent
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Insightful)
"Happy Birthday" is fucking copyrighted.
Re:Key word in there... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Key word in there... (Score:4, Insightful)
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
Parent
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Informative)
I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them.
I don't know where you live, but the independent record store is the only one thriving in major cities (Amoeba in L.A., for example.) Stores that cater to collectors, that have knowledgable staff that caters to people with taste beyond the mainstream will always have a place. If the previous owners failed, they weren't good businessmen, plain and simple. It wasn't because the music was, as you perceive it, weird.
I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.
Two thoughts. The first is, they aren't very Christian, are they?
The second is, perhaps it's your business model that's to blame, not the internet. You just might be selling something that no one wants. Christian Rock, for example, tends to be really bad music, a pale imitation of what was popular two years ago. Most teenagers are too hip to buy that crap.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to put this CD on the Internet right away."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the record industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
Alright, forget this, you're not even a good liar. The dialogue is straight from a Chick tract. Except Jack Chick wouldn't have a Christian record store owner use the word "shit."
Though I have to admit, the "lete (sic)" was kind of funny.
Parent
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
woohoo.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:woohoo.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:woohoo.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
If it happesn (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it would be great if someone made a list of such things that we could xerox and pass out to all the students so they can be PROPERLY educated.
Artists are victims. Publishers are the PERPS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Will you bother to tell him that the victims of illegal sharing are the artists and creators themselves?
The victims of the existance of the "publishing industry" are the artists and creators themselves. The advance of new models of compensation for artists and creators is hindered, to the point of non-existance, by the "publishing industry".
Parent
Re:Artists are victims. Publishers are the PERPS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sooo, explain how the artists get compensated when you download a MP3 from a P2P network.
They don't. Perhaps they should play some live gigs. Maybe hock some merch.
Get over the idea that's been planted in your head that artists are entitled to royalties. This is a construction of only the recent past. There were artists long before there were royalties.
Parent
wow... this is scary (Score:4, Funny)
Is this brainwashing even legal?
What is next? Teaching them by prying open their eyes like in Clockwork Orange with Beethoven playing on the background??
Obligatory Pink Floyd quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory Pink Floyd quote... (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer "Sheep" (Score:3, Interesting)
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.
Bleating and babbling I fell on his
I don't mean to be contrary (Score:3, Insightful)
The first step is understanding. I don't see how anyone could be against legal education in schools.
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they also teach you how to be critical of the law and how to spot bad or outdated laws, no problem.
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how anyone could be against legal education in schools.
Do you see how people could be against misleading and inaccurate legal education in schools? That is precisely what will happen if we let the RIAA design the course material, which is precisely what they are doing.
The proper response when RIAA people start pushing schools to do this is for the schools to push back by saying, "You want us to educate people on copyright law? Sure thing - but *WE* are designing the course material then, not you. And well teach it to them accurately, including it's history, and why it was created, and including how you keep pushing copyright terms longer and longer... now, are you sure you want kids educated about this sort of thing...."
Parent
Do we really want corporate America influencing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do we really want corporate America influencing (Score:5, Insightful)
Our educational system? Sure copyright is an issue that is controversial, and piracy is a problem...
Violations of "intellectual property" law (please don't call it "piracy") are a problem IF SOCIETY SAYS THEY ARE. "Intellectual property" law is a SOCIAL CONTRACT where society grants the creators of works of "intellectual property" a monopoly on their use, distribution, derivation, and/or duplication for a limited time. Of course, in the United States the contract has been so perverted by the lobby of the publishing industry that it bears no resemblence to what was originally specified by the Constitution.
What we need to be teaching is the history of "intellectual property" law, and teaching our children that it's right to question the law, and to ask "Why does this have to be this way?" Anyone who believes that law is static and unchanging, based on the collective opinion of society, needs to recall "blue laws" and other such antiquities.
Parent
Re:Do we really want corporate America influencing (Score:3, Interesting)
Lil Senator Hatches (Score:4, Funny)
more little non-sharing learned Senator Hatches running around with British accents.
Only the Begining.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Teaching kids the music industry's idea of copyright law, very, very bad idea.
Lying ass piece of shit dirt bag.... (Score:4, Informative)
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
http://www.hpronline.org/news/2003/01/25/I
What is going to stop his organization from lying to children? Nothing.
Btw, for those in the US fair use DOES exist in common law and in statute, specifically, TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 107.
So is DECA (Score:4, Informative)
Resource Mismanagement (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time local debate turns to public schooling, there is much discussion concerning money and time and how much of either districts should focus on music (and the other arts, but we're discussing music here).
Maybe instead of dropping wads of money instructing kids on the ethical nature of signing over all IP to large corporations whose job it is to milk you for everything you're worth as an artist, we should spend some time creating musicians with a healthy appreciation for music as an art form. Or better yet, let the RIAA pay for their little propaganda machines... but force them to do so by funding actual music programs instead of providing pure propaganda handouts and dumping unwanted merchandise on the schools. If they want a pulpit, let's give it to them in exchange for something useful to our children.
Short version: if we're going to find time and money to educate our children on music copyright, how much more important is it to include music in our children's educations?
Re:Resource Mismanagement (Score:5, Insightful)
Short version: if we're going to find time and money to educate our children on music copyright, how much more important is it to include music in our children's educations?
Because the real agenda is to teach children that the publishing industry is the only way that artists can be "legitimate", and that the creations must be owned by corporations and "protected" by "intellectual property" laws. It has nothing to do with teaching why-- rather, the point is to teach the kids not to ask why.
Parent
Who owns you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta eduh-kate them early on, before the little consumers grow up! It's only sensible!
I'm hoping the kids think this is bullshit, and it might trigger the opposite response. It deeply saddens me that the industry feels so strongly that people are just consumers of products and not that there is an inherent right to fair-use, sharing or collective ownership/stakeholders. Sharing something you own does not make you a thief or a commie -- it's a behaviour that is blessed by the spirit of copyright law, that of fair use and public stakeholdership.
Buggy whip manufacturers grasping at straws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who says this has anything to do with compensation of artists is arguing a red herring. We have wonderful (read: inexpensive, reliable, ubiquitous) mechanisms for mass information distribution now, and publishers are realizing that they are quickly becoming unnecessary, and they're scared.
There's nothing natural about the way our copyright law in the United States and "intellectual property" in general work. It's a social contract, and, frankly, that contract is tilted rather sharply in the direction of publishers at present. Of course, it only makes sense now that the publishers are going to catch the children at a young age, and indoctrinate them into this idea that the present social contract is "just how things are", and squelch the very idea that society might want to renegotiate the terms of the different monopoly grants afforded by our "intellectual property" law.
It's fucking depressing. We need "intellectual property" revolution while there's still enough of a public who understands that things don't have to be this way.
Right and Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Business owners that engage in shady deals aren't sociopaths- they know that what they're doing is 'wrong'. They simply don't care. Business Ethics classes won't give a criminal a bleeding heart and convert him to charitable donations.
Likewise, teaching copyright law wont do a convert evil file sharers into saints. If a person believes its wrong, they'll either do it anyway or they wont. If they believe its alright and the laws are screwed up, they'll likewise do it anyway or they wont.
The only good you could hope to get from classes teaching copyright law, sponsered by the music industry, is to scare kids into compliance at an early age. Make sure they understand that sharing a single MP3 in this day and age could potentially screw them over more than say, unprotected sex or smoking.
The class isnt there to teach people to be more 'moral'. It's to scare them into complacence. It's to get it into their heads that this is the LAW, so that from this point on, noone will question it just as noone questions cigarette taxes (another societal evil that no one questions because smoking's undesirable and it doesn't affect the nonsmokers that voted for it).
Parents Job (Score:3, Insightful)
It is NOT the job of some monopoly ( or government ( to invade our schools and attempt this 'teaching'.
Get the hell out of my child's classroom. This is way out of hand.. and needs to stop. NOW.
I went to a catholic high school (Score:3, Interesting)
She would sit the children down and repeatedly ask them "Who loves you?" and the children were to reply "God loves me," every time.
I was horrified, but I was the only one.
That was the very moment I realized that I was not one of these people.
I think it'll work.. (Score:3, Funny)
The aim is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all have heard of that little girl whose family was forced to pay thousands of dollars because she downloaded a few harmless songs. Now, the record industry aims to take away the "kids don't know better" loophole, and wash their hands of responsibilty. "Hey, you broke the law. It says so right here and here, in the packet we gave you. Now we're going to make your family pay thousands of dollars for your little error."
It makes sense to me. You get a five minute time out for kicking your brother, and your parents lose a weeks salary for you downloading a three minute pop song.
Does anyone imagine how guilty and horrible that little girl must feel, for costing her family so much money? Apparently not the record industry. She is to be only another wide eyed lamb sacrificed upon the altar of cold money.
Scary times... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what would stop a company as Microsoft changing information to make it spin their way just because their Encarta is being seen by the Microsoft sponsored teacher as the only "official" source?
I use Microsoft only as a well known example but essentially you can fill in any corporate name here...
The quest next century will be who's info is been seen as a truthfull reference to things.
Same goes for blogs, which are only very clever marketing tools to spin desinformation towards the badly informed masses.
Re:Scary times... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikipedia is a useful source for casual browsing, but it is not a trustable one because any crackpot can edit it and his edites appear *immediately* before anyone else even looks at them for review.
Plus there can be the "common knowlege" versus "accurate knowlege" problem, in fields where most people are mistaken about something. (And if you don't think that's a problem, consider the effectiveness of "Organic food" slogans like "grown without using chemicals"...
Really... without chemicals....Wow that's impressive - so none of the matter in your topsoil was formed into molecules at all?)
Parent
Headline of the future (Score:3, Interesting)
British school children must now pay lifetime royalties for the privilege of an education.
Pretty scary, but it does seem to be the direction in which we are going.
Kinda like drug education (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with educating kids about something like copyright law, even if it is supported by the music industry. Except the problem, as everyone already knows and pointed out, is that it will end up as an extremely biased education.
Brain Suckers and Mind Control (Score:3, Insightful)
While I can't speak for the British, it's really too bad how selective schools are in teaching history. "Sure, we'll go in-depth with copyright law because we're getting kickbacks, but only give a passing glance at how the rest of the government really works and the mechanic behind it and its creation..." I mean cripes, it's obvious from the last election that half the population of the United States doesn't even know what the electoral college is, let alone its purpose.
WHY this is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Through the 20th Century record companies controlled who was able to publish recorded music because the technology to do it was expensive. They could keep this control in the 21st Century by controlling the use of the newest media technology through rights-holding. That's why this school indoctrination thing is evil. The idea of copyrights and patents may not be all that bad, but it's been badly subverted. Intellectual Property laws need to be fixed, not worshipped. Letting the entertainment industry come into schools and shove their agenda down kids throats is a very, very bad idea.