MPAA Funds School Programs In Copyright Dogma 514
Matthew Skala writes "This article from the Boston Globe describes the 'What's The Diff?' program, in which U.S. students and teachers can win prizes by learning to endorse the MPAA's version of copyright law. They're using volunteer labour from Junior Achievement - not an organization I would have expected to see doing this kind of thing. I guess I'll have to move its card over in my mental Illuminati: New World Order game."
Dogma (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Dogma (Score:3, Insightful)
School is all about dogma. "Swallow this and then regurgitate it at exam time."
The merchants of cool (do what we say, it's cool) are all about dogma. Of course they will try to use it to modify our behavior, it usually works quite well.
It's ironic that teachers/schools routinely push "fair use" to the breaking point. So, will the kids listen to the short-lived spew from MPAA, or will they learn by watching their teacher's example?
Re:Dogma (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether it's freely available or not, they're making no effort to point out that there are literally gigabytes or terrabytes of data that you can freely copy and distribute to your hearts content and are instead trying to bring it down to a simple point of "if you didn't pay for it then you must have stolen it"... and that's wrong.
Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education. I guess that's the price you pay for progress though. I hear they're moving onto aversion therapy next - "just put this down your pants lad, no it doesn't matter where, trust us, we know what we're doing..." ZZZAAAPPP
Doesn't this also count as political education - I mean the MPAA/RIAA are making a big deal about buying senators and so on to fight their "cause". You'd have thought they couldn't have their cake and eat it!
Oh well, it's a damn sight better than the UK at the moment anyway, with the mad blind fascist Josef Blunkett attempting to ID all and sundry
Simon
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's weird is that I actually use to believe those words, but now that I'm an adult it's like Santa and the Easter Bunny. What happened? Where did I lose faith and why? Are those corporate liars proud of the fact that they made me doubt those words?
Say it again... slowly... with feeling.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Informative)
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:4, Informative)
Commie. [religioustolerance.org]
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma. [ffrf.org]
The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
To an atheist, it's clearly unconstitutional to have the state push people to make a clearly untrue statement (that God exists).
Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists". Unfortunately we have a surplus of Christian nutcases who are incapable of accepting the plain text of the First Amendment.
What is Christianity? (Score:3, Insightful)
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christian
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them. That's the whole point of any religion. If it were a fact and not a belief then it would be a science and not a religion, and you woulndn't need faith to believe it.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all. It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that cannot be proven. A fact does not only become a fact when it is proven. A fact has always been a fact, no matter who doesn't know it.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Interesting)
At best its a hypothesis that god exists. A conjecture at least, but not a fact as there is not even circumstantial evidence to allow anyone to entertain that god exists...as a fact.
A distance star is a fact to many, to a reasonable degree of certainty, as it has evidence that it exists which in plain view. D
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you have the Republicans to thank, since they are the ones who allowed the "under God" reference to be added in 1954. Congress passed it [vineyard.net], but Eisenhower [whitehouse.gov] should have vetoed it. Since try, thank you for trolling.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Informative)
No it's not. The 9th Circuit ruled the "under God" bit unconstitutional, but even that's been stayed until the Supreme Court makes its decision. The only thing unconstitutional is forcing people to say it.
Score:-1, Conservative
Please don't tarnish conservatives by associating with us.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof,". I think it's pretty clear that "respecting an establishment of religion" was exactly what Congress intended. This becomes especially clear when you put it in its historical context. This was the time of the "red scare". Communism was the demon of the day. The characteristic that (predominantly Christian) Americans most despised about communism was its official adoption of Atheism. In reaction to that, and to gain political favor at home, Congress made several moves to officially distance the US from the "godlessness" of communism. Freedom of religion is something the US already had (at least officially), so there was nothing to be gained by pushing neutrality or freedom. What the politicians needed in order to win votes was to take a decidedly pro-religious stance, and to favor mainstream religion as much as they could get away with, constitution be damned. "In God We Trust" on the money was another facet of this same effort.
Some will argue that these are OK because they don't specify which god. But seriously, who really believes that Congress intended anything other than the Judeo-Christian God? And how many gods are actually named "God"? (Note the capitalization in the Pledge of Allegiance) To put it in perspective, "one nation under gods" doesn't specify which gods, and "one nation under goddess" doesn't specify which goddess. So by the same argument those should also be considered neutral and clear of any First Amendment complications. Right? Somehow I suspect that the people who are defending the "God" addenda are the ones who would howl the loudest if either of those phrases were in the Pledge. And they should howl about it because those are clearly biased against monotheistic and patriarchal religions, and also against atheism, agnosticism, and just simple non-religiousness. It's just that if they could see past their own religious bias they would be howling about it now because of the clear bias against polytheistic religions, matriarchal religions, atheism, etc. That "In God We Trust" and "under God" deprecate the views of those who do not believe in any gods is particularly hard to counter since it's pretty obvious from the historical context that this is exactly what they were intended to do.
So, regardless of any court's ruling, it is as clear as the nose on your face that the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance as well as "In God We Trust" on the currency is now and has always been unconstitutional.
I believe the only reason these continue to be is that they are political land mines that can blow up in the face of any politician who dares to try to set it right, or even just to speak the truth about it.
This is why there can be no honest politicians. As long as the majority of the populace is unable to be honest even with themselves and put truth above popularity, no honest man can ever be elected.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Funny)
But I'm just weird like that.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:4, Funny)
And I always thought it was, "and to the Republic for Richard Stanz".
You learn something new everyday on Slashdot.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. From the article: "Students learn to repeat the program's motto: 'If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it.'" That's just wrong for too many reasons to count.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:3, Interesting)
or, use it and turn it around (Score:3, Insightful)
On this propoganda piece, get them to send you the stuff, then turn it around on them, show how they were trying to use and abuse the kids (examples such as mnemonics used as a conditioning agent, using imagery to invoke an emotional reaction not in line with reality,use of word "piracy", leaving out the fact they have been busted and convicted many times for payola bribery, collusion industry wide to fix prices at obscene profit levels, abuse of the artists with loan programs based on unreasonable expecta
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the words of Pink Floyd (Score:5, Interesting)
"We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control"
Re:In the words of Pink Floyd (Score:5, Funny)
"We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control"
Yeah, I just downloaded that one. It's really cool.
Re:In the words of Pink Floyd (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, this is terrible. (Score:3, Troll)
Re:Wow, this is terrible. (Score:3, Informative)
You can tape shows off the air and swap them with your friends.
Re:Wow, this is terrible. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, this is terrible. (Score:3, Informative)
No mention is made of legal MP3s, fair use doctrine or indeed any part of copyright law which doesn't agree with the RIAA.
Outrageous (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, they would be talking about something which is illegal, but that doesn't make this right. The children and parents should have time to discuss things like this and make their own decisions, without being misguided by the people who want to make money.
It sort of reminds me of this "War on Drugs", except the "War on Drugs" is actually more reasonable.
Re:Outrageous (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Outrageous (Score:5, Interesting)
The smarter ones;
1. Will see the $ advantages of downloading stuff.
2. Will question what teachers feed them ("Is it stealing?" or "Is this worse than speeding like everyone does?" or "Don't we have something better to do?")
3. Will just do it for the cash and prizes but not really believe in it.
4. Will just see through corporate crap and start to make fun of it.
5. Will look at the arguments against stealing from the pockets of artists and ask themselves "Does this person look like he/she is hurting?"
Re:Outrageous (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they're brainwashing kids into thinking that things which aren't illegal actually are (fair use). Read the article.
Re:Outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, and this is why it is so frightening. If all you know about rights is what some corporation tells you, if you don't know what your rights actually are, then do they even exist? Not for you they don't.
Your kids are being fed to corporate interests, who are trying to prevent them from really understanding what rights they have. This here is an actual threat to liberty. When does the bombing campaign start?
Re:Outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Outrageous (Score:5, Interesting)
What the USA needs is a bunch of revolutionaries (soon to be branded terrorists), who would compensate their lack of money with personal energy and motivation. Kind of another King. EFF is not adequate to the threat, they are too soft. Someone should start a militant wing of EFF, with bombs, assassinations, self-immolations and stuff. This isn't some radical idea - everyone is doing it (IRA, Al Quaeda, etc.) - a front (party, organisation) for legitimate action and a group of fighters.
Re:Outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
- Oh dear. I see here that he gained three watchlist points just last week. For this we have to give him, hm.. say five additional points.
- 75 points, that just tipped him over the scale for manual phone monitoring, sir. Do you really think that is called for? The sampled transcripts from his previous calls and letters...
- Now, now, lad. We can't be too careful these days. Before we know it we might have him sitting in a clock tower with a rifle.
Re:Outrageous (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't believe me? So go search the internet for "lesson plans" together with "homosexual" or "lesbian" or "transsexual" or "ecology" or "GLEN" "animal rights" or "immigration" or "zionism" or "Israel" or "civil rights" or "hate speech" and you will find thousands of propaganda sites just stuffed with free propa
Re:Outrageous (Score:4, Funny)
The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:4, Insightful)
That is so incredibly wrong I don't even know where to start.
Have I stolen the contents of the Harddrive on my linux box?
Have I stolen the concerts I downloaded from etree?
Have I stolen the toys I picked up at the last trade show I went to?
And the worst part is that young kids are really prone to being manipulated and indocternated.
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:5, Funny)
> ''If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it."
Ahem, if I *tried* to pay my gf for sex she'd more more than a little P.O.ed.
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:2)
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:5, Informative)
"Students learn to repeat the program's motto: ''If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it."
That is so incredibly wrong I don't even know where to start.
Don't forget: "...students are asked to write an essay 'to get the word out that downloading copyrighted entertainment is illegal and unethical,'"
Its so easy to find an example [machinaesupremacy.com] of copyrighted music free for download that isn't illegal.
If they had this program when I went to school, I'd probably have been suspended for subversion.
Re:It's a bizarre request anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct though that less overtly it happens a lot. Seems to happen in both "conservative" and "liberal" areas, though the "liberal" ones seem to be worse: lots of classes in Women's Studies departments on abortion, for example, start with the assumption that abortion is fully mor
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:5, Insightful)
- What if somebody gives you something?
- Are we stealing slashdot bandwidth and diskspace by posting here?
- Did anybody steal the sunshine on their faces, or the air they breathe?
- And, are the kids paying for this MPAA-sponsored class?
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to just rant and rant. I will, however, try to restrain myself.
The most important question here, in my view, is this: Why the hell are corporations and 'business groups' teaching classes to kids anyway? Well, obviously because they see an advantage in it. So let me rephrase that: Why the hell are they allowed to do this? This is basically nothing more than advertising delivered directly at the kids, and hey, get this: They can't ignore it, because it's happening in their school, which they are legally required to attend!
There is something fundamentally wrong when publically funded, mandatory education is subsidized by private corporations in order to spread their own agendas. And 'best' of all, it's usually the poorest schools that end up simply needing to do something like this, just to afford basic necessities.
Allright, so this has probably been a rant. But it needed to be said. Just one more thing: Just how is this class learning? How can anything so biased, so value-laden, be classified as learning? I for one, am obviously a little to unimaginative to see that ...
The Three R's (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait isn't education suppose to be about teaching students the basic skills of living? I agree that the theft of music etc. is excessive.
Except...
a)there is evidence that theft of music has a minimal negative effect, and might even have a possitive effect.
b)companies should not have the right to engage in vigilanty justice.
c)companies should Not dictate to our education system.
d)the statement that theft of music will lead to a world w/out music is the most ridiculous lie I've ever heard.
What hap
Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning (Score:3, Interesting)
Hold on guys, this isn't the argument to put forth. The response will simply be "we're talking about downloading of copyrighted content, not stuff that's given away."
Focus on this instead: The MPAA (or the RIAA for that matter) does not have the proper view of when something is paid for. For example, they equate the increase in CDRs sold as an inc
Using children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Using children? (Score:3, Funny)
Just like DARE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that this program will have similar results; Little Suzie says "I'll never download, that's bad" at school then goes home and gets the whole new Britney Spears album because, ya know, it's free!
Also, this part is particularly interesting:
The ''fair use" doctrine allows the public to use copyrighted material for educational purposes. One can use another's work to parody, review, or critique that material. You can even legally swap material, as long as it's not for commercial gain, said Seltzer. ''People tape movies on their VCRs and swap it with friends without getting arrested for piracy," she said.
so, by that logic, all P2P is legal. I'm not getting any commercial by sharing files out, nor are the people that I download from. What's the diff in having 3 friends that swap movies off HBO or 3 Billion friends swapping some AC/DC albums?
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't be too quick to say that this sort of thing will fail - programs like this can work remarkably well on a resonably large percentage.
Just look at how well fnord other schemes fnord have fnord worked.
Jedidiah.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:5, Funny)
--www.bash.org
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a huge difference, and because people like you don't realize that, the MPAA feels the need to educate children in copyright laws.
When I "share" my taped movie with a friend, I am giving him my only copy of it. While he has the tape, I don't have it, therefore
oh, about... (Score:5, Funny)
2,999,999,997 people.
*snicker*
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a matter of degrees, but you're wrong about which degrees. Regardless of your misinformed opinion, it is actually legal for you to tape a show off HBO, and it is legal for you to lend that tape to a friend. The degree part comes in because the law is fuzzy and ill-defined as to the point where increased volume of copying and sharing actually becomes illegal.
To repeat: most people are not currently bre
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh man, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a study to back that one up.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I sat through DARE. As someone who has NEVER used illegal drugs, (though plenty of my friends did), I thought it was a waste of time. My friends did too, though for a different reason.
The truth is simple: if you aren't into drugs, chances are you think "who cares, I don't do em anyways" and if you are you think, "that moron doesn't know jack!"
Personally, I think it's fallacious to think that these programs have that much influence when presented to large groups.
If you want to change someones attitude about something, small (2-4) groups work best. It is also best to have a peer do the talking, not some cop.
The same applies to the MPAA. If they want to change kids attitudes, they have to get kids who care, and are considered cool by the target group.
This is hard, because those mostly likely to get movies are not likely to think anyone who is against it is cool without some serious groundwork.
DARE is a crock... (Score:4, Insightful)
A *LOT* of kids learned from DARE. They just didn't learn the lesson their teachers and the police expected. The course may be diffrent now, but back when I was an elementary and middle-school student (10-15 years ago), the emphasis was on shocking the kids into obedience, not giving them real information. The first lesson we learned was that drugs will mess you up, destroy your life, and eventually kill you. Then we had friends who smoked a little weed and didn't get addicted, messed up, or killed. Then we learned the real lesson of DARE: Our teachers, our school principals, the police, Nancy Reagan, and that girl on TV with the frying pan lied to us all through our childhood.
Distinction between downloading and piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
This is great... (Score:2, Interesting)
*ahem* Yeah, whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even little ones are all over music/movie piracy. They already know the thrill of getting something for free rather than asking your parents to buy it.
That thrill and the associated material benefit far outweighs anything the RIAA/MPAA or teachers can do to endorse a strict policy of legal distribution.
Re:*ahem* Yeah, whatever. (Score:4, Interesting)
Kids are some of the sneakiest people alive. (This is not open for debate. We were all kids once.)
This is open for debate. Just because you were a sneaky kid doesn't mean that I was.
When I was a teen, there were always those adults who were hell-raisers when they were my age. They'd look at me with a 'knowing' eye and tell me that I couldn't fool them, they were a kid once.
I didn't like it then, and now, that I'm an adult, I still don't like it.
I didn't drink, smoke, or do drugs as a teen. I didn't lie to my parents or steal. I had good grades, and obeyed the law.
Stereotypes are bad, no matter who they are applied to.
Re:*ahem* Yeah, whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
I spent my whole childhood thinking that rules were there for a reason. Rules were there to protect us, to keep us safe from terrible dangers, and to keep us working towards becoming the best people we could possibly be. To me, rule-breakers were slime. They were worse than slime. They were violating the Great Social Contract that kept everyone from setting fire to old ladies and blowing up kittens.
After high school, I joined the Army. Learning a whole new and intricate set of rules was an interesting experience. I followed the rules dutifully, but ninety percent of the rules governing soldiers in Basic Training are there solely for the purpose of teaching the soldiers to obey without questioning. The need for that obedience is understandable in some situations. The military is just one of those places where sometimes lives depend on swift, coordinated action.
But in the end, I realized that sometimes the rules were wrong, arbitrary, self-serving, or simply lacking in coherence. Sometimes the process by which the rules are made exhibits the same flaws. Enforcement was either non-existent or arbitrary, and breaking them was more than merely harmless; sometimes it was the only way to get things done.
About the same time, I was becoming aware of the effects of being raised in an extremely rule-oriented religion.
Unquestioning obedience is fine for four year olds. But as soon as possible, kids need to be given explanations for the rules, to the best of their ability to understand. If they don't learn the difference between good rules* and bad rules**, then we're all doomed. The whole democracy thing doesn't work if everyone just does what they're told.
I worry almost as much for the kids who follow the rules compulsively, and are afraid to do anything without explicit permission, as I do for the ones who go around vandalizing and stealing out of boredom. I like the kids who creatively push the limits, game the system, and question those who wield power over them. Especially if they show some level of judgment about the actions that will do real damage, as opposed to the ones that merely make things more interesting.
* Don't set fire to old ladies. Never give your passwords out.
** You must request permission to go to the bathroom, and be back in precisely three minutes.
At least they're not suing them. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:At least they're not suing them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Orwell is teh r0x0rz.
Collision of worldviews (Score:5, Insightful)
What they need is a presentation on how to create content that can be legally shared (history of GNU, Creative Commons, and so on).
There is no MPAA version of copyright law (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder. (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, this is of course just hypothetical, since after all, how many slashbots actually have kids
What's missing... (section 107) (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it doesn't cover all aspects of copyright law. They seem to have forgotten about section 107 (fair use).
It'll be as effective as the war on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
But consider the following:
1. Low income children do not have the access to computers and network connections that more well-to-do children have. I doubt, therefore, that they're reaching their target audience.
2. What's more effective at influencing behavior, some JA instructor or your cool friends giving you a copy of the latest hit song/album that they ripped off the net?
3. One sided propaganda campaigns may make people feel good, but they gloss over serious issues (ie, copyright, fair use, etc) and end up breeding a ridiculous environment in which people claim to want such rules and laws yet break them anyway.
All of this sounds a lot like the war on drugs. We have our "just say no" campaigns in schools, celebrities tell us to stay off the drugs, and we make all these claims about how bad drugs are for you while ignoring or outright suppressing the truth about their effects as we trample civil liberties. And just how effective is that?
Update: 1933 (Score:3, Funny)
Honestly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Mass-produced CDs have a unit cost of a couple of pence/cents.
2. Many musicians never get signed to a major label, and thus never get any of their music in stores or on the radio.
3. The musicians who are signed to a major label are sidelined by whatever the label thinks will sell - eg. Britney Spears.
4. The label charges the artist for the privilege of advertising & distribution. So much so that in order to make $1,000,000 the artist may have to pay various suits $900,000.
5. The Internet eliminates parts 2-4 - if you want to ensure everything's fair, a bunch of artists could easily set up some sort of a "co-operative" to market their songs over the web, charging a nominal fee for the song and giving most of it for the artist, only keeping a relatively small amount back for bandwidth and system maintenance. The only reason this hasn't happened more is the dot-com boom has taught us that such things are very difficult to market successfully.
6. The RIAA is well aware of point 5. If it actually takes off, their entire business model evaporates.
7. The RIAA is therefore doing everything in their power to prevent this from happening. Brainwashing people that "MP3s are Evil!" is vital to this.
Effective teaching (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember one time in high school (several years ago) we had a policeman come in to talk to us about drugs. He actually talked to us sensibly, rather than enforcing a "drugs are evil and if you use them youll go to hell" idea.
I cant rememeber most of it, but I do remember 2 things he said: (which is pretty impressive)
a) if you want to do drugs, fine. Do NOT do heroin and cocaine. They will fuck you up.
b) Dont inhale sprays. Some girl sprayed aerosol directly into the back of her throat, and the cold caused her throat to contract and she suffocated.
So there you go. Teaching kids the IMPORTANT things, rather than blanket bombing everything you dont like.
Daria-ism (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketdriod: Well, you might say so, and I'm sure I'd agree with you but unfortunately that won't hold up in court.
School Principal: Huh?
Marketdriod: The idea wasn't making the product available to the students. It was making the students available to the product. The Ultra Cola people say your sales aren't what they should be. You do want to make your quotas, don't you? Or the school won't get that nice big check.
The schools aren't making a lesson available to the kids.
The schools are making the kids available to the lesson.
-
Re:Daria-ism (Score:3, Insightful)
The schools are making the kids available to the lesson.
I couldn't have thought of a better way to put it. This isn't about education, it's about "teaching" the potential market to think a certain way. And what better place to find a bunch of little market-units than in a school?
Ok, I just had to bring this up ... (Score:3, Funny)
What "great examples" to get into school... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bah.
What next, will they have NAMBLA come and tell the kids their interpretation of age-of-consent laws? How about letting the KKK educate the kids about how laws regarding blacks should be?
Role-playing (Score:5, Funny)
Do they have one kid dress up in a suit, steal everyone's money, and drive away in a Porsche? Because we need a Jack Valenti.
--
As the man said... (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to disagree...
Industry reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a different view of this is that if a generation of children is allowed to grow up thinking that music, movies, software and anything else they can find on the Internet is there for the taking we are looking at some fundamental changes in both our way of life and our economy. And this applies not just to the USA but to Europe, Australia and (probably) Japan as well.
For example, what use is there in having a library when all books are free? Why would anyone donate books to a library or check off a box when the vote to fund a library with more tax dollars? Assuming the library actually pays for their books, music, art and so on, wouldn't we have a generation of people just thinking that was stupid?
Folks talk about how buying music is funding an obsolete distribution model and nothing really goes to the artist. Fine - if you have a high-speed Internet connection, maybe you can make the decision to "only download" music and never buy another CD. What if you don't have that connection? What about the folks that need to spend that $50 a month on food rather than the Internet? There are still a large number of people (more than 50% in the US I believe) that do not have access to the Internet at all at home or work. Sure, they can go to the library - but I thought we were closing the libraries as obsolete anyway.
I think there are a lot of issues here before it can be assumed that physical distribution is obsolete.
Anyway, if we aren't to raise an entire generation thinking that anything that can be distributed digitally should be free, then it makes sense that eventually all industry groups associated with anything covered by copyright will be promoting their cause in schools and anywhere else they can get a forum. This is their last hope for the future, folks. If they cannot succeed in convincing people that their ownership/property rights/copyright/whatever means something then we need to start figuring out what the effects are going to be and how to deal with them right now. All I've seen here is the blanket assumption that
- There will be no serious effects
- Artists will be compensated, somehow.
- Creative works will still get made for the joy of doing it, not for some dirty profit.
- Maybe there will be no effects at all...
I think we need to think this through a lot more before deciding this. The potential consequences are there and some discussion of how to adapt is worthwhile.Convice one generation the world is flat.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Leave your comments.... (Score:4, Informative)
"Tell what you liked, didn't like, would like to see more or less of, whatever is on your mind."
Guestbook here [ja.org].
Re:Leave your comments.... (Score:3)
http://www.ja.org/about/about_res_guestbk.shtml#
If you leave comments concerning the issue on their own site it's more than likely to have at least some chilling effect on their policy and might even cause JA support to be removed from the classes making them at the very least a little less effective.
Remember: indoctrination and questionable ethics
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, I don't see anything new here at all. Yeah, there's way too much corporate influence in the classroom - so let's talk about all those schools that have replaced milk machines and cafeteria lines with soda and sandwich vending machines and made the Nike swoosh part of their campus decor.
When I was in the sixth grade I was grounded from recesses for weeks because I started a petition for longer recesses. an innocent bit of play snowballed within a day and soon there were dozens of handwritten copies of my petition circulating in classrooms. When they found out it was me who started it, rather than take the opportunity to demonstrate real world governenace, I instead got a lecture and made to write something stupid like "I will not create disturbances in class." Which, ironically, means I really did get a lesson in the real world - unfortunately, not the real world as we had been told in the classroom (petitioning the government, speaking out, etc). Obviously this real lesson had a lasting effect on me, as I still can't remember what it was I was supposed to write but the message sent still rings clear 30 years later: don't try to buck the man or you'll get stepped upon.
This program is certain to spawn a new generation of adults with similar memories. Indoctrination of this sort is doomed to fail as soon as the child begins to realize she can think for herself.
Now, getting back to those school lunches and corporate sports programs...
Re:Nothing new (Score:3)
There's one big difference between the vending machines, the everpresent Nike swoosh and writing an essay about why free is stealing.
The latter is a written commitment to a belief. Even if you're just doing it for a grade, it has a profoundly influencing effect. For more information, read Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion. This is a similar technique to what was used by communist China on American POW's during the Korean war. It was amazingly effective.
The basic principle is that people wish to be
Parody (Score:4, Funny)
coke parody [bbspot.com] - this is a parody of the MPAA actions in schools. Rather funny, once you read it all.
this reminds me of "Don't copy that floppy" rap (Score:5, Informative)
very amusing
*Shrug* I should divx that and put it up somewhere... (they actualy give you permission to redistribute THAT PSA turd ironically enough...)
e.
What we teach... (Score:4, Funny)
Upon further reading, I realized that they did teach the kids a usable skill...
They tought a room full of kids who have never downloaded anything how to pirate. The even used a manual. Leave it to the entertainment industry to teach what they are trying to control.Oh well, nothing to see here...
Things like these (Score:3, Interesting)
I just called my little brother up and told him to IMMEDIATELY let me know if they start anything like that at his school. I told him why what they are doing is wrong (he didn't see a problem with a company paying to have their corporate interests taught as lesson in school), and that I would give him a list of questions/topics to bring up in class if they tried to push any of this stuff on him.
So what sorts of questions/comments would you guys bring up if you were in this class, if you wanted to poke holes in it and rally the class behind you?
Re:WTF?! (Score:3, Interesting)
That was the main thing that kept this kind of group out of my high school, the fact that somebody would complain in front of the local school comittee at an otherwise quiet meeting, and therefore get a make-the-school-look-bad story in the local newspaper.