File-Sharing Ethics Taught In Classrooms?

shams42 writes "According to the New York Times, the movie/record industries are taking their concerns about P2P file sharing into the classroom (free reg. req.) Among other activities, they are planning to play a game called 'Starving Artist' with 5th-9th graders, where students come up with an idea for a record album, cover art, and lyrics only to be told by teachers that the album is already available for download for free."

Yeah, I've got a game too.

I think I'm going to brainwash little kids too.

We'll play a game called "Let's sue 12-year old girls!"

Re:If they're breaking the law....

> Why are they always suing in civil proceedings rather than prosecuting with a criminal trial?

Because - for the zillionth time - copy right infringement is not theft, and not a criminal offence [netjus.org]. It is copy right infringement, an actionable matter carrying fixed penalties. Some associated activities are criminal: screwing with your cable connection, DMCA violations. But purely copying the data is not a criminal offence.

Is that enough italics, or do we need to go over this again?

Re:If they're breaking the law....

Ouch, sorry. About 2.2 milliseconds after hitting "Submit", I realised that you were actually asking that question. Sorry for attaching my rant to your post.

For what it's worth, I agree. Intellectual Property law needs to be revisited and some consistency brought to it. Why, for example, is it a criminal offence simply to obtain or supply a tool to break the encryption on a DVD? Why is it not a criminal offence to actually create or even use the tool to make a copy? Why is it a criminal offence to produce and sell shirts with a trademarked Nike logo, but not a criminal offence to sell copied CDs?

The only aspect of the RIAA's position with which I have the slightest sympathy is that they really do have to educate people about this area of the law. However, the fact that they're lying about it (consistently calling copy right infringement "theft") disinclines me to cut them any slack.

There are criminal penalties for levels

There are criminal penalties for certain levels of copying. See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.

Re:If they're breaking the law....

That's not exactly true. Copyright infringement is actionable in a civil lawsuit (by the copyright owner) or in a criminal lawsuit (prosecuted by the US government). You should check out the the copyright act's section 506. It's a higher burden to prove criminal copyright infringement (you have to infringe "willfully"), but it still happens, and not just for cable, DMCA, etc. The bottom line is that the labels are suing because they have the money to do it and they can control the legal strategy. Also, the US government may not want to sue because it has other priorities (and a more limited budget).

Re:Yeah, I've got a game too.

60 million people also speed, but only because they can get away with it.

No, it's because they realise that speeding, in and of itself, is not "wrong". It's only when you drive too fast (note: this might actually be under the speed limit) for the conditions, that you are doing something "wrong" - ie: driving dangerously/without due care/recklessly/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

It's wrong, it's dangerous and it kills people, but you wouldn't speed if you knew that you would get caught every time.

This statement raises an excellent point (no, it's not the first part, which is just anti-speed rhetoric). The only way the "establishment" can actually hope to enforce unreasonable laws is by making detection a certainty and/or making the punishment vastly disproportionate to the "crime" and thus overpower any possible "benefit" that might reduce the "cost". Otherwise people continue to do what their little inbuilt morals and ethics meters tell them aren't "wrong" (which is how morals and ethics get defined in the first place).

Incidentally, it's the same reasoning that explains why the death penalty is not an effective deterrant, but I digress.

So, in the case of speeding we have (at least here in Australia) these wonderful little boxes that get hidden on the side of the road. If they detect you're over the limit, they photograph your number plate. Sometime afterwards the owner of the car is sent a fine in the mail, with zero effective chance of being able to avoid paying it unless he can somehow find someone else to admit to driving. Even if the owner can prove he wasn't driving, he still has to pay the fine if he cannot identify the actual driver at the time of the alleged offence.

Unsurprisingly (at least to anyone with some knowledge in road safety), the effect on the number of casualties on our roads has been zero. Indeed, I believe the number has actually been rising since the devices became widespread. They have, however, raised millions of dollars in revenue and some states actually rely on this revenue to balance their books - and when the books become unbalanced, they just lower the tolerances on the cameras and/or increase the fines. But, again, I digress.

We see the other variation on the philosophy with the RIAA's methods, only instead of the "guaranteed detection" route, they're starting with the "disproportionate punishment" route (although simultaneously trying to make the "guaranteed detection" method feasible by having appropriate laws passed).

Anyway, the underlying moral here is that most people won't break laws they consider to be reasonable and just. Laws that are getting broken by lots of people, are getting broken for a reason.

Re:Yeah, I've got a game too.

Incidentally, it's the same reasoning that explains why the death penalty is not an effective deterrant, but I digress.

100% of all people that the death penalty has been used on, have never committed again.

Re:Yeah, I've got a game too.

Because the compensation greatly outweighs the service. I see no problem with fair and equitable trades, no matter what the service. Unfortunately, the music labels are screwing both the artists and the consumers with inflated prices for overhyped crap and unfair contracts. And now that both of the latter have, through new technologies, a means to bypass the former altogether, they are resorting to bullying and threats to maintain their position.

Real commerce is sustained by providing something that attracts your customers to buy from you. It does not include lawsuits, and now lame, biased brainwashing of children (thank $DIETY my kids are homeschooled), to force people to deal with them.

People are voting with their wallets. The record industry needs to either listen and adjust how the practice their trade to attract customers back, or they will die. Crap like this article describes will only piss people off and drive them away even more.

My $0.02

They're Doing It Wrong

Listen, if I'm sitting in the catbird's seat at a major label, I wouldn't be punking these kids out about how filesharing hurts artists, I'd be showing them how the pros do it - legally.

Vanishing royalties, recoupable expenses, double-standard accounting, ball-gripper contracts, long-term litigation - by the time these kids are finished with the class, they'll be dying to work in the industry instead of in front of it as performers. Screw the multiplication table, show 'em how to do math using the Royalty Calculator. [mosesavalon.com] Those proficiency tests will get hammered, at least mathematically.

Anyways, your mileage may vary.

Peace.

Great Point

So who consumes a larger chunk of the total revenue from a record -- the filesharers or the RIAA members?

And the "marketing is expensive" line that publishers use is amazing. Yes, that's what you do, RIAA folks -- market records. You're expensive. Nobody is arguing with you there.

Gee....

I wonder if they tell the kids the artists are starving since the RIAA gives them $0.00000083 for every CD sold.

Re:Gee....

Probably not.

This page [business2.com] provides interesting info on who makes how much money on each US$1 download song. (secure site, but apparently you don't have to pay.

I should start a download site myself.

Re:Gee....

Not only that, but typically the artists actually owe money to the record company for the recording, unless they are a huge success. Getting signed to a label is basically getting approved for a high-risk loan, except that you don't get to control the money you borrow, they take their money before it gets to you, and they get to keep the collateral (copyright) even after you do pay them back. It would be a whole lot better for an artist to just get a loan from a bank and pay for the recording and promotion themself. Unfortunately (or fortunately for other customers), they're not likely to get approved for such a large loan (>$100K-$1M) with little or no collateral.

Re:Gee....

I wonder if they tell the kids the artists are starving since the RIAA gives them $0.00000083 for every CD sold.

It's worse than that [salon.com]. Though, there's plenty to learn about math and piracy, no file sharing necessary. Here's a taste:

Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.

If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.

Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!

How much does the record company make?

They grossed $11 million.

...

Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.

So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.

Odd Mathematics...

> Given the amounts the artists have to pay out of their advance on basic expenses, there'd be a hell of a lot of bankrupt artists around if most of them had to pay their advances back! It doesn't work like that, few if any artists would even sign up if it did.

Um, there are a hell of a lot of bankrupt artists out there, and they do have to pay the advance back. See, the contract is written to work royalty recoup before expenses. In the example, the band gets fronted $1M for the record, and they hit the studio. Expenses end up on top of that (say $200K). Now, when the record starts to sell, the record company pays the band 20 percent of the proceeds, but then takes it back to recoup the original $1M. If the record grosses $5M, they recoup the entirety of the advance. Now why that doesn't count as having to pay it back is only academic. It's true that the band doesn't have to pay it back if royalties don't cover the advance, but they still have to pay it back before they make any money.

Oh, and did you forget the $200K in additional expenses? If the record makes $4M, not a dime of the $200K is paid off, and that money is indeed recoverable, which means that the record company makes $2.8M (that's the $4M in sales minus the $1M advance minus the $200K) and can sue the band for the $200K expenses (but not the leftover $200K in unrecouped advance), which forces the band to declare bankruptcy and break up, never to perform under the now-defunct name again. Since they got advanced $200K that they never repaid, assuming five members in the band, they each made $40K for one year, and had to drop the band at the end of that one year. The national average for a manager at a convenience store in the U.S. is $38K a year, and you get to keep the job from year to year, and you get a benefits package.

Not pretty, is it?

Virg

But then what attracts these bands?

"So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven."

If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts, and 7-Elevens would be inundated with job applications from band members who didn't make any money.

But of course, there never seems to be a shortage of new bands polluting the airwaves, so I have to conclude that either your facts aren't entirely true, or aren't entirely complete. Afterall, SOMETHING is driving these bands to aspire for a big contract, and it's not poverty.

Re:But then what attracts these bands?

>If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts

Only if wildly optimistic kids:

1. Don't believe it.
2. Don't believe that it applies to them.

Personally, I blame a system that tells kids that they can all be exceptional. It's very motivating and all, but the problem is that so many of them seem to actually believe it.

Re:But then what attracts these bands?

Well, I think the problem here is that you don't understand music very much.

YOU: "Bands wouldn't sign contracts to produce albums if they didn't make money."

History: Music has been made, for free, for several thousand years. Musicians have lived off of tips and patronidge and "day jobs" forver. Music is not about money. The music INDUSTRY, which feeds your CD shop and your radio, is about money. The two aren't necesarily exclusive, but it seems that way a lot of the time.

If you are in a band, making what you feel is the best music ever played (and all musicians do), and I tell you that I will give you money and you'll get fame and airplay, and you can quit your day job because of the advance, wouldn't you do it?

Musicians are interested in music, not money. They see the advance check and don't do the math. $100,000 to make music? Better than mopping up at the A&P, so they take it. This makes sense...would cautious, sensible economic planners be humping electric guitars on stage 5 nights a week until 2 am and doing crazy drugs when they have to work at 9 am the next morning? Hell no.

Still, with a big label contract, there's always the chance you'll be the next big thing. And then they make SCADS of cash. This is why so many acts sound alike...even if your sound is fresh and original, your producer reminds you you'll have a better chance of getting BIG if you sound more "commercial." End result is, you trade a little creativity for the possibility of never having to work again, ostensibly so you can regain your creativity after you're comfortably rich. You sell out. The result is the bands you hear "polluting" the airwaves. Yes, they are in it for the cash grab. But it's a big lottery and like all gambling, the chances are much better that you'll fail miserably.

People play music because they want to appeal to others with their music. They take contracts because they are told they will make doing just that. In the process, the goal of making money can often obscure the goal of being heard, and even if it doesn't, chance is not on your side. Chances are, with a big label contract, you will make very little money in the long run, and you'll probably squander it anyway.

Nowadays a lot of artists, especially ones who want to play their own thing and not appeal to the masses with generic sound, are opting not to get the big advances and small print of the big record label. Small labels will press your sound and give you a much larger cut but with no promotion, no advance, no whatever. You have to self promote, appeal to the few remaining independent media outlets, and you have to pack people into your shows. Still, you will never have the exposure of the big boys, so it's very hard to get gold or platinum level sales. But it's much more likely that you'll make enough to live on comfortably.

Re:But then what attracts these bands?

If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts, and 7-Elevens would be inundated with job applications from band members who didn't make any money.

You'd think so, but that would require that everyone who is an aspiring artist knows about what happens to people who sign record contracts. And as an aspiring artist who knows several other aspiring artists, I can tell you that there is no shortage of people who have no idea whatsoever what happens, and they don't want to know. All they see is Avril coming from small town Canada and making it big with tons of nubile fans and money coming their way. That is the dream they pursue.

Not everyone reads Slashdot and sees this stuff multiple times per week. And one doesn't learn it by sitting around writing music and occasionally tuning in to MTV or Fox News.

Re:Gee....

Wow! You must listen to some REALLLLLLLLY stupid artists.

The artists I work for that have major label deals all make between $1 and $2 and album.

The guys that I work for that do their own stuff -- pay for all their studio time out of their pocket, pay their managers completely out of their pocket, do all their own promotion, arrange distribution through the various means -- make considerably more than that.

Funny thing...the two guys that I consider to be equal amongst my clients make almost the same each year. One major, the other independent. One tours with a 12 piece band and puts on KILLER shows...the other puts on an acoustic show with him and MAYBE 2 others if he's feeling like it. Both are friends (I met the one through the other as he'd mentioned his friend needing help on his ProTools system)...and both privately tell me that if they were in the others shoes they would milk the system so bad that they would be mad rich.

So what would you prefer? $1.00 per album on 2 million sales? Or $7 on 30k of albums (and STILL have to split songwriting with Harry Fox doing the accounting and taking their chunk because they bill ya directly because you don't work with a label)?

There are advantages and disadvantages to all of this. I have never read a contract that wasn't clear. I've worked with a few artists that didn't read the contract and then complained about it. I've worked with artists that don't even want to know what's in their contract. Hell, I worked a video shoot a few weekends ago and a few of the artists just signed what was in front of them not realizing that this paid them solely for their work as a hired hand assigning their rights to the lead artist...I mean they would have signed it anyways if they wanted to keep their jobs, but afterwards I heard the same ones that said they were wondering how much they were going to make from DVD sales...ummm...nothing...they got one lump sum and nothing more.

Artists are not ripped off blindly...anyone that cares to know what they will get paid has it in front of them. They took a bet that it would pay off more than the alternative.

Artists are NOT starving because of any $0.00000083 payment. I know its an exaggeration, but hell, I think statutory payments for the song writer end up being something like $0.15 a song as it is (thus its always better for artists to write their own damn songs :-)...10 songs and thats a good chunk even if ya know some of the standard accounting practices...

I don't know why the parent was moded insightful...I hate responding to things like this, but even though the poster is a clueless idiot, enough others need to know this isn't the case and the truth about the industry.

Re:the brutality

It gets better, I hear they're also sponsoring classes on how to drown puppies for kids who want to become Recording Industry Ass. of America lawyers.

(yes, this is a joke. Probably.)

A time-tested strategy.

In school they told me that smoking was bad, I should eat a balanced diet, I shouldn't drink, and I should never smoke pot.

And look at me now!

Re:A time-tested strategy.

And now I DRIVE the bus!!!

Kids today

What's to worry about? The kids today are so dumb, they won't even be able to absorb the message that's trying to be conveyed. Sure, maybe some will pay some lip service to the assignment to get a grade, but can this actually influence behavior? I don't think so.

I remember when I was in the early grades of school and TV networks went berserk over teachers using VCRs to tape shows and play them in class. I thought at the time that it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard of, and I am sure that will be the reaction of the kids today in this analagous situation.

1984?

The children will also participate in a club called the Spies where they learn to turn in dangerous dissidennt traitors.

Can your child meet the expectations like Suzie Q. did last week when she overheard her parents saying that the RIAA should be ashamed of itself for sueing children and the elderly. She marched right over to the local police station and turned them in.

Can your child be as happysafe as Suzie Q.? You had better send them to the Spies and make sure!

Re:After all, isn't it theft

No it isn't theft. Probably copyright infringement under our current draconian and broken copyright laws, but not theft. I for one would prefer my child not to recieve morality lessons in school, especially ones containting brainwashing propaganda like this crap. I send my kid to school for academic advancement, not to be spoonfed some lobbiest's political agenda.

otherwise..

they could submit their music to mp3.com and maybe even make some money instead and see that the market is shifting..

btw. most of the records I bought the last few years I wouldn't have heard of if it wasn't for p2p-software..
but then.. I'm the kind of the consumer the RIAA doesn't want.. one who choses what he wants to listen too.

Re:Oh Wow!

That's what I was thinking.

As a kid, I had no idea what my options for drugs were until a DARE officer showed up in my classroom with the parphenalia display, the scratch-n-sniff pot smelling paper, and the videos of glassy-eyed hippies all whacked out on weed and goofballs.

Needless to say, I'm pretty sure that many, if not most of the kids they try and "teach" this way will just go right out and get the free music they didn't know they were missing. Brilliant.

Very true...

DARE is beyond worthless. I remember getting these lifesaver candies on a necklace that we had to wear all day, and try not to eat. (Supposed to emulate resisting drugs) I ate mine within 5 minutes. And, also if you think about, what they were really teaching us is that drugs are like candy.

Lesson in Sharing

I think the RIAA must have missed the kindergarten lesson on sharing.

Advanced study

Presumably there will an advanced course where students will look at how a artist can market his work in an age when record companies monopolise the retail channels and are interested only in supporting artists conforming to some corporate identity.

not

I imagine it like this...

Kid: It's done. Cool.
Teacher: Yes. And It's already on the net. So you can't sell it. (smiles broadly)
Kid: How can I find it? I got to tell my friends.
Teacher: Well - I didn't put it on the net. But I could have. You see?
Kid: So how do I put it on the web? I still want to show my mom and friends.
Teacher: Well, it wouldn't make sense to put it on the web because you need a special program to view it.
Kid: And where do I get this special program?
Teacher: You can't. It's only licensed to schools.

A few more features for "realism"...

1) Their CD will be sold for $20 of which they will get 20 cents.
2) Their new and creative song will be played once per day while they have to listen to boy bands have their song played twice per hour
3) Their CD's will be used to test the latest anti-copying technology which winds up ruining their bands reputation.
4) They will have to pay their own money to make their own tape, and the "record industry" will give their music to a prettier classmate to create a cover song for a totally lame commercial that ruins any hip appeal their song might have had.

Can anyone else think of anything?

Re:Your flawed argument

That's like justifying stealing Star Wars action figures by saying "I saw the movie 25 times, so I've given George Lucas enough money to compensate for it".

The only similarity between physical property and intellectual property is that the ownership thereof has been artificially created in both cases.

The primary difference between intellectual property and physical property is that while "stealing" one may dilute its value, it does not deprive anyone of anything they would have gotten had you not done so, whereas acquiring the other without permission means you are depriving someone of something, and actively costing them money. The legal system can tell the difference, though in this day and age it doesn't seem like it -- can you?

Put simply (in deference to you, Kent) when you stock a store shelf you expend money to do so, and if someone steals your stock, not only is that money gone, but you have been deprived of assets, namely the physical object. If someone puts your CD into their PC, and makes an mp3 rip, or downloads a rip from the internet, you lose nothing except a sale -- assuming that they would have purchased it anyway.

If someone steals stock from your store, you gain nothing. If someone copies your album, you gain exposure.

Hence, copying music to which you are not entitled is illegal, but not necessarily immoral or unethical. That may be your opinion but I don't think it's exactly been proven. What has been proven time and time again is that major label artists, who are overwhelmingly the group most concerned (or at least, the label is concerned on "their" behalf) about music "piracy" (I don't remember firing any cannons at anyone. ARR! PREPARE TO BE BOARDED!) make more money when you go see them in concert than when you buy their album. So, if you want to support the bands you love, while getting something for your trouble, go see their shows as many times as you can, and spread their music to people who have not been exposed to it who like to go see bands live.

I am sure you will write this off as just another justification but the fact is that your basic premise is flawed because taking physical property, which is called stealing, and copying intellectual property, which is a violation of copyright law but is not theft specifically because it does not deprive anyone of anything are not the same thing. That is a fact whether you approach the problem legally, logically, morally, or ethically. Whether copyright violations are wrong is a matter of opinion. Clearly there are many people opposed to the existence of copyright at all, and I don't know if they are necessarily "right" or "wrong". Traditionally, what is "right" is what has been agreed upon by a society, and it varies between groups of people.

Whoa,

check out that crossword on the right. What does "3. Take music off the computer" correspond to -- "Digital theft" or "Download" or "Piracy"? And "14. Online Stealing"? Is that "Piracy" too? Arr, matey!

Good lord. "4. Software that traces a person's usage" must be "Spyware" -- are they teaching that Kazaa is evil (must not sleep, clowns will eat me), too?

Not a curriculum for me, thankyouverymuch. Unless it's in a lesson about corporate control of American schools, and they buy all the kids free Pepsis out of the vending machines with which the school has an exclusive contract.

Way to go guys!

I love it where is says:

"There is no issue in my life I take as seriously as this," said Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of the News Corporation, which owns 20th Century Fox. "This is going to be with us for the rest of our careers. But if we remain focused on it, maybe it won't kill us and we won't have to panic."

Clearly they have already panicked, and frankly, I hope it does kill them. Extinction isn't so bad for an industry who has gouged the public for so long. Also, lets not forget that the artists get very little money as it is, because they grab most of it..

But there is a growing contingent who fear the threat is closer than some in Hollywood want to admit. Already industry analysts suggest there could be as many as 500,000 copies of movies swapped daily.

Could be.. maybe so, maybe not.. What should we do? Panic, I guess..

The smart child

C = child, T= Teacher

C: Yes, so I'll make the CD, the album art like that, and it will have 12 tracks...
T: It's already available on the net (smiling)
C: Hmmm... let me think... How many downloads? Yes, they seem to like it, hmm... Yeah, good, so now I'm famous. Let's prepare my next concert around the world.
T: !!!

Starving artist? No way! An artist to play for the public, to have tours around the world, yes!

A good artist will never starve because his art is priceless.

P.S. The "Starving Artist" game is stupid, as showed above ;)

This is shocking why?

After suing a 12 yr old, knowing that they did it, and STILL they settled for $2k US? I think they should play a game called "Greedy Lawyer". Here the kids go up infront of the class, make a band, songs, album art, etc... then the RIAA says "Hey thanks for that, you get 1 cent an album we sell!".

Is this even legal? They are not a public entity like the Fire Dept or Police Dept that can come in and give lecutures on safety and saying no to strangers. They are a privatly owned firm of lawyers that will brainwash our kids to think their way. I really don't want my kids comming subjected to that. Yes, I could keep my child out of school that day but then they would lose any other classes that they would have that day also.

Is this what the education system is comming to these days now? Coperate sponsed education? It's bad enough that M$ is pushed in all the schools (nice that they get free computers though) now we're going to have the RIAA pushing their ethics? What's next? No, seriously, this is frightning to me. My two childern are just entering the school system now and with things like this croping up what will they be learning?

Re:RIAA classroom

Pictures of Keith Richards should not count.

Slavery.

I hope the teachers will make it clear that, while slavery was abolished many many years ago, the recordcompanies basically still treat their 'artists' that way...

And ofcourse they'll explain how, with record sales going platinum, you'll *owe* the record company money (see TLC, they declared bankruptcy).

And hey, while we're at it, try explaining the 'record breakage fee' of 10% (if i remember correctly) which is still in place, while records haven't been easily breakable since they went to vinyl (ok, you'll probably have to explain what vinyl is too.).

I could go on for a while, but i'm sure you get the picture.

Is this what we should be teaching our children

I remember at school being encouraged to share with my peers because it was nice, now big multinationals are giving early lessons in consumerism, what the heck happened?

education

Well isnt it nice to know that education isnt revolving around history, math, literature, science and technology, etc.. Its about how to become a comsumer for the bigger companies. And some people wonder how the american education system seems to falling apart. I think this answers it.

How do I get equal time?

If the schools are going to subject my children to this propaganda, they had damn well better be prepared to allow alternative views. I suggest something based on the following:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.

Robert Heinlein

I think The Onion have beaten them to it. Also...

This story just smells like a hoax. Not only because it is so absurd, but because the whole 'Starving Artist' thing has been done before. The Onion had a storyKid Rock Starves To Death: MP3 Piracy Blamed [theonion.com]

Of course, stranger things have happened, like Coke and Pepsi sponsoring schools. What, I wonder, would the teachers make of it if a student piped up and said they were going to give the album away for free anyway? Would they be carted off to RIAA-retraining camp?

in our big brother world

these record companies like to pretend that the artists are hurt by filesharing, where truly nothing is further from the truth. the truth is the system that keeps 5 companies in charge of worldwide music distribution is hurt (marginally) by filesharing, and mainly by their unwillingness to change a century old business model.

fact is, unless you're eminem, michael jackson (jacko was at the top for years) or someone similarly successful with record sales (ie. worldwide #1) the take from album sales and royalties is a pittance once you have been charged all the expenses.

ever listen to Tom Petty's song with the lyrics "Don't wanna live like a refugee". that was a protest song over the screw deal the record label signed him to. he had hit songs and debts so high, he'd never be out of hock. this is still happening today. the record labels sign artists deceptively (with so-callled "A&R" reps) to long term agreements without mechanism for release at the artists discretion, then use these agreements to either lowball the artists, or keep their music off the shelves. its a dirty, dirty business.

fact is, the artists won't starve from filesharing. they are starving from being robbed blind by the big 5! damn shame.

The real starving artist...

"Among other activities, they are planning to play a game called 'Starving Artist' with 5th-9th graders, where students come up with an idea for a record album, cover art, and lyrics only to be told by teachers that they will only get $1 for every album sold and then still be $1,000,000 in debt to the record company. Then teachers will tell them that they'll be spending the next 3 years like slaves performing 6 nights a week, unable to see their family or friends because they're travelling the country, living with 8 other people in a van with a $10 per diem, and showers once a week. Then the teachers will tell them to keep their fingers crossed because they have a solid 1 in 100,000 chance of hearing their album on MTV.."

Leave it to the RIAA to pick the parts they like

How bout this game, call it rockband.

95% of the kids are told to form bands.
the remaining 5 % are broken up into record execs, AR men and lawyers

The kids in the bands all have to try to get the attention of the AR men, when they do the AR men have to get them to sign a letter of intent.

Once the bands have signed a letter of intent they can then negotiate with the record companies. After going into debt to both the record companies and their lawyers they can then record their album.

Then you can have the fun part. The royalty statement where, the bands can find that even though they have sold 32 million dollars worth of CD's they still haven't made a profit. Matter of fact they are in debt to the record company. And, Their effective earning power would have been better if they were at 7-11

Now you can tell the kids in the band that their fans are downloading their songs.

This is the kind of game I wouldn't mind seeing in schools. You could follow it up with other fun legal games like, Make the laws benefit you, Patent Grab, and sue your competition out of business.

P2P filesharing is a demonstration of classic american values. Whenever in this country a small group has managed to buy laws that are significantly out of line with reality the bulk of the country just ignores them.

Talk about the wrong idea...

How does "coming up with an idea..." to do something have anything to do with copyright? You have to actually produce something first. If this demonstrates anything, it demonstrates the issue of prior art, where they are not permitted to pursue their dream and copyright it because someone else already did.

If you want the kids to really get an idea, they're going to have to spend all their time and effort working on something, tell them that they'll be able to sell it when they're done, and then after months of effort, take away the fruits of their labors and tell them you were just kidding.

Of course, the problem with this is, they'll have to actually create something that someone would be interested in purchasing, and it's unlikely that the average 5-9th grader will be able to pull this off, no matter what it is, and most especially not a product of an intellectual nature. Sure there are the rare exceptions, but this is a project aimed at ALL students, not the TAG crowd.

So at best this will be another boring assignment that the students will only half heartedly pay attention to. And at worst, the few students that have yet to figure out what "that there interweb" thing is all about will suddenly realize that they're missing out on a ton of free music.

This is probably another one of those sugarcoated efforts to make the public cry for the poor starving artists that are being robbed blind by the malicious 12 year olds who download their music, instead of realizing that the record industry is the one robbing them blind.

-Restil

Another game

I have another game, where you plant a tree, wait for it to grow, cut it, and use the wood to painstakingly make a table, using your bare hands and a pocket knife. After all your efforts, you find out that tables better than yours are available everywhere for almost nothing, done by machines.

So you stop making tables. Big deal.

Why not pay for a lot on Sesame Street?

Big Bird: Look Elmo, I downloaded all this neato music on the 'In-ter-net'.
Elmo: That's stealing. People who pirate music should die of cancer. You're going to hell. Hehehe, that tickles.

God damn it

Haven't we had enough of morally deviant predators grooming little kids to turn them into compliant bitches?

Now, I'm all for teaching kids (and adults) about the consequences of their actions, but the action that the RIAA are objecting to isn't file copying, it's not buying music. There's a distinction, and I want them to be honest about what they're saying.

What these kids are really being told is: "If you don't do buy Freshy Q's new CD, the police will take your mommy away. Sorry, I mean, Freshy Q is going to die in the gutter."

Now, sure, Freshy is dead meat if you don't buy because you're downloading his m3p, but the thing is, he's just as destitute if you don't buy because you're happy listening to him on the radio, or by streamed webcast, or on MTV-a-like channels, or (shocker) if despite - or perhaps because of - the many ways that the RIAA pays to get the music to you, you simply choose not to buy a CD.

That's the message that the RIAA is giving, once you strip the bullshit away. Buy more music. Buy music, or you've killed Freshy Q. It's not our job to persuade you to pay, it doesn't matter how generic or plastic our miming meat puppets are, the fact is, Billy, it's your responsibility to pay, and frankly, you should pay whether you like the music or not. It's all about stopping poor Freshy Q from starving.

Spooky prediction? Next year, it's Driver's Ed, but first a short message from our sponsors, the Ford Motor Company Inc.

"Hello class. I'd like to tell you the story of Wally Doe. We had to lay Wally off because you selfish little bastards are walking to school instead of pestering your parents to buy you a Ford Weener. Now Wally has to give handjobs for food. Say, kids, how would you feel about choking the chicken of a 400lb trucker to make ends meet?"

Instead of "Starving Artist"

The artists are already starving in comparison. Why don't they just tell the truth and call the program "Starving Corporate Executive".

They could show the horrors of the poor RIAA execs who could only buy one BMW this year, or the trauma of having to sell one of their estates.

Simpsons quote that came to mind

Bart: Sounds like a pretty crappy game to me.
Principal Skinner: Yes, well... Get started.
-- ``Bart the Murderer''

Totally Inappropriate

So, any special interest group gets to push their morals and agendas on our kids? In their classrooms? It's one thing to transmit their propaganda over the TV and radio, but its another to hold the kids captive and force them to listen/participate in such a way.

Hopefully, parents will be given the option of opting their children out of such activities. If not, let's hope one of these kids has lawyers for parents.

What next? The Right-To-Lifers get to stage a school "assignment" that's really just preaching the evils of abortion? The Brady Bill nuts get to do the same preaching the evils of firearms? Where does it stop?

Hey - why stop there? Let's get Coca-Cola to come in and "teach" how their product is superior to Pepsi. And let's get Dunlop to come in and teach how their tires are superior to Michelins.

This is just stupid.

What I Learned in Kindergarten

When I was in kindergarten, I learned to share....
Now the MPAA is going to teach me that sharing is bad?

Availability

...students come up with an idea for a record album, cover art, and lyrics only to be told by teachers that the album is already available for download for free.

Wow. The album is available for download before it's even been created. Piracy must be more out-of-hand than I had imagined.

This should be illegal

I wonder how much money the record companies spend to have such an influence in schools. Its a well known fact that kids make up the recording industry's largest market, so why is it that this commercial entity has an influence on children's morality and education? What kind of message is this sending?

Why not play the real starving artist game? The kids can sign a contract and never make a dime off of their intellectual property for the rest of their lives while the record company makes a fortune but still claims they haven't recouped their costs!

too far

Well my version of the game is that you practice guitar since when you were 13 years old, finally get a good band together, do a few local shows for free, eventually get a once-in-a-lifetime deal with a record label, sell a million records, only to find that you still owe the record company $50,000 because they spent so much 'promoting' you, and that you can't make any more music until the record company agrees they like it. Then the record company decides to stop promoting you, and you have to do infomercials and mall openings since you're no longer allowed to make music without the record company's consent. Now that's a fun game.

RIAA teaches ethics?

In other news:

Former Enron executives will teach investment basics

Former Arthur Anderson accountants will teach how to balance a checkbook

Karl Rove will teach civics

Former Pres. Clinton will teach abstinence

It's too bad...

Yeah, it's too bad that most kids' imaginations are well-done by the third grade.

Kids: "Look teacher, we made the new Eminem CD."
Tacher: "Uh, that's already available for download."
Kids: "We know. It actually works, and we're selling copies to the underclassmen."
Teacher: "The lesson for today is... you all get detention."

future results

The kids will learn 2 things from this exercise

1. If everyone just downloads music for free from the Intarweb, well...that sucks for the artists, because they get no monetary compensation from it.
2. The current business model being blasted into our brains by the music industry sucks, because they take too much of the money. We pay too high prices and the artists still get little or no money from it.

Some of these little darlings will grow up to become businessmen and women. A few of them even good businessmen and women.
Maybe one of them will come up with a system that actually does work.

$Deity, I hope it doesn't take that long!

So Hollywood wants to teach ethics?

So the movie/record industry wants to march in the classroom and preach about ethics?

The movie/record industry have always been an indirect influence on the classroom, whether they want to admit it or not:

We have a new generation of parents with no idea of how to raise kids, they forget that growing children are impressionable. Out of habit, they plop their kids in front of the TV or the radio as a babysitter, a distraction.

TV and radio has more foul language, violence, sex, and immoral behavior than ever before. The mass media encourages children to be rebellious to authority. These kids with impressionable minds mimic their TV characters and rebel against their parents. When they see how well that works, they progress to rebel against their friends, against their society, against their teachers, their principals, their law officers, their judges, their politicians, on and on. Unchecked, this behavior is cast in stone into their adult lives.

Think this is ridiculous? The effect of TV is manifested in the Jerry Springer shows. There was a grade school class where the teacher began changing the channel when the Springer show came on. In protest the kids in the class threw chairs at the teacher, mimicing the Springer show.

Another one: Beavis and Butthead episode where one of the characters plays with fire and chants "fire is good, fire is good." Shortly after it aired, a five year old boy set fire to his trailer home killing his little sister. He admitted that he was influenced into the act after viewing the Beavis and Butthead episode. It was never aired again. That is a blatant admission that the media knows the devastating influence they have on culture.

Right here on /. there was a story of a high school counselor who reprimanded a student. In retaliation, the student made false accusations of sexual assault. Despite the repentance of the student when she admitted to authorities that she made the whole thing up, the counselor lost his job and his career. One guess where you think the student saw that immoral behavior...

Movies and TV shows glorify indiscriminate sex and trashy fashion. More and more teenagers are having sex before they graduate high school. The likes of Madonna and Britney Spears have influenced teenage girls to dress provocatively. They're not shy about wearing low rise jeans with the tops of their thongs showing. The jerks that the media is pushing as "male role models" are influencing an entire generation of men, who inherited all the wrong ideas of a healthy relationship and family values.

The result? Unwanted pregancies, widespread transmission of uncurable STDs, broken families, and a whole generation growing up with corrupted ideas of indiscriminate sex with zero accountability for their actions. These are the consequences that movies, TV shows, and records NEVER EVEN BROADCAST.

And now these hypocrites want to broadcast their view of ethics in the classroom. Riiiiiiight...

Take a good look at the late Katherine Hepburn, who has been called a "role model". She married once, and divorced in 1934 as her movie career was taking off. She was quoted "I don't believe in marriage. It is bloody impractical to love, honor, and obey." In short, she rebelled. She then had affairs with many Hollywood men, including Howard Hughes. She then had a long extramarital affair with Tracy Spencer, a married man who refused to divorce his wife. Hepburn rejected everything about marriage and embraced fornication, adultery, and indiscriminate sex. All starting in the 1930s. And todays' women look up to this person with reverance and admiration?!? If you want to find out why today's family culture is so fucked up, look no further than this "role model".

And Hollywood perpetuated this woman, because this crap made them money.

Mae West wasn't shy about her rebellion either. She admitted losing her virginity at the age of seven and her brashness permeated through al

What to Do about this

For those who didn't read the article, the Starving Artist game is only a little blurb in the middle. But if that's your hot button and you have kids in school, find out if the school plans to bring in this presentation. Talk directly to the teacher(s) involved. The school also has a PTA or PTSA where you can stand up and object publicly.

Be prepared that teachers in general tend to be unsympathetic toward behavior that seems to break rules. However, they also tend to frown on deceit and deception. Your best argument is the truth about how the music business works. Try this explanation:

Musicians don't make money from record companies selling CDs, they make money by performing. Recording contracts are deliberately written so that all the expenses for producing, advertising and distributing an album are taken out of the musician's share of the profits, which then magically turns out to be ZERO. What musicians get out of CD sales is exposure, which makes them more famous and gets them better paying performance gigs. They get this same exposure whether a person buys a CD, borrows it from a friend, listens to it on the radio or downloads it from the Internet. The record industry's "poor starving artist" mantra is a flat out lie.

Whatever you do, don't beat this into the ground or launch into a tirade about the Evils of Capitalism or whatever. Just tell the real story matter-of-factly and give them a chance to digest it. Tell them you don't want the Recording Industry or any other industry bringing in a marketing campaign disguised as a learning experience.

law or $$ important?

What teacher would allow this as a part of his/her curriculum? Good grief. Here you go kids--create, have fun, but just so you know, it's the money that makes it worthwhile, not the satisfaction and joy that comes with the act of creation and knowing a job well done. What a crappy lesson to be giving our kids. That's as bad as suing 12 year olds, actually worse, because their propaganda is teaching children corrupt and false moral truths. As a parent I'd be pissed as hell to find out the schools were allowing my children to be taught these things. How about teaching them the importance of obeying the law because it IS the law, and if the law is wrong, it can be changed, but that the law is important and the law should be followed?

An easy solution for musicians

I have a suggestion for those who would like to continue selling those pieces of plastic.

Include a live video of your concert with your studio release(or hell, just release your live show) Package it all on a DVD or two and sell it for $20.

That's what Rush is doing [amazon.com] - and at $20.99 for 3 hours of live music + extras on 2 DVD's, it's no wonder their DVD set is in amazon's top 50 nearly a month before its release.

And really, who is going to try and download 2 DVD's worth of material(8-10 gigs) when for 20 bucks, they can get the real thing.

Ethics in Schools ???

I hope I am not the only one that is violently opposed to public schools trying to teach our children about ethics. First of all I don't aggree with a government organization trying to teach children ethics (whatever happened to parents?) and secondly the teaching of ethics by a heavy handed corporation. This is wrong in so many ways that I have to question the ethics of the school boards that allow such a curriculum in the first place.