Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education Government Media Music The Courts News

British Schoolkids Get Copyright Education 300

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This discussion has been archived.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.

British Schoolkids Get Copyright Education

Comments Filter:
  • by otisaardvark ( 587437 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:02PM (#9905448)
    Excellent idea - let's teach the kids that sharing is wrong.

    Jabber the Lawyer [aftab.com]

    • by hunterx11 ( 778171 ) <hunterx11@NOSpAm.gmail.com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:06PM (#9905492) Homepage Journal
      Saying that being against piracy is being against sharing is exactly the same sort of BS that organizations like the RIAA use.
      • by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:12PM (#9905547) Homepage
        Saying that being against piracy is being against sharing is exactly the same sort of BS that organizations like the RIAA use is exactly the same sort of BS that organizations like the RIAA use.
      • by otisaardvark ( 587437 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:30PM (#9905667)
        I respectfully disagree. In questions of morality versus legality, morality wins every time. I happen to like a rather obscure form of eastern classical music with a lot of artists from before the 1950s. Is it 'moral' to download/share copies of this work with friends (knowing that there ARE copies available but very rare?). I think so - especially given the fact that given AVAILABILITY I would buy them at a shot. Should copyright law prevent reprinting of obscurish material, just because the RECORD COMPANY (not the artist) says so? I take this to be a travesty of the intention of the creators of copyright legislation, who couldn't have foreseen such an available medium as the internet (and even if this were in line with THEIR intentions, I cannot justify it to myself, the only authority to which I am known to be ultimately responsible).

        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!

        • friends

          Sharing with your friends is one thing, but in the context of 'file sharing' (P2P, or whatever the RIAA whipping boy of the day is), the entire Internet is not your 'friend'.

          Previously, sharing music, and books with your friends was, if not encouraged, at least not actively sought out and prosecuted. Now, they have reportable numbers behind all that "sharing" and they can make it sound very, very bad.
          Millions of dollars, thousands of files, millions of 'sharers'. And with those numbers, falsely i
          • by Anonymous Coward
            You do not have a "personal relationship" with the millions who happen to connect to Kazaa.

            They are my fellow humans. Why should I not share with them? I have not deprived the creator of HIS COPY by distributing a COPY. Plus, I do not deny him access to the internet, which is already worth far more than any one human could ever produce - Let's reward artists with free internet access, at most!

            The argument that I have deprived him of profits and therefore copyright law is justified is invalid (circula
            • by Commander Trollco ( 791924 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:39AM (#9907504)
              The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
              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.
          • by GoCoGi ( 716063 )
            Using the word friend loosely, everyone who is not your friend is your enemy. Therefore, everyone is either your enemy or your friend. Introducing the moral rule "Love your enemies as if they were your friends", "Sharing with your friends" implies "Sharing with your enemies". Combining these two statements you get "Sharing with everyone". Therefore if "Sharing with your friends" is ok, then "Sharing with everyone" must be ok, too.
        • Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mikers ( 137971 )
          Is it 'moral' to download/share copies of this work with friends (knowing that there ARE copies available but very rare?). I think so - especially given the fact that given AVAILABILITY I would buy them at a shot. Should copyright law prevent reprinting of obscurish material, just because the RECORD COMPANY (not the artist) says so? I take this to be a travesty of the intention of the creators of copyright legislation, who couldn't have foreseen such an available medium as the internet (and even if this wer
          • by jrockway ( 229604 ) *
            Copyright expired stuff? Could you point some out to me? Oh no, you can't because the copyright expires after about 90 years...

            "Happy Birthday" is fucking copyrighted.
        • Should copyright law prevent reprinting of obscurish material, just because the RECORD COMPANY (not the artist) says so?
          Here's a more interesting question: Should copyright law prevent reprinting of obscurish material, just because the artist says so? Before you answer, remember that copyright was intended to encourage creation, to enrich the public domain, not to enable artists to control their work.
      • It's not a case of being against piracy, though. It's a case of being against a school program that is lying to kids about what piracy actually entails (in such a way that it ends up including any kind of sharing of any sort).

    • Excellent idea - let's teach the kids that sharing is wrong.

      Teacher! Does the school pay the creators for all the ideas it teaches in classes?
    • "let's teach the kids that sharing is wrong."

      Have you seen a Trix commercial any time during the past few decades?
    • Sharing something you OWN is ok. We teach our young son to share his toys, to share his food and water, doubt we're going to teach him how to share downloaded DVD screener rips.

      From www.m-w.com


      SHARE usually implies that one as the original holder grants to another the partial use, enjoyment, or possession of a thing .
  • woohoo.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:02PM (#9905451) Journal
    Half of our kids can't even spell, now we're wasting time on this crap?
    • Re:woohoo.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Frizzle Fry ( 149026 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:25PM (#9905646) Homepage
      The government is using the fact that students are a captive audience in order to push its political agenda? It's nice that a large new group of people is now getting to experience the same sort of disgust that many of us have already felt for years toward the DARE program. Welcome.
    • Re:woohoo.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by tuber ( 678236 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:30PM (#9905666)
      Tell me about it, those British kids can't spell at all.... "colour", "grey", "centre", what is that shit?
  • If it happesn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:02PM (#9905453) Homepage
    If this ever happens in the US to my little brother, I will be sure to educate him, and provide him with PLENTY of insightful questions and comments about the motives behind this "education" the TRUTH about copyright laws, and some wonderful facts about the industries pushing this.

    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.

    • Re:If it happesn (Score:2, Insightful)

      by WD_40 ( 156877 )
      Don't -wait- for this to happen, educate him properly anyway and give him a head start.
    • I didn't know piracy was a problem...I thought most of that was smacked down by the coast guard.

      Oh copyright violations? Yah. I know...except, their sales increased not decreased. Interesting....
  • by TheShadowHawk ( 789754 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:03PM (#9905462) Homepage

    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??

    • The first step in the U.S. was brainwashing all children into learning the pledge of allegiance, without pausing to think what it means. I don't mind if you teach it (although I do mind if you force or strongly encourage people to recite it), but please make sure they understand it!

      • You are 100% correct here. I didn't realize it until my last year in High School, at which point I stopped reciting it, and instead told people that you should be careful who you pledge your allegiance to! Why should BushCo have my allegiance when I disagree with everything they do?

        One nation, indivisible, under Ashcroft... :)
  • by ThePatrioticFuck ( 640185 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:04PM (#9905466)
    "We don't need no education"
    • "We don't need no thought control"
    • I prefer "Sheep" (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MikeXpop ( 614167 )
      Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
      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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:04PM (#9905473)
    But understanding the law is an important facet of every day life, whether you live in Albania or Zimbabwe. It is also important to understand the law in order to oppose it. I know knee jerk reactions to things we don't understand are the norm here at Slashdot, but that's precisely why all the venom against the DMCA/CPAA/etc causes no harm to those laws.

    The first step is understanding. I don't see how anyone could be against legal education in schools.
    • by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:09PM (#9905518)
      Ok, well note that they're not educating these kids on patent laws, tax laws, murder laws (manslaughter vs first degree murder, for example), etc. Only copyright infringement. How innarestin....
    • The first step is understanding. I don't see how anyone could be against legal education in schools.

      As long as they also teach you how to be critical of the law and how to spot bad or outdated laws, no problem.
    • by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:30PM (#9906394) Homepage

      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...."

  • by Techie2000 ( 517233 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:06PM (#9905490)
    Our educational system? Sure copyright is an issue that is controversial, and piracy is a problem, however I don't think that it is a good idea for corporations to be the ones funding this type of thing. It compromises the educational integrity of dealing with the subject subjectively from both sides. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future someone gets suspended for wearing a "bit torrent" t-shirt on anti-piracy day or something...
    • by adjuster ( 61096 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:32PM (#9905685) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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.

        That's dangerous to those in power, who coincidently approve school curricula. Also, at least in GA, we still have blue laws.
    • Corporate America has been influencing schools for a while now. Would a kid getting suspended for a bittorrent shirt somehow be worse than the kid who got suspended for wearing the pepsi shirt on coke day (or was it the other way around)?
    • Do we really want corporate America influencing Our educational system?

      Have you ever heard about Channel One [channelone.com]?

      I wouldn't be surprised if in the future someone gets suspended for wearing a "bit torrent" t-shirt on anti-piracy day or something...

      Sillier things have happened. [theroc.org]
    • It compromises the educational integrity

      I'll spare you the long, all caps bwahaha. Maybe the world is all rainbows and strawberries in the UK. Here in America, history books call genocide, "The Trail of Tears." The corporations probably couldn't do a worse job. Just a different one.

  • by thedogcow ( 694111 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:10PM (#9905527)
    Great, this is just what we need...

    more little non-sharing learned Senator Hatches running around with British accents.
  • by The Great Hamster ( 654491 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:10PM (#9905530)
    Now lets hope that they are going to just teach just copyright laws.... and not why its a happy idea to have logging software on your computer to "prevent" copyright infringements...
  • Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A Boy and His Blob ( 772370 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:10PM (#9905533)
    Teaching kids about copyright law, ok fine, nothing wrong with knowing what the law is.
    Teaching kids the music industry's idea of copyright law, very, very bad idea.
  • by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:12PM (#9905546) Homepage
    President of the MPAA Jack Valenti outright lied when he said the following:

    "What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
    http://www.hpronline.org/news/2003/01/25/In terview s/Valentis.Views-347207.shtml

    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.
    • While you are absolutely correct about this, it is also important to note that almost everything people refer to as "fair use" is not in fact fair use. Fair use refers to (generally) using small pieces of a work for either review or educational purposes. Time-shifting and making backups is NOT covered under fair use.
      • Good point.

        But we are in a new era. The government can make laws, but we have the tools to circumvent the law now. Look at P2P networks; in particular look at Freenet-like networks. "They" can tell us that sharing is bad and whatnot, but we can give them the big middle finger and untraceably send our music to our closest friends.

        They might not like it, but we can do it. If everyone does something, then it's the law that's wrong, not the people.

        Selling music may not be a valid business model anymore.
        • Hey, whaddya know, finally somebody else saying what I've been saying!

          To reiterate: This whole deal with P2P is like Prohibition or the "War On Drugs". The morality of it is irrelevant, because the laws against it are unenforcable without a police state. It's really as simple as that.
  • So is DECA (Score:4, Informative)

    by Izago909 ( 637084 ) <tauisgod@g m a i l . com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:13PM (#9905555)
    The media giants have also bribed DECA to begin teaching their spin on copyright. I didn't beleive it when I first heard it. This is a highly complex subject that the best lawyers spend years to learn. How can we expect high school kids to come to an informed opinion on a multi-sided subject with only one angle being presented to them? I can't imagine them going to any length to teach children about their rights to copy something (like educational purposes or fair use). When I was in school the worst corporate sponshorship was Georgia Pacific's educational series on environmental conservation. When compared to the media giants, all I can say is that at least GP replanted seedlings after tearing down a forrest.
  • Must counterattack. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cyclop ( 780354 )

    Really. No jokes. All /.ers that are UK parents should not only teaching the kids the value of open exchange of ideas. They should also go to the school and *loudly complain* against this if their kids are exposed to such disgusting political propaganda.

    They could also organize counter-lessons, both in school with the aid of clever teachers or outside. We must reject this now, before it's too late.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:14PM (#9905565)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by adjuster ( 61096 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:40PM (#9905741) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • Remember kids, you are better off bringing a gun to school than a copied music CD, even if you own the original and never intended to loan or give away the CD.
  • Who owns you? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:19PM (#9905609)
    When a commercial industry lobby can influence the curriculum, where the system is already barely covering the basics and government is ignoring the pleas of academics to invest more in proper education... makes you realise who owns you doesn't it?

    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.
    • I'm hoping the kids think this is bullshit...


      According to the Wired article [wired.com] on the same thing happening in the US, they seem to be giving that response. The problem with this is that the majority of kids, deep down, will believe what adults tell them. And this is why it's wrong to be teaching them false morals against which most adults will argue.
  • by adjuster ( 61096 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:24PM (#9905638) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • ...we teach our kids about copyright laws and when we should sue one another, yet the environment and basic human rights doesn't even cross our minds till adulthood when we gain a sense of moral awareness.

    Great. We now know where society's priorities for our children and our youth are heading.

  • I used to take copyright law at least halfway seriously; I have published a minor piece or two myself. Copyright law was always intended to foster creation of new works by offering a monopoly on their duplication for a few years. It seems to have worked well enough, but where is the justification for extending the period of expiring copyrights? For that matter, has there been a shortage of new material requiring new incentives? It all strikes me as stealing from the common wealth.
  • Right and Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lewis Daggart ( 539805 ) <jonboze AT gmail DOT com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:33PM (#9905694) Journal
    A class is not going to teach right and wrong. You know right and wrong. You dont care about someone elses version of right and wrong, you have your own. And whether you choose to do what they consider wrong or what you consiter wrong anyway isn't going to be decided in an ethics class.

    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).
    • Well said.

      Kids are taught to share things at a very young age, otherwise the teacher punishes them for fighting over a single object. Copying is the obvious thing for kids to do when only one item exists and they have the ability to make a copy and share. Unless teachers actively punish kids for sharing songs amongst one another, then this compulsory copyright stuff will probably have minimal impact.
  • Parents Job (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:39PM (#9905736) Homepage Journal
    Its the parent's job to teach little johnny the difference between right and wrong, based on THEIR concepts of morality.

    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.
    • Of course it is. It always has been. Schools have punished children who act in ways deemed inappropriate; schools have had education about things considered correct and incorrect, too. Surely you know that the schools have anti-drug education, too, which is morality the government is trying to teach to the children. It's part of the very purpose of the schools; they're not just there to teach simple facts.
  • Since when did corporate interests/organisations have any say in school curriculum? Does nobody see anything wrong with this??

    Oh brave new world.
  • by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:53PM (#9905818) Homepage
    My theology teacher once described in class what happened at a Sunday school she teached at.

    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.
    • Brian: No, no, no - You must all think for yourselves!
      Crowd (together): We must all think for ourselves.

      (and later)
      Brian: Fuck off!
      Crowd (together): How shall we fuck off, oh Lord?

      That has to be my favorite scene in all the monty python movies.
  • by leathered ( 780018 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:57PM (#9905832)
    It should work if it's delivered as well as sex education. Myself and my geek friends attended all our sex ed lessons at school and always paid close attention. It must have worked because I've just turned 30 and have never caught an STD or got someone pregnant, oh wait..
  • The aim is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jonathan A Frankiln ( 803487 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:59PM (#9905849)
    The music industry is not dumb enough to believe that a simple class will cause a drop in downloading. I believe the motivation here is to take away a child's ability to plead ignorance on the minutiae of the copyright laws, so the record industry can better sue them.

    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.
  • Teacher: Boys and girls, sharing music is wrong. Don't use P2P software like Kazaa, because downloading thousands of free songs is wrong.

    Students: We can get free music? No shit! *scrible* *scratchity scratch* (students write down "Kazaa" in notebooks , will google this new found wonder as soon as they get home)

    Teacher: uh... ohh... oh Shit.

  • ... we don't need no education... ... we don't need no thought control...

  • Scary times... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Yaa 101 ( 664725 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:39PM (#9906069) Journal
    When you realize that when students for instance use the wikipedia, which is a rich source of knowledge, are flunked because their teacher refuses to accept any other source than the "official" recources.

    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)

      by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:43PM (#9906457) Homepage
      In the case of Wikipedia, it's a good idea to disallow it as a trustable source. A Wikipedia entry is only as trustable as the most recent person who edited it. And there are people out there who sabotage information on Wikipedia, replacing it with lies suited to their own agenda. Granted, those sorts of things do get fixed by others who maintain the page and go check it after it's updated, but they only check it after a window of time has passed - a window in which you might be looking at the page.

      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?)

  • by stox ( 131684 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:43PM (#9906095) Homepage
    "British Schoolkids Get Copyrighted Education"

    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.
    • During last term my daughter came home from school one day and told me about the virgin birth. I told her that Mary was a prostitute and Jesus was a fruit-cake cult leader.

      Copyright education will be no different in this house.
  • by YahoKa ( 577942 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:46PM (#9906112)
    Where have we seen crap like this before ... ? I know! In drug education. Kids today either get bad information from friends (try these drugs, they're cool, there's no risk) or from the school (don't do drugs, they're all bad and will ruin your life). I personally have seen that kids have so much mis-information about things like this (sex, drugs, where are parents these days, anyways?). And we wonder why kids do so many drugs? Well, maybe the school should teach them the truth instead of lies and propaganda, then kids will learn to make responsible choices. Maybe it's just me, but nothing makes me more annoyed than being mis-educated. By the way, if you do want to do drugs, read erowid.org first =)

    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.

  • by Valar ( 167606 )
    This will do as much good in ending file sharing as DARE did for ending drug use. Truth is, just saying something to a kid in a classroom doesn't mean he or she is going to believe it. In fact, if you teach it, once the kid gets to the 'rebelious' stage, he/she is probably going to start downloading like crazy just to piss off the figures of authority.
  • Hey, I learned about copyright law in school as a kid a few decades ago, too.

    The simple little research paper, long a staple of classroom curriculums, requires telling students a little bit about what you can and can't do when you cite your source materials. And it requires understanding the difference between the fair use allowed in citing a work versus outright wholesale plagerism of that work.

    Now, seeing as how the people pushing this crappy propaganda are trying to pretend there is no such thing as F
  • Every generation of children that selfishly hoarded their toy as "mine! mine!" is taught by their parents that it is good to share.

    Now the schoolteachers are going to teach them that it is bad to share.

    That should peg the bullshit meter.

  • by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @11:18PM (#9906640) Homepage Journal
    "The Register reports that British school children will be indoctrinated in copyright law...The U.S. has its own version."

    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.

    ...Because they'll REALLY need copyright law in the future, right? This is why public education is a bad idea. If it isn't Coke propping your school for a presence in the cafeteria, it's crap like this.

  • STEPHEN GERALD BREYER [supremecourthistory.org] (born August 15, 1938) summed it up nicely when he wrote:

    The U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause grants Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science ... by securing for LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.." The statute before us, the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, extends the term of most existing copyrights to 95 years and that of many new copyrights to 70 years after the author's death. The economic effect of thi

  • WHY this is evil (Score:3, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdougNO@SPAMgeekazon.com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @11:32PM (#9906713) Homepage
    When CDs were invented, nobody thought of patenting "method of distributing music by recording it on a CD and putting it in a plastic box." But that will change. Governments, following the lead of the US, are increasingly allowing patents on business practices. Someone has already patented the idea of recording and mixing a live concert and producing CDs on the spot to sell to audience members as they leave. There's no reason this couldn't happen with whatever new thing people are going to buy when they stop buying CDs. Recording companies need only wait a few years for the next leap in media technology, patent not just the technology itself but the methods of using it to distribute entertainment, and they will have a lock on licensing it to anybody who wants to use it. Say goodbye to the idea of bands cutting their own albums. P2P and other file sharing systems will be illegal (see other /. story today [slashdot.org]), so musicians will once again be workers-for-hire for record companies.

    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.
  • I wrote the following essay several months ago. It's fairly broken apart, and it needs to be more fluid, but it gets all my points about stuff like this across. The names are fictional. The rest is true.

    Free Speech On The Approved Reading List

    I once read that a story is a way to slip past your emotional immune system. It's like a virus that makes you feel something you wouldn't always feel. If that's true, then it's no wonder that certain stories are banned, that we won't let our children read some

  • Please, educating students about the law is "indoctrinating" them? Grow up.

    Intelligent people can have intelligent discussions on issues related to intellectual property, but pushing for ignorance concerning any point of view contrary to your own or even the law as it is currently written is just stupid.

    -1 Flamebait me as much as you fucking want, it had to be said.

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...