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.
Doubleplusungood (Score:5, Funny)
Jabber the Lawyer [aftab.com]
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:5, Insightful)
In any personal relationship, friendship and courtesy (and the sharing implicit in that, be it of emotions, ideas, music or more tangible things) are paramount. This interaction isn't present with most corporations, and certainly not most industry lobby groups. As Rousseau in 'Social Contract' (or perhaps, more accessibly, Lessig in 'Free Culture') would argue, we have no particular debt of respect or obligation towards them. As much as it hurts my rather Gandhian ideals, there must be SOME degree of simultaneity in trust.
Moreover, we've lost recourse in the legal system (here in the UK and otherwise), as it has 1) become far too complicated for anyone 2) become infested with large lobbying groups. 1) means we're down to such a level of nitty-grittying that it isn't possible, even with the very best of intentions (ie ignoring 2)), to create judgements which are universally (or even necessarily majority-wise equitable). The lawyers' obsession with precedent is depressing. 2) means that we are obligated at a grassroots level to promoting art libre.
All these lead to the inescapable conclusion that I will do what I feel just (note: not what I feel LIKE DOING a la Machiavelli). Teaching kids that copyright is the altar before which we must torture ourselves seems to be a dangerously flawed view of society, and of the way it should develop.
Lastly, it was (obviously?) a joke - lighten up!
Key word in there... (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Key word in there... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Key word in there... (Score:4, Insightful)
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
Re:Key word in there... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Insightful)
"Happy Birthday" is fucking copyrighted.
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:2)
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:2, Insightful)
Teacher! Does the school pay the creators for all the ideas it teaches in classes?
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:2)
Have you seen a Trix commercial any time during the past few decades?
Re:Doubleplusungood (Score:2)
From www.m-w.com
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:2)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:2)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:2)
Isn't Tower Records in Chapter 11 bankruptcy?
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Informative)
I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them.
I don't know where you live, but the independent record store is the only one thriving in major cities (Amoeba in L.A., for example.) Stores that cater to collectors, that have knowledgable staff that caters to people with taste beyond the mainstream will always have a place. If the previous owners failed, they weren't good businessmen, plain and simple. It wasn't because the music was, as you perceive it, weird.
I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.
Two thoughts. The first is, they aren't very Christian, are they?
The second is, perhaps it's your business model that's to blame, not the internet. You just might be selling something that no one wants. Christian Rock, for example, tends to be really bad music, a pale imitation of what was popular two years ago. Most teenagers are too hip to buy that crap.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to put this CD on the Internet right away."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the record industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
Alright, forget this, you're not even a good liar. The dialogue is straight from a Chick tract. Except Jack Chick wouldn't have a Christian record store owner use the word "shit."
Though I have to admit, the "lete (sic)" was kind of funny.
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Informative)
woohoo.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:woohoo.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:woohoo.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:woohoo.. (Score:2)
Math class - You get to perform caculations for how much P2P networks have defrauded artists.
But not any math that might lead to such evil knowlege as cryptography or programming. As we all know, knowing programming is evil because it circumvents DRM. Only software made by companies is DRM-trustable, and if those companies want you to know how it works, then they'll teach you when you join their workforce. Until then, learning it on your own is just the sort of rebellious attitude we don't allow aroun
If it happesn (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it would be great if someone made a list of such things that we could xerox and pass out to all the students so they can be PROPERLY educated.
Re:If it happesn (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If it happesn (Score:2)
Oh copyright violations? Yah. I know...except, their sales increased not decreased. Interesting....
Artists are victims. Publishers are the PERPS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Will you bother to tell him that the victims of illegal sharing are the artists and creators themselves?
The victims of the existance of the "publishing industry" are the artists and creators themselves. The advance of new models of compensation for artists and creators is hindered, to the point of non-existance, by the "publishing industry".
Re:Artists are victims. Publishers are the PERPS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sooo, explain how the artists get compensated when you download a MP3 from a P2P network.
They don't. Perhaps they should play some live gigs. Maybe hock some merch.
Get over the idea that's been planted in your head that artists are entitled to royalties. This is a construction of only the recent past. There were artists long before there were royalties.
Re:Artists are victims. Publishers are the PERPS! (Score:2)
Re:Artists are victims. Publishers are the PERPS! (Score:2)
This is how things used to work; now- they stop anyone from touching the song unless they pay- which means that only certain songs/composers can rise to the top of there fields; and all the folk who would play a modern beethoven's work (because it's well known) have to make up there own st
Re:If it happesn (Score:2)
Re:Xerox?? (Score:2)
wow... this is scary (Score:4, Funny)
Is this brainwashing even legal?
What is next? Teaching them by prying open their eyes like in Clockwork Orange with Beethoven playing on the background??
Re:wow... this is scary (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Re:wow... this is scary (Score:3, Insightful)
One nation, indivisible, under Ashcroft...
Obligatory Pink Floyd quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory Pink Floyd quote... (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer "Sheep" (Score:3, Interesting)
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.
Bleating and babbling I fell on his
I don't mean to be contrary (Score:3, Insightful)
The first step is understanding. I don't see how anyone could be against legal education in schools.
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they also teach you how to be critical of the law and how to spot bad or outdated laws, no problem.
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how anyone could be against legal education in schools.
Do you see how people could be against misleading and inaccurate legal education in schools? That is precisely what will happen if we let the RIAA design the course material, which is precisely what they are doing.
The proper response when RIAA people start pushing schools to do this is for the schools to push back by saying, "You want us to educate people on copyright law? Sure thing - but *WE* are designing the course material then, not you. And well teach it to them accurately, including it's history, and why it was created, and including how you keep pushing copyright terms longer and longer... now, are you sure you want kids educated about this sort of thing...."
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:2)
Unless you want to teach the kids that there's nothing wrong...
Stop right there. That phrase does not semantically parse. The grammar is correct, but the meaning isn't mappable into my head. You can't teach a lack of a thing.
Re:I don't mean to be contrary (Score:2)
Do we really want corporate America influencing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do we really want corporate America influencing (Score:5, Insightful)
Our educational system? Sure copyright is an issue that is controversial, and piracy is a problem...
Violations of "intellectual property" law (please don't call it "piracy") are a problem IF SOCIETY SAYS THEY ARE. "Intellectual property" law is a SOCIAL CONTRACT where society grants the creators of works of "intellectual property" a monopoly on their use, distribution, derivation, and/or duplication for a limited time. Of course, in the United States the contract has been so perverted by the lobby of the publishing industry that it bears no resemblence to what was originally specified by the Constitution.
What we need to be teaching is the history of "intellectual property" law, and teaching our children that it's right to question the law, and to ask "Why does this have to be this way?" Anyone who believes that law is static and unchanging, based on the collective opinion of society, needs to recall "blue laws" and other such antiquities.
Re:Do we really want corporate America influencing (Score:2)
That's dangerous to those in power, who coincidently approve school curricula. Also, at least in GA, we still have blue laws.
Re:Do we really want corporate America influencing (Score:3, Interesting)
Channel One (Score:2)
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]
Integrity? (Score:2)
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.
Lil Senator Hatches (Score:4, Funny)
more little non-sharing learned Senator Hatches running around with British accents.
Only the Begining.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Teaching kids the music industry's idea of copyright law, very, very bad idea.
Lying ass piece of shit dirt bag.... (Score:4, Informative)
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
http://www.hpronline.org/news/2003/01/25/I
What is going to stop his organization from lying to children? Nothing.
Btw, for those in the US fair use DOES exist in common law and in statute, specifically, TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 107.
Re:Lying ass piece of shit dirt bag.... (Score:2)
Re:Lying ass piece of shit dirt bag.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Lying ass piece of shit dirt bag.... (Score:2)
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)
Must counterattack. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re:Resource Mismanagement (Score:5, Insightful)
Short version: if we're going to find time and money to educate our children on music copyright, how much more important is it to include music in our children's educations?
Because the real agenda is to teach children that the publishing industry is the only way that artists can be "legitimate", and that the creations must be owned by corporations and "protected" by "intellectual property" laws. It has nothing to do with teaching why-- rather, the point is to teach the kids not to ask why.
Re:Resource Mismanagement (Score:2)
Who owns you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta eduh-kate them early on, before the little consumers grow up! It's only sensible!
I'm hoping the kids think this is bullshit, and it might trigger the opposite response. It deeply saddens me that the industry feels so strongly that people are just consumers of products and not that there is an inherent right to fair-use, sharing or collective ownership/stakeholders. Sharing something you own does not make you a thief or a commie -- it's a behaviour that is blessed by the spirit of copyright law, that of fair use and public stakeholdership.
Re:Who owns you? (Score:2)
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.
Buggy whip manufacturers grasping at straws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who says this has anything to do with compensation of artists is arguing a red herring. We have wonderful (read: inexpensive, reliable, ubiquitous) mechanisms for mass information distribution now, and publishers are realizing that they are quickly becoming unnecessary, and they're scared.
There's nothing natural about the way our copyright law in the United States and "intellectual property" in general work. It's a social contract, and, frankly, that contract is tilted rather sharply in the direction of publishers at present. Of course, it only makes sense now that the publishers are going to catch the children at a young age, and indoctrinate them into this idea that the present social contract is "just how things are", and squelch the very idea that society might want to renegotiate the terms of the different monopoly grants afforded by our "intellectual property" law.
It's fucking depressing. We need "intellectual property" revolution while there's still enough of a public who understands that things don't have to be this way.
Re:Buggy whip manufacturers grasping at straws... (Score:2)
Same thing is true for physical property.
I call bullshit. Physical property has scarcity.
So... (Score:2)
Great. We now know where society's priorities for our children and our youth are heading.
Who are the Real Pirates? (Score:2, Interesting)
Right and Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Business owners that engage in shady deals aren't sociopaths- they know that what they're doing is 'wrong'. They simply don't care. Business Ethics classes won't give a criminal a bleeding heart and convert him to charitable donations.
Likewise, teaching copyright law wont do a convert evil file sharers into saints. If a person believes its wrong, they'll either do it anyway or they wont. If they believe its alright and the laws are screwed up, they'll likewise do it anyway or they wont.
The only good you could hope to get from classes teaching copyright law, sponsered by the music industry, is to scare kids into compliance at an early age. Make sure they understand that sharing a single MP3 in this day and age could potentially screw them over more than say, unprotected sex or smoking.
The class isnt there to teach people to be more 'moral'. It's to scare them into complacence. It's to get it into their heads that this is the LAW, so that from this point on, noone will question it just as noone questions cigarette taxes (another societal evil that no one questions because smoking's undesirable and it doesn't affect the nonsmokers that voted for it).
Re:Right and Wrong (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Parents Job (Score:2)
This is Just Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh brave new world.
I went to a catholic high school (Score:3, Interesting)
She would sit the children down and repeatedly ask them "Who loves you?" and the children were to reply "God loves me," every time.
I was horrified, but I was the only one.
That was the very moment I realized that I was not one of these people.
Re:I went to a catholic high school (Score:2)
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.
I think it'll work.. (Score:3, Funny)
The aim is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all have heard of that little girl whose family was forced to pay thousands of dollars because she downloaded a few harmless songs. Now, the record industry aims to take away the "kids don't know better" loophole, and wash their hands of responsibilty. "Hey, you broke the law. It says so right here and here, in the packet we gave you. Now we're going to make your family pay thousands of dollars for your little error."
It makes sense to me. You get a five minute time out for kicking your brother, and your parents lose a weeks salary for you downloading a three minute pop song.
Does anyone imagine how guilty and horrible that little girl must feel, for costing her family so much money? Apparently not the record industry. She is to be only another wide eyed lamb sacrificed upon the altar of cold money.
Excellent Idea! YES! (Score:2)
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.
*sings* (Score:2)
Scary times... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what would stop a company as Microsoft changing information to make it spin their way just because their Encarta is being seen by the Microsoft sponsored teacher as the only "official" source?
I use Microsoft only as a well known example but essentially you can fill in any corporate name here...
The quest next century will be who's info is been seen as a truthfull reference to things.
Same goes for blogs, which are only very clever marketing tools to spin desinformation towards the badly informed masses.
Re:Scary times... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikipedia is a useful source for casual browsing, but it is not a trustable one because any crackpot can edit it and his edites appear *immediately* before anyone else even looks at them for review.
Plus there can be the "common knowlege" versus "accurate knowlege" problem, in fields where most people are mistaken about something. (And if you don't think that's a problem, consider the effectiveness of "Organic food" slogans like "grown without using chemicals"...
Really... without chemicals....Wow that's impressive - so none of the matter in your topsoil was formed into molecules at all?)
Headline of the future (Score:3, Interesting)
British school children must now pay lifetime royalties for the privilege of an education.
Pretty scary, but it does seem to be the direction in which we are going.
Re:Headline of the future (Score:2)
Copyright education will be no different in this house.
Kinda like drug education (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with educating kids about something like copyright law, even if it is supported by the music industry. Except the problem, as everyone already knows and pointed out, is that it will end up as an extremely biased education.
Re:Kinda like drug education (Score:2)
Yes! Yes! Yes!
For the link impaired, that's read erowid.org [erowid.org]. Get the whole truth. Know the risks, and choose for yourself.
And donate money to help pay for server bills.
Yeah. (Score:2)
So are they going to stop doing research papers? (Score:2)
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
Sharing is Good! Bad! Good! Bad! (Score:2)
Now the schoolteachers are going to teach them that it is bad to share.
That should peg the bullshit meter.
Brain Suckers and Mind Control (Score:3, Insightful)
While I can't speak for the British, it's really too bad how selective schools are in teaching history. "Sure, we'll go in-depth with copyright law because we're getting kickbacks, but only give a passing glance at how the rest of the government really works and the mechanic behind it and its creation..." I mean cripes, it's obvious from the last election that half the population of the United States doesn't even know what the electoral college is, let alone its purpose.
Send Justice Breyer a birthday card (Score:2)
WHY this is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Through the 20th Century record companies controlled who was able to publish recorded music because the technology to do it was expensive. They could keep this control in the 21st Century by controlling the use of the newest media technology through rights-holding. That's why this school indoctrination thing is evil. The idea of copyrights and patents may not be all that bad, but it's been badly subverted. Intellectual Property laws need to be fixed, not worshipped. Letting the entertainment industry come into schools and shove their agenda down kids throats is a very, very bad idea.
Free Speech On The Approved Reading List (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Grow up (Score:2)
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.
Re:This story is biased. It is unreadable. (Score:2)
Re:This story is biased. It is unreadable. (Score:2)
Re:This story is biased. It is unreadable. (Score:2)
But learning about the law is not the same as "indoctrination".
That statement is true. However, lying to kids about the law IS indoctrination, and I have every reason to believe, based on their past statements where they have shown a willingness to lie about the law in public statements to the press, that this is precisely what the RIAA would do with this class program.
Now if the schools formed their OWN lesson plans that taught about *actual* copyright law, that would be a good thing.
Re:This story is biased. It is unreadable. (Score:2)