When I went through school DARE was just getting started. Everybody was jumping behind it as a way to target kids right in the classroom early-on and say "Don't do drugs." However, DARE has been an awesome failure. Some of the buggest potheads that I know sat right next to me in those classes, parroting the lines that "Officer Jim" told us.
I believe that this program will have similar results; Little Suzie says "I'll never download, that's bad" at school then goes home and gets the whole new Britney Spears album because, ya know, it's free!
Also, this part is particularly interesting:
The ''fair use" doctrine allows the public to use copyrighted material for educational purposes. One can use another's work to parody, review, or critique that material. You can even legally swap material, as long as it's not for commercial gain, said Seltzer. ''People tape movies on their VCRs and swap it with friends without getting arrested for piracy," she said.
so, by that logic, all P2P is legal. I'm not getting any commercial by sharing files out, nor are the people that I download from. What's the diff in having 3 friends that swap movies off HBO or 3 Billion friends swapping some AC/DC albums?
It was mainly an awesome failure for the stupid kids. I should feel bad about that, but I'm all for societal Darwinism.
And I Just want to point out that not everyone involved with this agrees with Seltzer's interpretation of copyright legislation. Instead, they view in a way that benefits them; you can't make money off of free sharing.
It was mainly an awesome failure for the stupid kids.
The so called "War on drugs" is the biggest failure ever. Trying to control how people use their own fscking bodies is simply the most obscure idea ever concieved. And trying to enforce it "zero tolerance"-style is true madness.
However, people are brainwashed that drugs are "evil", thus fighting drug-users is a good thing(tm). You know what? Assuming people who use "drugs" is stupid, is just plain stupidity in itself.
Programs like this target the mediocre kids. Smart kids just don't fall for this crap. Dumb kids happily say "I'll never download illegal stuff" and then go and download stuff because the whole concept never connects for them. Just because there are large groups of kids for which this program will fail miserably does not mean the program will not have a notable effect on a decent percentage.
I wouldn't be too quick to say that this sort of thing will fail - programs like this can work remarkably well on a resonably large percentage.
Just look at how well fnord other schemes fnord have fnord worked.
Not true. In my school their are lots of kids who were never too bright, went through DARE, and talk about getting together to smoke DURRING CLASS. That "durring class" proves that they were never very smart to begin with. I've even smelt people walking around smelling like smoke durring the day. The bathrooms are always closed because people try to smoke in their all the time.
The success of the program isn't measured in how many kids failed to learn from it. The success is measured in how many kids did learn from it.
Drug use in America's high schools is at an all-time low.
You can even legally swap material, as long as it's not for commercial gain, said Seltzer. ''People tape movies on their VCRs and swap it with friends without getting arrested for piracy," she said.
Yeah, about that. That's not actually true. The second part is, I
The "diff," obviously, is a matter of degrees. Society can stand a little bit of unlawful activity.
It is a matter of degrees, but you're wrong about which degrees. Regardless of your misinformed opinion, it is actually legal for you to tape a show off HBO, and it is legal for you to lend that tape to a friend. The degree part comes in because the law is fuzzy and ill-defined as to the point where increased volume of copying and sharing actually becomes illegal.
A quick CNN search turned up this [cnn.com]. Not an "all time" low, but a drop anyway. Generally speaking, teen behavior has been improving by virtually every measure (pregnancy, drug use, violence) for decades.
The real test of DARE's effectiveness is the difference in drug use between schools using the program and schools not using the program. The only real data on this that I know of shows that DARE is not effective [ndsn.org].
I sat through DARE. As someone who has NEVER used illegal drugs, (though plenty of my friends did), I thought it was a waste of time. My friends did too, though for a different reason.
The truth is simple: if you aren't into drugs, chances are you think "who cares, I don't do em anyways" and if you are you think, "that moron doesn't know jack!"
Personally, I think it's fallacious to think that these programs have that much influence when presented to large groups.
If you want to change someones attitude about something, small (2-4) groups work best. It is also best to have a peer do the talking, not some cop.
The same applies to the MPAA. If they want to change kids attitudes, they have to get kids who care, and are considered cool by the target group.
This is hard, because those mostly likely to get movies are not likely to think anyone who is against it is cool without some serious groundwork.
"Teenage kids, even rebels, don't like to be alone, so when kids opt out of the system, they tend to do it as a group. At the schools I went to, the focus of rebellion was drug use, specifically marijuana. The kids in this tribe wore black concert t-shirts and were called "freaks," though I think now everyone uses the west coast term "stoner."
Freaks and nerds were allies, and there was a good deal of overlap between them. Freaks were on the whole smarter than other kids, though never studying, or at least
"The success is measured in how many kids did learn from it."
A *LOT* of kids learned from DARE. They just didn't learn the lesson their teachers and the police expected. The course may be diffrent now, but back when I was an elementary and middle-school student (10-15 years ago), the emphasis was on shocking the kids into obedience, not giving them real information. The first lesson we learned was that drugs will mess you up, destroy your life, and eventually kill you. Then we had friends who smoked a little weed and didn't get addicted, messed up, or killed. Then we learned the real lesson of DARE: Our teachers, our school principals, the police, Nancy Reagan, and that girl on TV with the frying pan lied to us all through our childhood.
Good points, but don't minimize the effect of having children learn that "drugs are bad" but that "getting embalmed nightly at the bar" is A-freakin'-OK. The cognitive dissonance of treatment of alcohol and drugs is just too much for the rational brain to handle... hence, we lose the attention and respect of most children when we try to make a point about drugs in general.
>Then we learned the real lesson of DARE: Our teachers, our school principals, the police, Nancy Reagan, and that girl on TV with the frying pan lied to us all through our childhood.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Sunday April 25, 2004 @02:00PM (#8965987)
at my school.. the cop from DARE passed around 3 joints to show everyone... and he said "if i dont get all three of these back this schools getting locked down and everyones getting searched till i find it.." and like 30 minutes later when everyone got to see 'em and they got passed back the cop had 4
so, by that logic, all P2P is legal. I'm not getting any commercial by sharing files out, nor are the people that I download from. What's the diff in having 3 friends that swap movies off HBO or 3 Billion friends swapping some AC/DC albums?
To take a stab at answering the question, the difference is:
(a1) what you tape off of HBO it is something that is already tapped out as far as video sales go; and
(b1) any copies made will be slightly degraded in quality from the original; the original itself also degr
the DARE program in my school suffered a major setback after the officer was arrested for drunk driving. Oh, and after one of my friends parents said he could always get the best deals on pot, because, you know, he was a cop.
i always thought he knew a little too much about what he was saying.
so, by that logic, all P2P is legal. I'm not getting any commercial by sharing files out, nor are the people that I download from. What's the diff in having 3 friends that swap movies off HBO or 3 Billion friends swapping some AC/DC albums?
There's a huge difference, and because people like you don't realize that, the MPAA feels the need to educate children in copyright laws.
When I "share" my taped movie with a friend, I am giving him my only copy of it. While he has the tape, I don't have it, therefore
When I "share" my taped movie with a friend, I am giving him my only copy of it. While he has the tape, I don't have it, therefore it is legal.
When I "share" an MP3 with another firned, I am not giving him my only copy of the song. I am making a new copy and giving that to him. Maybe you don't realize it, but this is a huge difference! In fact, this difference is the basis for copyright law - the control over distribution of copies of creative works.
By that logic, it's acceptable to tape a movie off of
[I]t's acceptable to tape a movie off of HBO onto one (1) tape and one tape only - but not legal to make a copy of said tape?
Technically, yes. The only demonstrated legal use of the VCR provided as evidence during the _Sony_ trial was the issue of time-shifting: taking a program which had been played at a particular time and shifting it, in whole, to a different time.
What the fuck kind of sense does that make?
Legal sense. Something is true only if it's demonstrated at trial, either through stipulati
Sorry, that simply isn't true. Copyright covers both distribution and copying -- you do not have the right to make multiple copies of a work you own for your own private use. In the US, the controlling statutes are in Title 17 of the US Code. Title 17, Chapter 1, section 106 defines the scope of copyright protection (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html for a better copy of the text):
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do
I should clarify: I was responding to an AC who claimed that copyright only applies to distribution. That's a popular misconception.
And, for the productively inactive among you, here's a clickable form of that link to the interactive legal site at Cornell: clicky clicky [cornell.edu].
It's interesting to see a 'sharing == theft' argument that acknowledges that some forms of sharing require one party to be deprived of the possession of an item, when others don't.
That fascinates me because the RIAA/MPAA argument is essentially that property has been *stolen* whether or not an item has been removed from their posession, yet this line of reasoning seems to indicate that physical posession is paramount with regard to the difference between copyright infringment and fair use.
Just like DARE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that this program will have similar results; Little Suzie says "I'll never download, that's bad" at school then goes home and gets the whole new Britney Spears album because, ya know, it's free!
Also, this part is particularly interesting:
The ''fair use" doctrine allows the public to use copyrighted material for educational purposes. One can use another's work to parody, review, or critique that material. You can even legally swap material, as long as it's not for commercial gain, said Seltzer. ''People tape movies on their VCRs and swap it with friends without getting arrested for piracy," she said.
so, by that logic, all P2P is legal. I'm not getting any commercial by sharing files out, nor are the people that I download from. What's the diff in having 3 friends that swap movies off HBO or 3 Billion friends swapping some AC/DC albums?
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2, Insightful)
And I Just want to point out that not everyone involved with this agrees with Seltzer's interpretation of copyright legislation. Instead, they view in a way that benefits them; you can't make money off of free sharing.
You -did- ask for this rant. (Score:1)
The so called "War on drugs" is the biggest failure ever. Trying to control how people use their own fscking bodies is simply the most obscure idea ever concieved. And trying to enforce it "zero tolerance"-style is true madness.
However, people are brainwashed that drugs are "evil", thus fighting drug-users is a good thing(tm). You know what? Assuming people who use "drugs" is stupid, is just plain stupidity in itself.
What do you know about dru
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't be too quick to say that this sort of thing will fail - programs like this can work remarkably well on a resonably large percentage.
Just look at how well fnord other schemes fnord have fnord worked.
Jedidiah.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2)
I think the proper PC terminology is "minimally-exceptional."
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:1)
DURRING CLASS (Score:1)
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2)
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:1, Redundant)
The success of the program isn't measured in how many kids failed to learn from it. The success is measured in how many kids did learn from it.
Drug use in America's high schools is at an all-time low.
You can even legally swap material, as long as it's not for commercial gain, said Seltzer. ''People tape movies on their VCRs and swap it with friends without getting arrested for piracy," she said.
Yeah, about that. That's not actually true. The second part is, I
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a matter of degrees, but you're wrong about which degrees. Regardless of your misinformed opinion, it is actually legal for you to tape a show off HBO, and it is legal for you to lend that tape to a friend. The degree part comes in because the law is fuzzy and ill-defined as to the point where increased volume of copying and sharing actually becomes illegal.
To repeat: most people are not currently bre
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh man, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a study to back that one up.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2)
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I sat through DARE. As someone who has NEVER used illegal drugs, (though plenty of my friends did), I thought it was a waste of time. My friends did too, though for a different reason.
The truth is simple: if you aren't into drugs, chances are you think "who cares, I don't do em anyways" and if you are you think, "that moron doesn't know jack!"
Personally, I think it's fallacious to think that these programs have that much influence when presented to large groups.
If you want to change someones attitude about something, small (2-4) groups work best. It is also best to have a peer do the talking, not some cop.
The same applies to the MPAA. If they want to change kids attitudes, they have to get kids who care, and are considered cool by the target group.
This is hard, because those mostly likely to get movies are not likely to think anyone who is against it is cool without some serious groundwork.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:1)
Freaks and nerds were allies, and there was a good deal of overlap between them. Freaks were on the whole smarter than other kids, though never studying, or at least
DARE is a crock... (Score:4, Insightful)
A *LOT* of kids learned from DARE. They just didn't learn the lesson their teachers and the police expected. The course may be diffrent now, but back when I was an elementary and middle-school student (10-15 years ago), the emphasis was on shocking the kids into obedience, not giving them real information. The first lesson we learned was that drugs will mess you up, destroy your life, and eventually kill you. Then we had friends who smoked a little weed and didn't get addicted, messed up, or killed. Then we learned the real lesson of DARE: Our teachers, our school principals, the police, Nancy Reagan, and that girl on TV with the frying pan lied to us all through our childhood.
Re:DARE is a crock... (Score:2)
Re:DARE is a crock... (Score:1)
>Then we learned the real lesson of DARE: Our teachers, our school principals, the police, Nancy Reagan, and that girl on TV with the frying pan lied to us all through our childhood.
A-fucking-men.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2, Funny)
I suspect that when you use the expression "all-time" you're using your own private definition of "all", of "time", or of both.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2)
Um, since when? Does it include the 19th century? Somehow I doubt that opium (the only narcotic available) was a big problem in US schools back then.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:5, Funny)
--www.bash.org
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2)
To take a stab at answering the question, the difference is:
(a1) what you tape off of HBO it is something that is already tapped out as far as video sales go; and
(b1) any copies made will be slightly degraded in quality from the original; the original itself also degr
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:1, Interesting)
i always thought he knew a little too much about what he was saying.
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a huge difference, and because people like you don't realize that, the MPAA feels the need to educate children in copyright laws.
When I "share" my taped movie with a friend, I am giving him my only copy of it. While he has the tape, I don't have it, therefore
Nope, you're wrong. (Score:2)
When I "share" an MP3 with another firned, I am not giving him my only copy of the song. I am making a new copy and giving that to him. Maybe you don't realize it, but this is a huge difference! In fact, this difference is the basis for copyright law - the control over distribution of copies of creative works.
By that logic, it's acceptable to tape a movie off of
Re:Nope, he's right (Score:2)
Technically, yes. The only demonstrated legal use of the VCR provided as evidence during the _Sony_ trial was the issue of time-shifting: taking a program which had been played at a particular time and shifting it, in whole, to a different time.
What the fuck kind of sense does that make?
Legal sense. Something is true only if it's demonstrated at trial, either through stipulati
Re:Nope, he's right (Score:2)
Re:Nope, he's right (Score:2)
And, for the productively inactive among you, here's a clickable form of that link to the interactive legal site at Cornell: clicky clicky [cornell.edu].
Re:Just like DARE! (Score:2)
That fascinates me because the RIAA/MPAA argument is essentially that property has been *stolen* whether or not an item has been removed from their posession, yet this line of reasoning seems to indicate that physical posession is paramount with regard to the difference between copyright infringment and fair use.
oh, about... (Score:5, Funny)
2,999,999,997 people.
*snicker*