Slashdot Mirror

It doesn't say that. In fact, the teacher's guide says this in the answer section:

Caitlin is not a songlifter because personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music. Caitlin can copy her music onto her hard drive and her MP3 player. Caitlin can even burn a CD with her own special mix of music she has purchased.

This is related to the item from the activity guide:

Caitlin wants to listen to music as much as possible. She copies all the music she buys online onto blank CDs so she can listen to her music when her friends come over to play. And she transfers the music she buys on CD onto her MP3 player so she can listen when driving in the car with her family.

This is followed by a multiple choice checklist with possible answers. I suspect the summary was written with the assumption that the "correct" answer is the one most likely to inflame Slashdot passions.

In short, this is (as another commenter pointed out elsewhere) likely FUD. I re-read TFA multiple times and couldn't figure out where the author of the summary got that bit from, and then dug down into the PDFs on the Music Rules site. Turns out I couldn't find anything resembling the claim made in the summary because it wasn't there to be found.

It doesn't say that. In fact, the teacher's guide says this in the answer section:

Caitlin is not a songlifter because personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music. Caitlin can copy her music onto her hard drive and her MP3 player. Caitlin can even burn a CD with her own special mix of music she has purchased.

This is related to the item from the activity guide:

Caitlin wants to listen to music as much as possible. She copies all the music she buys online onto blank CDs so she can listen to her music when her friends come over to play. And she transfers the music she buys on CD onto her MP3 player so she can listen when driving in the car with her family.

This is followed by a multiple choice checklist with possible answers. I suspect the summary was written with the assumption that the "correct" answer is the one most likely to inflame Slashdot passions.

In short, this is (as another commenter pointed out elsewhere) likely FUD. I re-read TFA multiple times and couldn't figure out where the author of the summary got that bit from, and then dug down into the PDFs on the Music Rules site. Turns out I couldn't find anything resembling the claim made in the summary because it wasn't there to be found.

Taken (without permission) from here, commentary mine:

Can I use file-sharing software to exchange music with other computers?

Although file-sharing software can be legal, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that file-sharing companies can be held responsible for encouraging people to illegally exchange copyrighted material over the Internet in this way.

So it can be legal, but file sharing sites are run by guilty bad guys.

Individuals who use file-sharing sites to upload and download copyrighted music without permission can also be sued or prosecuted.

That's about as straightforward as you can get...

In addition to these risks, file-sharing software gives others direct access to your computer hard drive and any private information, such as medical and financial records, that may be stored there.

Wait ... what? Here they drop their PC "may" and "can", and straight-up say that file sharing software lets others access your important private data. This is a complete lie. It's not even partially true.

File-sharing software also makes computers more vulnerable to viruses, and may contain spyware, which is designed to feed information about your online activities to a third party, impeding your computerâ(TM)s performance in the process.

Also stating absolutely that file sharing software makes your computer slow and puts viruses on it. Also complete bullshit.

If the RIAA were presenting a reasonable view of copyright, I'd applaud them. This is pure FUD bullshit filled with not only bias, but flat-out lies. Any teacher that presents this curriculum should be fired immediately.

While what the RIAA curriculum is teaching might be counter to your moral beliefs (i.e. you may believe that all information should be free and copyright laws are an abomination), unless it is factually inaccurate it doesn't matter.

The part that concerns me is that the RIAA's curriculum is not presenting a fair and unbiased outlook on the copyright situation. The summary points out "fair use" as an example of a topic that's relevant but not discussed to any relevant degree. The message is more or less a mindless list of activities that may be illegal stating outright that they are illegal, and that is incorrect.

The RIAA is (ab)using its power (derived from its financial prowess) to gain an influence in schools and using an influence to spread an incomplete message to kids with the intention of modifying their behavior, their opinions, and their perspective on file sharing en masse. In an open forum, the solution is for an alternative party to present their own material, filling in the blanks and correcting errors and biased statements.

Schools, however, are not open forums. Unfortunately, the alternative parties don't really have the resources to compete with the RIAA, and likely won't be heard in a shouting contest. This leaves schools (and through them, kids, and through them, the future political climate) completely vulnerable to this one-sided propaganda.

Material that is presented in schools ought to be factual and unbiased (hah, but seriously). The rationale for this is that the children aren't necessarily mature, smart enough, and/or capable enough to exhibit their due diligence and perform their own research on the subjects that they are exposed to. They may (and most probably will) accept the school's teachings as unquestioned fact for at least the near future (this is marketed towards kids grades 3-8).

Of course, parents can always step in and attempt to un-bias (or re-bias) the curriculum, and that is their prerogative and their duty, but they can only operate on knowledge that they are aware of. Some will likely undo the RIAA's propaganda, but many will not, and those kids will grow up believing that the RIAA's half-truths are the entire picture.

Ultimately, a school should not use the material directly ... they should petition interested parties and collect relevant information, then forge their own aggregate materials to present to children. However, both myself and the RIAA know full well many schools will take the easy path, and who knows ... with good lobbying, maybe they'll be forced to.

...and that making copies for personal use and then playing them while your friends come over is illegal.

Actually, it doesn't say this at all. I'm guessing the summary is referring to this PDF (page 3) where this scenario is presented as one of four where students have to "spot the songlifters." While there's no answer key provided (as these scenarios are meant as jumping-off points for discussion), I believe it's safe to say that the intent is to show that 1 and 3 are songlifters, while 2 (the one referenced in the summary) and 4 are not.

There is no mention whatsoever of fair use.

Well, there actually is a mention of fair use in the parent guide but all it does is refer you to a better site. The only other mention is -- hilariously enough -- in their own terms of use about using the materials on the site under fair use.

But that's beside your point, let's play a game. Pretend you have the floor in front of primary school students and you want to explain fair use. What do you say?

I'm not saying they shouldn't mention it. Because it's not well defined. Fair use is, in my opinion, an abomination in that it's a "law" that's not defined in anyway. And what's even better is when I try to cite the safe harbor laws or portion limits on Slashdot, I'm ridiculed over and over (not that I've ever practiced law but as a citizen it's the most I can find) despite my analysis being correct! So with my masters degree in computer science, I am clearly unable to pin down what precisely constitutes fair use and what does not. I imagine that were I charged with uploading and editing fair use samples of every song off of David Bowie's Hunky Dory album (which I did) that my innocence would depend entirely on how much money I have for a lawyer ... not the law. Because "fair use" is ambiguous and the so called "doctrine" is downright laughable. If you don't agree with me, go ahead and post a response arguing for or against my above Wikipedia edits being "fair use." I'll gladly play the devil's advocate if someone doesn't beat me to it.

So given the above information, would you please outline how you would explain this to children? Or how you plan to "win their hearts and souls" with the fair use doctrine?

What I want for Christmas: someone in my government to man up and bring any amount of clarity to copyright law, fair use and (while we're at it) patents. Something shouldn't be unclear until you've already been sued for doing it. That's how you find yourself in situations like the RIAA suing thousands of people and watching court case after court case resolve to millions in damages awarded from an average citizen to a huge conglomerate of lawyers and labels.

There is no mention whatsoever of fair use.

Well, there actually is a mention of fair use in the parent guide but all it does is refer you to a better site. The only other mention is -- hilariously enough -- in their own terms of use about using the materials on the site under fair use.

But that's beside your point, let's play a game. Pretend you have the floor in front of primary school students and you want to explain fair use. What do you say?

I'm not saying they shouldn't mention it. Because it's not well defined. Fair use is, in my opinion, an abomination in that it's a "law" that's not defined in anyway. And what's even better is when I try to cite the safe harbor laws or portion limits on Slashdot, I'm ridiculed over and over (not that I've ever practiced law but as a citizen it's the most I can find) despite my analysis being correct! So with my masters degree in computer science, I am clearly unable to pin down what precisely constitutes fair use and what does not. I imagine that were I charged with uploading and editing fair use samples of every song off of David Bowie's Hunky Dory album (which I did) that my innocence would depend entirely on how much money I have for a lawyer ... not the law. Because "fair use" is ambiguous and the so called "doctrine" is downright laughable. If you don't agree with me, go ahead and post a response arguing for or against my above Wikipedia edits being "fair use." I'll gladly play the devil's advocate if someone doesn't beat me to it.

So given the above information, would you please outline how you would explain this to children? Or how you plan to "win their hearts and souls" with the fair use doctrine?

What I want for Christmas: someone in my government to man up and bring any amount of clarity to copyright law, fair use and (while we're at it) patents. Something shouldn't be unclear until you've already been sued for doing it. That's how you find yourself in situations like the RIAA suing thousands of people and watching court case after court case resolve to millions in damages awarded from an average citizen to a huge conglomerate of lawyers and labels.