Slashdot Mirror
UK Schools to Indoctrinate Respect for IP Laws?
4/3PI*R^3 writes: "Alan Docherty, the editor of Internet Freedom News has an interesting piece in Salon's Technology & Business section. Apparently, the Creative Industries Task Force wants teenagers in the UK to learn the evils downloading MP3's, e-mailing newspaper articles, and exchanging JPEGs. As quoted from Prof. Jessica Litman of Wayne State University, "Many of them believe, for example, that if you buy a CD, you buy the right to share it." Minds are so much easier to manipulate when they are young." Heh. For the record, since I've read some of Litman's work, I should point out that her statement quoted here is definitely intended to be ironic.
C.A.R.E Copyright Abuse Resistance Education
I can see the smouldering fuse. "'Coz of the IP stuff I bought a DVD instead of getting a copy. But when we moved abroad it all of a sudden didn't work anymore. Why?" - yum yum yum. I bet the Norwegian kid who got arrested for his Linux DVD player really got all the education he needed, especially about abuse of international treaties. Why don't these people find a *real* job?
...is just like having sex. Telling kids not to do it won't change anything. Those that would have anyway will, and those that wouldn't have will only feel worse because they can't.
The music is overpriced. People don't think its worth that much so they pirate it. If it was $2 a CD there would be negligable piracy. Even I (over paid computer person) bawk at $20+ a CD - which is what they charge in Europe.
However its more profitable to spend a little lobbying for special treatment under the law than to discount CD's. So music companies lobby rather than discounted.
Whatever junk the record companies spit out, Little Johny making a mix tape to give to his friends is not immoral and certainly not the same as a company making and selling pirated music cassettes.
Yet both are equally illegal.
It was in the interests of music company profits to get them both made illegal. Even though it makes half the population into criminals.
Instead a more balanced approach should have been taken.
"I got a doubleplusgood on my IP exam! Alright!"
Whether it's morally right or wrong to share MP3s/photos, the fact is that it's still illegal. Kids should be taught that they don't own the rights to share the music.
I think that's the point.
Think about this: you're not JUST teaching the kids that "it's illegal" (which, may or may not be true - sharing a CD is NOT illegal, just like sharing a book is NOT illegal) - you're teaching them that it's morally wrong.
Ask any child in primary school this question: "If something is illegal, is it wrong?"
Unless their last name is "McGooken", you'll probably get the answer: "Yes"."
In school, children are taught that policemen are your friends, and that laws exist to let people know what is right and what is wrong. Teaching them that "X is illegal" is the same as teaching them that it's morally wrong.
And if you look at the government back in those times, you'll realize the corporations wrote the laws back then too. As unions formed to counter the brutal methods, laws were passed to counter the efforts of unions. Might as well have been a decree from some boardroom, much like the DMCA was.
But the new drive is for the control of information. DMCA is just the first salvo of a barrage of laws that will be coming. Each new law will place further controls on computer ownership and operation. If scientology can purchase a city (and the police force!), then Time/Warner can purchase a state. Get ready to have your doors kicked in people. Maybe not today or tomorrow but in the near future.
I predict by 2005, it will be a crime to not run software that tracks IP usage on your machine. By 2010, critical mass. Salt to taste.
Wasn't 1984 set to happen in Britain? Kind'a prophetic, if you ask me. Well this comment would have been more appropriate for an article about the omnipresent cameras, but indoctrination is also quite Orwellian.
We now have a hugely prescriptive National Curriculum that dictates what must be taught and how many hours should be spent on certain subjects. All of this is coupled with enormous amounts of paperwork.
The result has been to narrow the subjects taught to UK kids as a whole, and to remove much of the flair with which some of these subjects were taught. Not surprisingly, we now have a teacher shortage as well.
"New Labour" here in the UK appear committed to mass-producing corporate drones with as little individuality as possible, and at the lowest possible cost - our Education services are woefully underfunded and stretched to the limits. For example, my own school will now be renting the taps (faucets) in the kids toilets because it will save us a few pounds over the next few years. Our 10 year olds are being taught in classes of 36-37 kids. And our school is succesful, over-subscribed, and turning away applicants!
At this rate, it won't be long before they are insisting on Japanese-style "rote" education in enormous class rooms.
The point remains that breaching copyright is still against the law. Just because you're ripping off a corporation, it doesn't become ok.. nor does it change from an being an illegal activity to a moral anti-capitalist gesture.
I still fail to understand why people would rather use a product illegally while complaining about the ethics of that product's sale, rather than just finding an alternative solution or method of purchase. If you feel you're being taken for a ride over CD prices, buy them online, import them, whatever. By all means take a stand, but don't actively make the problem worse..
Being in small bands and struggling to get by gives you a new perspective on this isuue - you realise that people have no sense of proportion and won't stop to think 'this person is operating on virtually no funding from a backroom, I think I'll help to financially support him in return for the product he worked hard to produce'. Once they get into the habit of taking copies of everything, we all suffer. Who do you think is less likely to be harmed by this behaviour - Joe Public, or BigBadCorporation(tm)? And who, out of those two would you really like to see prosper, due to the often innovative and exciting products they produce?
Exactly.
So maybe it would be a good idea to consider exactly *why* you feel teaching children the law is a bad thing...
My experiences going through the educational system here (in Sweden) and working as a lower grade teacher is the exact opposite of what this article lays out. Long before there was internet there were xerox machines, wildy used in schools to give the kids an education on a stretched budget. Kindergarten: coloring books are kept in locked rooms so that the kids wont get to the originals. Because the originals are used to make copies that the kids are actually allowed to color in. Lower grade school: different kinds of excircise sheets and such are copied for the class. I think I was about ten years old when the teacher first layed out the details of the xeroxing laws (something to the effect of: no more than 30 pages or 10% whichever is lowest, may be xeroxed in more than 10 copies for classroom use), and then announcing that theyre now breaking this rule to give us an education. University: teachers compile their own anthologies of xeroxes pages from books, placing them handy next to the xerox machines for student use saying: "we could compile an official antology but that would cost a lot more, you are only allowed to read those xeroxed antologies here, but if u were to xerox them and take them home, we wouldn't know about that now would we". Thoughout every level of education the message is hammered in loud and clear: your right to an education, to knowledge, on a strained budget, comes first, not the copyright laws.
Either that, or something similar to DARE in the US:
"Hey kids, do any of your parents or friends have MP3 players? They're not bad people, just doing a bad thing..."
however, I'm not gonna buy a whole dexy's midnight runners album just cos I like come on eileen :)
O ME |ON|EILEEN lists 52 different albums with "Come On Eileen" on it, various hits records, one-hit wonder collections, a soundtrack, and so on. Perhaps you should consider buying one of those, which may have other songs on it you like?
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=HC
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Microsoft's EULA does make it illegal to install software on more than one machine, regardless of whether they are used at the same time or not. I'm sure many other companies do the same.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you managed to find a way to get around clicking on a clickthrough agreement, you're probably guilty of another crime under the DMCA and/or UCITA if it applies in your state.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, it's legal in the US. The RIAA is reluctant to admit it though. As long as you aren't selling the copies for profit or distributing on a massive scale, it's legal.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Once we know something, it's ours as well as whomever thought of it first. The law was once somewhat reasonable on this issue. We simply had to refrain from competing commercially with the original creator for a relatively limited period of time. After such time we could do as we liked with the information. Today, IP corporations are trying to make their control over ideas and other sorts of IP absolute and perpetual. We should not stand for it. Violating such laws is simply not immorral at all. It's us or them. Do we plan to allow the collective creativity and knowledge of this country to be locked up and only be accessible through fees paid to the holders of the information? Sounds like a bleak future.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Copyright law was supposed to be a bargain. Creators would create new music and such and we, the people, would agree not to compete with them commercially for a period of time. That bargain is long gone, since that time, copyright has been extended well beyond any reasonable period of time, and our rights to non-commercial use have been severely curtailed. Copyright is not a bargain anymore. It's a exercise in abuse of government power. It's corporate welfare. It's a unilateral declaration that we have no right to the ideas and information we know and have access to. Everything that should have been public domain by now was stolen from us. I think we have a right to take what we want now. We've been swindled long enough.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Any copyrighted work that the publisher doesn't want to publish should be forfiet and have ZERO protection under the law. The point of copyright is not to enrich Metallica but to encourage them to publish.
Protection without publication contradicts the legal justification for copyright.
If a publisher chooses to not publish a particular work, bootleggers are merely "squatting". You can lose real property by ignoring it. It should be no different for "intellectual property".
You really can't have it both ways. If you want the ethereal to be treated like real property, you have to be willing to accept ALL the nasty implications (not just the beneficial ones).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If it is a work that the author actually bothered to publish, you might deprive them of some income. OTOH, that piracy may lead to more sales in future.
If it is something that the author never took the effort to publish, then the there are no real negative consequences of the action.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you have 3 pepsis, and you drink 1 pepsi, how many cool refreshing pepsis do you have left?
Pepsi?
Partial credit!
There are uniforms in the North American schools, just not enforced by the school itself. Instead, these uniforms are used to identify social classes and cliques. When everybody is forced to wear the same thing, certain things such as bully and snobbery based on appearances become reduced (it will still exist, but so strongly). IMHO, school uniforms are a great way of leveling the playing field, but there should be financial support so that the disadvantaged children can participate and don't stand out.
Exactly! This is something that we might have discussed in our weekly tutor period. Note, I said "discussed": this is a social issue, not a science (and we discussed things in science and didn't learn them parrot fashion either.) It would have probably happened once. It would have had lower priority than drug, sex, employment seeking, etc, education.
Talk about blowing things our of perspective. Some of the stories about the UK that appear this side of the Atlantic really paint an incorrect picture and are often very out of context. An American perspective can't be applied as people generally think very differently. Don't be so quick to judge others.
Other people have made comments about this not being the responsibilty of schools. I counter that schools have a responsibility to provide a minimum level of social education because not all parents can be guaranteed to do so. What is important is that the correct social issues are discussed, and treated with relevant priorities. At the end of the day, it's a free country and discussion will lead to children eventually making up their own minds about which path is correct.
Doesnt the constituition allow this type of sharing as long as its not for monetary gain ?
First of all when someone distributes your music you should thank them! That means there will be more people that hear your band and maybe you'll create more fans.
If you don't want people to hear your music for free don't record anything. Just charge for live performances.
You are in a position of a horse-n-buggy driver at the beginning of the 20th century. Your profession is being eliminated by technology and you better adapt.
P.S. Copyright violation is not stealing. You still have the recording in question. It's quite different from stealing physical objects.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Well to be a bit more specific, the mp3 is also a physical object, and being digital is entirely besides the point - paper books are also digital in nature.
What you're trying to say really is that there is a difference between a physical medium into which a work is fixed (e.g. a record bearing a copy of a copyrighted arrangement of notes in the form of a sound wave) and the work itself, which is intangible and copyable independent of the fixed form (e.g. the arrangement itself, which could just as easily go onto a CD, or be rearranged for an orchestra)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If the subject was approcahed from the angle that the copyright laws are there to protect the rights of the person who produced the work then I see no problem, especially if the discuss some of the various licenses under which data (eg pictures, sounds etc) and code (applications, games etc) are published. There would need to be a balance comparing some of the "closed" licenses that come with books, CD's, commercial software along with some of the Free licenses like GPL, BSD, free documentation etc. However I fear that the Free and Open licenses will get "missed out" on purpose. The UK is very backward in this respect.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Making a non digital copy of a tape and sharing it with a friend is not illegal.
Yes it is. At least, in most places that have copyright laws it is.
The rest struggle to live, or repay their RIAA "loans".
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
That explains why many of my CDs are imprinted with a notice that states that I'm not allowed to lend my CD to anyone. As it turns out, those thoughtful record companies are just looking out for my being able to hear the music that I've paid for which, of course, I can't if I've lent it to you. God bless them one and all. I also noticed, during a rather cursory check on a number of my CDs, that this verbiage is present mainly on CDs that were produced by record companies based in the UK or other European countries. Interesting, eh? Soon, even lending will be immoral. At least in the UK.
You should know by now that today's capitalism has no need for critical thinking. (And Consumer Reports is probably a communist front organization as well.)
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
What does that mean in the UK? In the U.S., you'd think that meant charging admission to hear music that was recorded on a CD. However, bars and other businesses have to worry about the ASCAP ``cops'' coming into their business and busting them for playing music. So over here, it appears that if anyone spends money on a beer (or anything) while some music is playing in the background it's ``for-profit'' use. (At least that's I remember discussing with a bar owner one day after asking him ``Why do you guys play the radio now and not those excellent collections of taped music like you used to?'' The owner's reply was that the music was allegedly being used to attract customers so it was not not-for-profit use. Wonder the way the law can wangle any desired result out of vague wording, isn't it?) Either that or it's, somehow, covered under the phrase ``public performance''. I can see it now: ``Hey you! Turn it down or roll up those car windows or we're gonna call ASCAP!''
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
First, the obligatory IANAL...
Mainly, because, as I understand it, the standard record company contract spells out that this is ``work for hire''. If a band then provides the recordings to the world as a collection of MP3s, it is the band that's doing the stealing. The people who download them could be said to be receiving stolen goods. Well, one could construe it that way, I guess. If I am hired by Company X to perform some programming services under a contract that states that the Company owns the results of my work, then I cannot take copies of the code with me and distribute it on my own to other people. If I don't like the terms of the contract, I tell them so and we either agree to modify the contract or somone else benefits from my programming services.
What about the moral problem in signing a legal agreement that you don't agree with? I don't have a lot of sympathy for bands that are stupid enough to sign such a contract. Sure they see $$$ in their eyes and sign. But, if you're not creating music that's going to sell well, then go it on your own and distribute the MP3s on your own; at least you've cut out the middle man. But I don't think the band has a legal basis for taking the recordings and distributing them via the internet on their own; even if the record company had failed to do a decent job of promoting and getting sales. (They could always say ``Hey we gambled on these guys and lost. Not our fault that the public doesn't like their songs.'') The band could always, in theory, buy the rights to the music back from the record company, right? Or maybe they could hunt around find a lawyer who could convince a jury that the record company was somehow guilty of fraud and duped the band into signing the contract. Maybe we should lobby for the legal community to provide pro bono legal assistance for recording artists that wish to get out from under the legal thumb of the recording companies?
Sorry to offer a (probably) unpopular opinion. (And, before you switch on the flamethrower, you need to know that I think most recording companies are pond scum and I buy most of my CDs either used, from indie label websites, or from the bands themselves at concerts. Oh yah, I think that 99% of MP3s sound like crap, too.)
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
They had to wear a uniform.
Oh my God! School uniforms? How terrible!
Not to be too rude... but "Wayne State University" is hardly Ivy League, now, is it?
Currently, UK schools teach: the basic curriculum (for those of you who missed school, this is stuff like PHYSICS, or GEOLOGY... these are known as "academic subjects"). What is *NOT* taught is stuff like "what Microsoft wants me to know" or "how I can help ICI achieve their profit forecast for Q4 of 2002".</SARCASM>
Seriously folks - the only thing which isn't directly related to the curriculum being taught, is a) sex education and b) drug education. These are taught because some students could be directly harmed if they don't get to know the facts. When it comes to IP teaching, it's just a farce. Silly story, silly headline
I like it: the 'Creative Industries Task Force' imposes an education that is anything but creative.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
but exactly how far will that teaching carry into reality if nobody respects the laws in question?
I sat through the computer classes many years ago, listening to the teach drone on and on about how bat 'piracy' was, and how it was illegal and frowned upon.
Didn't slow me down any.
I use mp3 and it's kin because I'm lazy, and I don't want to drive halfway across town to look for a CD, or wait days for one to arrive by mail, I can get it right now, without waiting, so why shouldn't I? Yes, I realize that distributing this material is illegal... but so are LOTS of things we do.
As for bands struggling to make it.. perhaps they should choose a new career? Who said anyone had a god-given right to make a living doing anything in particular? You deal with the circumstances at hand. If Music doesn't pay out for you, perhaps you need to find a more useful profession.
My point is that, if the nature of music distribution changes so much, due to unenforcable laws and the rise of technology... perhaps being a 'musician' won't be seen as a career by as many people.
Maybe they should add to the curriculum, the subject of being shafted by large companies. Prices for CD's in the UK are fscking silly, around £15 , that's around £22.
Then the students will be in a position to make an informed judgement.
Right, but you can print "this CD is not to be copied" all you want, and I will still ignore it because you are asserting a right you do not have.
Even Microsoft softens this position a little when they print "Do not make illegal copies of this disk" on their CDs. Thus throwing the whole issue of the legality of copying back up in the air.
I would far rather children were taught to share first, and get into the legal intricacies later.
--
--
E_NOSIG
It doesn't matter if you're the copyright holder or not. Copyright does not allow you to tell me whether or not I can make a copy of your CD.
--
--
E_NOSIG
> When does the grey area start and stop.
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
There is no grey area. You just have to learn to read copyright agreements - and some idiot is going to have to tell the Them, The Lawyers where to get off on all the legalese speech, too.
That way, you can just say "this CD is not to be copied" - if everyone *reads* what it says, no more problem.
As for your college friend, maybe they could've done things a bit differently: how about publicizing a few tracks of their own as freely redistributable tasters, then educate the rest of the world to point to said tasters instead of redistributing *everything*?
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Two thoughts, then, that I should've been clearer about.
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
First, the printing of `don't copy this, please' has to be done by the copyright holder, who would ideally be the original owner.
Second, I can see both "share first, then restrict" and "restrict first, then permit some sharing" approaches, and think both are less than ideal. That's why I'm saying I would choose neither, given half a chance.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
.. but I was trying to say what should be taught as "truths".. not what should be discussed in classrooms.
I'm all for legal-discussions on copyright-laws, as long as they are not presented as morally wrong from the beginning.
First: Software and media piracy are illegal, and of course young people should be made aware of what is legal or not. There is a difference between this, and trying to teach children what is immoral and what is not.
The problem is that this sort of illegal activity is not in any way universially accepted as morally wrong. It is laws that were made for protecting the income of artists and corporations.. much in the same way that patent-laws were created.
It is still in some countries regarded as totally legal and within fair-use to share IP-protected material among friends as long as you don't charge for it.
I generally accept IP-laws as I believe it makes it easier to make a living out of arts, and thus making our quality of art higher. It is however a political issue, not a generally accepted truth, and thus should NOT be taught in public schools.
Morality is a personal issue, and I don't buy arguments that breaking the law is always immoral, because this would mean that doing political satire in a country where this is illegal, is immoral.
The only things that should be taught are issues that are beyond common politics. For example: murder, theft, etc..
Before tries to make the assumption; sw/media-piracy == theft, I have to say that this comparison is political as the person being "stolen" from in the act of pirating still has a copy of his/her own.. that is, it does not transfer property.
"They used to work just like patents...and fortunately patents still expire 17 years. "
Actually,
patents now expire after 20 years,
LetterRip
Naturally such a document is a magnet to everyone with an axe to grind. It seems like everyone has something they want put in the National Curriculum. Most of these things are fairly worthy, like road safety, how to apply for a job, how compound interest works, and how to extract cube roots without a calculator. Most people think that their favourite author ought to go in the English section. And so on.
As a result of all this the first version of the NC had a bad case of bloat brought on by creeping featurism. After that a revised version was bought out which was slimmed down to the things that the education academics think that kids actually need to know. Copyright law is not (AFAIK) on the list.
There is still a lot of pressure for feature creep in the NC, but the people in charge of it seem to have learned how to say "no". You still get pressure groups of one sort or another popping up and asking for their pet cause to go in the NC, but nobody takes any notice. This is just another similar suggestion, and I don't think its going to go anywhere.
Paul
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Um, what fair use? In the UK there is no such thing. If you read the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 you will see that there is no mention of fair use, the closest thing is "fair dealing" which is described under "Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works". You will not that while making a copy for personal _study_ is permitted, a copy for personal _use_ is not. So, even making an MP3 of a CD you own is illegal, regardless of whether or not you distribute it.
Fair use does not exist in the UK, so many things that you can do legally in the US, are illegal over here. And if there is ever an international agreement on copyright, which do you think is more likely to happen - fair use rights get eroded further (by legal or technical means) in the US, or the UK grant fair use rights to match those in the US?
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
I think even here in America, not only in the UK, people are teaching children what the coperations want them to believe to be right or wrong.That makes it easier to get the law changed into something more "corporate friendly".
We are saying that copying and sharing a CD is wrong, when artists have gone out and "leaked" their material on to the internet. SO the artists themselves are "sharing" the material. If the people who are literally making the material feel they want to share it, why should we say its wrong?
Also most people care only about the actual producers of content, singers, musicians, painters, authors, poets, actors, directors, graphic artists, etc.
They don't care so much about publishers, broadcasters and other middlemen. With the corporates tending to fall into this catagory.
A useful current example would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 6.
True, but in most of the Western AND non-Western world, their educational system is patterned after UK schooling or else Prussian schooling, both of which are known for their emphasis on discipline and submission, as well as a callous disregard for the social world they are creating among their students---and it's a direct line from there to Columbine (probably a brief stop through Lord of the Flies, If (gee, why don't we blame Malcom McDowell for Columbine, he seems pretty evil) and The Wall). Try asking yourself where those uniforms came from next time you're surfing for Japanese schoolgirl porn.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Now all we have to do is indoctrinate respect for consumers rights into all business licenses and we're done.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
20 years after date of initial filing (assuming the atent is granted). It's not uncommon for it to take 2 to 3 years from the date of initial filing for a patent to be granted. Works out to usually be 17 or 18 years once it's granted.
:)
Am I needlessly nitpicking? Yes.
I sense I'm being trolled, but what the heck, I'll bite the juicy worm on the end of the string...
> Our society has rules/laws to stop people...
No, our society has rules because people didn't behave themselves.
The way you teach the kid about armed robbery laws is to teach him that theft is wrong. If I steal your cookie, you can't eat the cookie. How would you like it if someone stole your cookie?
The way you teach the kid about dangerous driving laws is you teach him upfront that killing - even accidental killing - is wrong and to be avoided (how'd you like it if someone killed you?), and that when he gets behind the wheel (or the trigger, if you take him/her hunting), he's being entrusted with the lives of the people on the road or on the range.
I don't obey all intellectual property laws because I don't see all such breaches as immoral.
("See, if I copy your CD, you can still hear the music! We can both hear the music now! Do you feel like I've stolen anything from you?")
Other things that happen in intellectual property law, I do see as immoral.
("See? You made the pretty painting. You can make copies and sell them to the 20 people in your class for $0.05 each. I'm gonna go to my office, make 100 photocopies, and sell them to my co-workers for $1.00 each by telling them it's a school fund-raiser. I can make $100, you'll only make $1.00, but if you beg nicely, I'll even give you $0.05 for every copy I sell. How would that make you feel if I made $99.00 and you made $1.00 for that painting you worked on all day?")
> Would you want your children to learn about narcotics by smoking crack, or reading a book at school?
I'd want them to read books on critical thinking so they could yell "false dichotomy" when presented with one.
that's because kids see that a copied game means a win for them rather than a loss for the creator. I know I would have copied a lot less if a copy meant someone else lost access to the game. It just isn't the same as stealing, both in how it feels and how it is in reality. (and don't go into the whole piracy == stealing. They're 2 different concepts in law.)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
actually... that's not illegal in europe, as long as you're not running it on multiple machines at once :)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
...and, like in every other class, the teachers got a sample handout in 1990 from their curriculum suppliers and then photocopied it for each student every year since then.
You say "teach children morals and a sense of right and wrong and let them make their own decisions".
But, whose morals are you talking about ?
Yours ? Jack Valenti's ? Rufus Shinra ? Osama Bin Laden's ? Ghandi ? Mother Teresa (I should hope not !) ? The RIAA's ?
I don't think we should be teaching them more than the most basic morals. To a point, they all have to be subjective. I say, give them knowledge, and let them decide for themselves.
It should be noted that England & Wales have a different Education system from Scotland, which is controlled by the Scottish Parliment. This means that any changes to the Scottish curiculum would have to be seperately discussed and implemented. AFAIR, the "Citizenship" focus is not present in the same form in Scotland.
Actually the doctrine of fair use goes against what you are saying. You do have the right to copy copyrighted materials for your own personal use, and for other purposes (as long as you didn't click on a click-through license *cough*). The courts have upheld these rights for over a century. Get with the times. Certainly you dont have the right to copy a cd to mp3 format and distribute arbitrary number of copies on the internet under current law - but everyone knows this.
Down here in .nz there was a fussy back in '99 I think where the government attempted to introduce some "social responsibility" garbage.
I'll put it simply: The goverment thinks we are morons. They think they need to step in to help save us from ourselves.
No, adding beaurecracy doesn't solve the problems. It just causes more paper work. There is a place for kids to be taught by their parents, and shovelling more and more responsiblity onto already overworked school teachers doesn't solve anything.
I'm all for teaching IT Ethics in school. This would, of course, include teaching our children the evils of doing any sort of work for a corporation that's repeatedly proven that it's willing to stomp your rights into the ground in the name of profit...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is truer than you might imagine... I did Higher English this year, and to send in my folio I had to sign away the copyright to my pieces to the Scottish Qualifications Authority, who run the exams system (badly). It's pathetic.
This intellectual property thing is part of the "citizenship" idea. Basically, it's an attempt to instil American-style flag-waving patriotism rubbish into our classrooms; (c) Tony Blair 2001. Intellectual property is just one of the things our beloved government is trying to make us respect, including how "drugs are bad" and how "underage sex is bad" and so on. Ugh.
Besides, this is a Westminster parliament thing which applies to England and Wales only, so I and my brothers won't see the "benefits" (Scotland has nothing *like* the National Curriculum that England has.) And check out the Intellectual Property website, which is run on a very badly configured Solaris machine (check that combo box). Sadly, Netcraft doesn't say SPARC or i386...
However, the author hasn't looked at the Intellectual Property website itself. If you look at it, it gives a list of various items which are legitimately permitted: research, private study, critical analysis, teaching in schools and universities, and not-for-profit music playing. It seems to be slightly scaremongering. But it still has some points to make, and they're worthwhile: about exactly how weak-spined and controlled Blair is, and how it won't be improved by any of the opposition. Such a pity, really: we've got nowhere to go.
>At least some translations of it are. The King James/Authorized verison isn't but most of the others are.
In the USA, perhaps. The KJV is Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom.
> So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.
> If I do that with the NIV I'll probably get sued.
And a good thing too. It's rather like the reason we have licences such as the GPL, isn't it?
my plan
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
This is already happening. Kids are calling up stores to get the clerks to give them the CD-KEY and play Tribes 2, Quake 3 Arena, Counterstrike etc. I don't think I would ever do that (deprive another person his/her legally bought product), but some people have more flexible moral fibres it seems. It all comes down to where YOU draw YOUR limit.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Is that infringement of copyright?
Of course. No matter what we do, we should always feel guilty and pay tribute to the corporation head. Does that sound familiar to you?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I'm no fan of "New Labour" - the party that treats Socialism like something that Tony Blair stepped in at the Durham Miner's Gala.
Blaming them for the National Curriculum is a bit strong though. Who was the group of neo-Stalinist centralisation freaks who invented it ? After all, why are they called "Baker Days", not "Blunkett Days" ? (or McGuiness days !)
The kids will have to be brainwashed to respect the law in every aspect of their lives. The new cirriculum will include electroshock therapy as an integrated part of gym class.
The students will then be evaluated and placed in classes that bore them most. The teachers will be skilled at mass hypnosis, and instead of teaching usefull stuff like fractions and the capitol of Portugal, they'll expose kids to the evils of pirating software.
I think I'll send my children to school in England.
If you can get a child to agree that those rights are basically acceptable... then you might not stop them MP3 trading. But they'll certainly have a sense of right and wrong. As for whether MP3 trading should be banned, Article 17 states:
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
and that's about all that it has to say on the topic. The reason why MP3 trading is such a difficult one is that it really isn't clear whether one is doing harm or not. If, when you find a song you like, you then go out and buy the CD, then it seems that you didn't do harm to the record company... so they don't lose their livelihoods because you copied an MP3. If you're trading MP3s that (horrors) aren't copyrighted to any record label, then it probably comes under free speech.
For myself, I think I'd rather give a child the ability to feel their way through the rights and wrongs of that sort of problem than simply parrot the corporate line ("IP is all! Copying is Stealing! Napster is Communism!")... but hey. As a UK citizen I have to say that this is only the latest in a long string of idiotic policies from our alleged leaders and as such not surprising.
"...kids go out to do exactly the opposite of what they're told is wrong..."
Mmmm, double negative hell. Please pretend that I said "do exactly the opposite of what they're told".
Mind you, the authors aren't likely to come chasing royalty fees, and even people who can show they're decendents of WS (I doubt any decendents of Plato or the Bible authors are going to know they are), they're likely to get laughed out of court. However, copying something more recent that's just going out of copyright might lead to a more heated battle.
Ahem, yes, of course; I'd forgotten all about the fine religion that is Scientology - wouldn't want them to lose the revenue from all those fine books L Ron wrote. And it's simply dreadful when sites like Operation Clambake at http://www.xenu.net publish details of those books and make them out to be some sort of wacked-out cult.
It used to be black blazer with school crest, black trousers, white shirt + school tie, but no-one used to wear the blazers so they gave up on that rule. Girls didn't have to wear ties at first, but then a lot of stupid parents complained that it was sexist to make their boys wear ties, so they became mandatory for girls. Nowadays though, they all wear yellow sweaters and the rules seem quite relaxed. It seems that the school gave into rebellion and met halfway.
As for the brainwashing thing - we didn't all dress alike. It may look that way from a cursory glance, but to those in the school we were all making our uniforms individual - doing stuff like wearing the ties backwards so the skinny part was at the front, wearing trainers or Doc Martens instead of regular shoes, wearing t-shirts that were visible beneath the fabric of the white shirts etc. We were forced to conform, but dressed as differently as we could within limits that had been set.
I don't think that uniforms is really a big problem (and it actually makes it easier to decide what to wear each day). But trying to turn kids into perfect consumers does suck, though I doubt it'll work (see my earlier post).
Don't assume that kids are little angels who wouldn't do something just because an authority figure tells them not to (I'd like to cite drug use and underage drinking and smoking as examples of situations where kids go out to do exactly the opposite of what they're told is wrong). You might persuade some kids to stop, but you'll probably make it more appealing to others.
How do you know this was not added to the Bible? How do you know Revelations is not part of the Bible?
just because you cannot get that metallica track anywhere else does not give you the right to effectively steal it as it is still copyrighted.
:)
not that I thnk you're in the wrong. I'm a firm beleiver in the IP laws all over the world being massively biased to the publisher side. I beleive that copyright and patents should last about 5 years each.
THe point I'd rather make however is that I don;t see it as a school's primary responsibility to teach kids what is right and what is wrong. thats is the parents duty primarily. the schools should be educating the kids so that they can make their own mind up as to what laws are morally correct and which ones are not.
The Neuremberg war trials taught us that just because we have been ordered to do something, or it is the law, does not make it right. we have to make our own decisions as to what is right and what is wrong and stand by them. when I have children I want to be responsible for their morals and their sense of right and wrong, rather than an underfunded school that seems to be increasingly likely to be teaching corporate viewpoints.
I tell ya, when I rule the world it'll all be different tell ya
dave
oh come on, of course they knew that there were breaking copyright law. they miht not have thought about it much, but they knew it was technically wrong. they just knew that they were extremely unlikely (or never if they were less technically minded :) to get caught.
:)
ethics? yeah, it's down near sussex isn't it?
dave
(who knowingly pirates mp3's in all knowledge that if I don't own a licence to listen then it is wrong. however, I'm not gonna buy a whole dexy's midnight runners album just cos I like come on eileen
'cos they don;t teach them ANYTHING about computers.
:)
.oO0Oo.
That's my job
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I think its right that we teach children not to steal. Thats what copying tapes or software is, its stealing. Using as an argument that stealing is ok if the person already makes enough money, or if you think the price for the product is too high, or you don't support ther persons beliefs is just WRONG. You would be upset if someone did the same to you.
I commend the schools for teaching that theft is wrong. I must say I am quite upset that the parents of those children hadn't already taught thier kids that idea before the schools were required to though.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Now, I'm not saying that the knowledge is going to stop everyone, but it might make some feel guilty. The ethical dilemna might cause
Fewer people to trade
Fewer trades per person
More restrictions by ISPs/college/work (bandwidth provider)
Therefore, it probably wouldn't rid the problem, but it may put a significant dent in it.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe that in the UK it is technically breach of copyright to make *any* copies of a CD. The music companies take a "let's be reasonable" approach and turn a blind eye to making tape copies of CDs for (say) playing in your car etc. However, making copes for your friends is definitely illegal, but almost impossible to police because just about everybody does it.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
You see uniforms as dangerous? I guess its probably cultural difference time again. There is a certain historical thing about it, but the way I saw it was that you'll probably end up having to wear a suit at work when you leave, so you might as well associate smart dressing with hard work all along. I suspect this is one of the main reasons casual dress is much more popular in the US workplace than the UK.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
And you'll go to hell, too; Revelations is quite explicit about this:
Revelations 22, 18-19:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
>Kids putting copyright symbols on drawings and
>papers? What's next...
You mean I was the only kid putting (C) Copyright symbols on all my amazing secret design drawings years ago?
Sure, I'll bet. I can give my copy of Fallout to someone else, as I'm fortunate to live in a state that's not quite such a blatant sellout.
"'Many of them believe, for example, that if you buy a CD, you buy the right to share it.' *Sigh* Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't."
The real problem is that the original quotation was given without context. You assume that she was referring to "share" in the sense of copy, but what if she actually meant share? Then I most certainly have that right! There is no law in the U.S. or the U.K. that would actually prohibit me from loaning my copy of Atari Teenage Riot to my friend. Similarly, I CAN give my copy of Fallout to someone else if I'm done with it (even stronger, I can sell it-- at least in the U.S.).
This is all part of a rather evil redefinition of terminology to suit corporate needs. Copying became equal to stealing, and now sharing is becoming equal to copying. We now have people who think sharing is stealing. What kind of fucked up world is that?
What about copying for personal use, or backup?
Are those wrong too?
Because if you just say that 'copying is illegal' then you're making a big assumption about what that copying is used for.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Also, the legal and moral issues in rape are relatively stable, universal, and understood. The issues in IP law are evolving, dissonant, controversial, and muddied. Presenting it as a done deal is a disservice and a danger.
Is copyright infringement a crime? Yes. Is it a crime on a par with rape? No, not at all. In the limited time with the limited resources available to a school for a civics program, I think it immensely obvious that teaching about rape, murder, etc., is much much much more important than a four-week unit on copyright law.
ObAside: And I'd be mightily surprised if the issues of Fair Use and First Sale (assuming a British equivalent exists) will be raised and treated properly.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Just to show that there is a difference betweeen the two, and hence, at least possible grounds for having different attitudes.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Jefferson did that.
Anyway, there are a few modern translations which have (among others) the goal of avoiding copyright difficulties: the World English Bible (WEB) (which I prefer) and the New English Translation (NET), for example.
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
The sad thing about it is, that could have acutally been a REAL statement, and would have been enforced. I don't understand why we (well, the U.S, anyway) even recognize copyright...oh, wait...this is capitalism we're talking about here...do whatever it takes to secure a profit... oh, well. nevermind. let them play they're little game, I guess.
huh?
please mod this up to informative.
huh?
Hey ... how doy you know about me surfing Japanes^M^M^M^M^M^M^M ... doh!
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Wanna bet? Check out the UCITA. One of the many nasties in it is that the only person allowed to use software is the original purchaser. I cannot resell it or even give it away. And it's been passed in one or two states. Not fun.
--
Dyolf Knip
Exactly. And look at how widespread they are. Did the complete and total lack of copyright keep Shakespeare and Plato from writing? Granted, copying a book was a nasty, time-consuming process at the time, but still...
--
Dyolf Knip
Well, sure. So do I. Point is, there are some poor shlobs who live within these borders and would be breaking a law by doing what you just described.
--
Dyolf Knip
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, I am not a lawyer.
The general feeling I get from friends, family, and coworkers is that once you own a CD you may create copies for your personal use, and lend copies to friends, family, and coworkers for their own personal use, without monetary reward.
Is this the correct legal stance for us Canadians? I realise that Canadian copyright law is much more lax in some respects to United States law, I'm just not sure by how much.
As for drilling students with state prescribed morality: this is the same reason church and schools are seperate, we cannot dictate to children rules which may, or may not conflict with the outlook that parents have emplaced on their children. I for one would not wish to have any offspring of mine to be drilled with corporate emposed morality, regardless of the legality of opposing ideals. How long before I have to watch my back around family, for fear of being turned in for some trivial misdemeanor on my part, perhaps breaking some shrink-wrap license?
-Medgur
Does Michael maybe mean sarcastic?
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
If kids learn early how pervasive and abusive the current IP laws are, they may be more inclined to push for reform as they get older. Hey, these are the leaders of tomorrow
Does anybody really believe that a school system, which is notoriously underfunded, cooks up some braindead plan like this one, instead of focusing on the more important aspects of the education curriculum (you know, things like reading & writing, or math - which is hard - and such). Without being influenced, not to say bribed by the entertainment industry in this case and the corporate world in general? Not bloody likely.
I can see why a school, ill-funded and always under attack - might resort to corporate "sponsorship", but beware of the ghosts you might call into action by taking the easy route.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
This statement is wrong on two counts:
1) The Digital Home Taping Act passed in 1992 specifically made some types of duplication and sharing legal. It is complicated, and full of exceptions, so read the law. You will need the help of a copyright lawyer if you truely want to understand it, which brings me to point 2...
2) I am very amused at your belief that copyright law is clear about anything! I highly recommend reading Jesica Litman's book __Digital Copyright__, as well as the laws themsleves. That should help clear up any misunderstanding about the clarity of copyright laws :-)
Xerox? I hope you mean photocopy :)
At least some translations of it are. The King James/Authorized verison isn't but most of the others are.
I haven't got a copy to hand to check but The Bible Society holds one of them, I think Hodder and Stoughton have another. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the theory behind it is not so much to prevent people acquiring it, or even to make money, but to prevent against someone changing the text.
So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.
If I do that with the NIV I'll probably get sued.
Are you completely daft? You said copying mp3s was illegal. It is not necessarily so. Also, I spefically said that issues of morality are the province of parents -- which you completely side-step as though I said children should be made to be completely ignorant.
Children learning about law is an academic activity-- usually referred to as "Civics Class" (in the USA, anyway). Children being told blatant untruths like "copying mp3s is illegal" (end of discussion) is not learning. It is misinformation. The law is a complex thing and often what is and is not illegal is a matter for courts and juries decide. Furthermore, in a democracy how to handle unjust laws is a very necessary topic of discussion. In fact, getting a bad law repealed or nullified often requires substantial law-breaking so that there will be test cases for the judges to weigh in on.
Go ahead and slide down your slippery slope if you like, but I prefer that school stick to critical reasoning skills and skip the propaganda. If you look at the situation objectively, you'll find that most people are "good" and "do the right thing" without having it spelled out for them in excruciating detail in school. I, for one, think schools should concentrate on academia (they seem to be having enough trouble graduating literate adults) than social programming (if you can't teach them to read, what makes you think you're qualified to teach them right from wrong?).
I do not have a signature
Whether it's morally right or wrong to share MP3s/photos, the fact is that it's still illegal.
Actually there are lots of circumstances where sharing is perfectly legal, in addition to being moral. Kids should be taught to understand that laws and social mores are complicated things and require the individual to apply a little critical thinking when venturing into the grey areas.
I am SO glad now that I went to a school where HD Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" was actually a required text and where there was no DARE program. Kids shouldn't be taught anything in school except academics, trade skills, arts, and whatever you'd call what it is you learn in Phys. Ed.
Morals, right and wrong, how to deal with bullies, how to say no to drugs are all lessons that belong at home. And if the parents don't teach them this stuff, well tough. Then the kids figure it out for themselves. As a parent it disgusts me how much time I have to spend with my child going over what she "learned" in school and applying critical thinking skills to it so that my daughter has a chance to form her own opinions about what she's been told.
I do not have a signature
And where did I say that?
People never stop complaining about the state of the NHS, the schools and other public services, but no-ones willing to put there hands in the pockets. Paying extra taxes for the services is not basing the economy on public spending.
I just want to know what company you own? Youre right this point of view is usually shared by rich business owners.
What company I own? Now that's funny. I'm just another software developer out there writing code in C, VB, Javascript, etc.
BUT I also like to write, and I wouldn't want to spend endless nights busting my ass off writing the next great American (well, ok, Mexican) novel, just to see someone else rip it off, change a few things, and release it under a new name, with a better publisher, and make me earn less of the money I worked for.
Or maybe we just had too much caffeine this morning.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
Great art made many of its creators no money.
:)
True, but the more money I receive from my writing, the less time I need to spend on a "real" job earning it, and therefore the more time I can spend writing.
Not that I have ever made a penny out of my stories yet, but a man can dream
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
According to the Patent Office's director of copyright, Anthony Murphy, a major proponent of the new program, understanding intellectual property carries important social value: "By bringing awareness of the importance of copyright into our schools, tomorrow's consumers can take their place in a community which understands, values and respects intellectual property."
I can see why the director of copyright would like to see this program implemented. And frankly, if it's closely regulated, it's a good idea.
I know this may go against the average Napster-usin', CD-burnin', Porn-downloadin' Non-consumin' consumer, but copyrights are there for a reason. It's the abuse of the system by people on both sides of this fight which causes so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
You know this may actaully be a good thing. Educate kids on why its illegal (and I use the word illegal, not wrong intentionally) and you may end up with much in class discussion on the topic. Those few overactive classes may even write letters to government persons. I do want to stress the point that while kids are influenced easily, they do make choices on there own, and I would know having grown up in a catholic schools yet being uneffected and remaining athiest. Just my 2 cents.
- Hyperbolix
As long as they teach about fair use it is not a problem. That way it's easier for the "young" to realise how stupid DMCA-style laws are.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
Actually, I has a College EE Professor who was too lazy to make up new tests every year, and put a copyright notice on all his tests, supposedly to keep the student IEEE chapter on campus from making copies of old tests and giving them out to students.
Besides, doesn't everything have an inherent copyright on it? Why shouldn't a kid put a copyright notice on his drawing?
-----
-----
Our story for today, children, is how the drug company Glaxo Smithklein stopped the nasty South African government from stealing their patented AIDS medicines. The evil South Africans wanted to treat some of their sick people, without paying the patent holders. Thanks to the virtuous IP laws, Glaxo Smithklein made profits of $5 zillion last year.
The laws on copyright are quite clear about the legality of ripping and redistributing MP3s for the use of others who do not own the product - it is illegal ! You may not agree with the law, but the law is unambiguous here.
You might also think that stealing money from rich people should belegal, and you might justify that by arguing that some rich people do bad things, screw their employees, engage in morally questionable actions, blah blah...but you would be a fool if you believed it was legal.
As for argument that we should stop trying to "teach children morals and a sense of right and wrong"...I suppose you think that educating young people about what rape is, and offering any opinion about, say, forcing non-consensual sex on a drunken teenage girl would be wrong too.
I never said that anyone had a right to steal, though I can see how that might have been inferred.
.99 cents for some of them...it was reasonably affordable.
/* ---- */
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7)
If the going price for a CD is around $15 or so, that's definitely a fair value if I like the band that I choose to support. Add in the extra content outside the CD, perhaps the packaging, inlay, art, etc...that all adds value. My personal favorite CD that does this the best is Lateralus by Tool.
HOWEVER, I do _not_ think it is fair value for me to need to cough up $6-7 for a CD single because I only happen to like one song from a particular band.
When I was a kid, I used to buy 45's of the stuff that I liked on the radio. They weren't expensive by any stretch and I amassed quite a collection. Because the price was low enough, it was worth buying. Perhaps some of them were shitty little records with a generic paper sleeve, but at
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
I have to wonder which big media company thought this idea up...I'd be very surprised if the school system came up with it on their own.
/* ---- */
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7)
Kids putting copyright symbols on drawings and papers? What's next...intellectual property contracts within a school system?
Before the DMCA came along and gave draconian legal controls to big companies, copyrights served only to protect the economic interests of content authors, granting a temporary monopoly to foster creative works in writing and the arts which were supposed to eventually be released into the public domain. They used to work just like patents...and fortunately patents still expire 17 years.
Regardless, I hope to see this one fall hard. I remember copying tapes on my dual-deck boom box as a kid, and it didn't hurt anyone. What the major media companies have to do is add enough value to their content to make the package worth buying.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
I suppose you think that educating young people about what rape is, and offering any opinion about, say, forcing non-consensual sex on a drunken teenage girl would be wrong too.
That's a good idea, compare copyright infringement to rape, the record labels would be proud! After all, most pirates on the high seas were rapists as well, let's not forget that.
Remember kids, as soon as you hit that "Burn CD" button, you've commited RAPE!
This is a long-established worldwide organisation which not only has uniforms but also indoctrinates its hapless victims (called cub scouts) in the laws of copyright when they try to get what is known as a "computer badge". They are then forced to wear this badge on their sleeve as a sign of compliance with said laws... Perhaps we need to get this issue into some perspective?
I was in UK 6 years ago and was hosted by a family with 2 kids in school age (9 and 13). They had to wear a uniform.
I don't know if now they stil have to wear it (usualy gray or brown).
By the way, when I see a bunch of people all dressed in the same way I think of some sort of brainwashing.
The point is: what are those kids taught about copyright? I hope they're not taught to tell the authorities if their friends download copyrighted material. And, would you imegine a 15-year-old boy, fan of Britney Spears, surfing the web and finding a really nice jpeg of her, and downloading it but deteting it after discovering it's copyrighted.. that would make me shiver.
V
Yes, exactly, "And if you can find Metallica's version of the Star Wars Imperial March on tape or CD anywhere, let me know and I'll buy it."
This is an important point. The record companies need a swift kick up the arse. Why can't we buy any (as in every record ever published) music we want, online, for a fair market price (considering the price of distribution is zero and the demand enormous)? Becuase the record companies think they can force us to pay more for what they want to shove down our throats. Well fuck them. If they won't come to the party, we should stand up for our rights as cosumers and ignore an anachronistic unjust law.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
The difference is that when you steal a CD or Tape the store no longer has the CD or tape. When you download an MP3 you do not take anything away from anyone. Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The real problem is not that this may pass. The real problem isn't even specifically IP laws. I think the real problem is simply that some people are thinking about taking their business concerns into the grade-school cirruculum. That's an ugly, ugly development. It's not entirely without precedent, but it could well be the beginning of a much more serious trend.
Agreed. I'm 14 (most of my year is already 15), and currently in my first year of GCSE study. When we chose our GCSEs, we only got 2 completely free choices; our compulsory subjects are:
We also have one lesson of Physical Education a week, to keep us fit ;-) and PSE - Personnal and Social Education - where no-one does any work. Along these lines I can guess that the "citizenship" subject mentioned in the article will replace this - and again, no-one will pay attention or do any work. I mean, some people don't work in any subject, but, NO-ONE, not even me, works in PSE..
news fresh in today from my school: a teacher who started at the beginning of the year is leaving already! We had a very high staff turnover last year...Many students at university are taking up the government offer of cash if they do teacher training... and then not becoming teachers.
This is exactly the same at my high school, although the class sizes in the newer years number at about 30-32 - but this is still huge compared with most classes in my year - 27-29. The school is turning away applicants, though this is not surprising because everyone in Hull wants to goto Cottingham High - the schools inside Hull itself are utterly, utterly hopeless..
SmigsSorry about this but....
How is teaching children our morals and our sense of right and wrong not indoctrination.You are right that property laws are not genetically implanted, nor is their implementation in the USA in 2001 in any way _obvious_.
However, teaching children your prejuduces does not count as letting them make up their own minds.
"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers
Actually, I think some translations of The Bible are copyrighted.Remember, translating the ancient texts accurately requires huge teams of scholars.
For example, the Good News Bible.
These people seem quite upset about it.
"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers
We have decided to copyright the process and therefore any products of your education. Once you start applying your knowledge to get a job, please starting sending the checks back to your local school, as it is their IP.
At school, they taught us not to smoke, drink or take drugs. By the sixth form (age 16-18), half of the year smoked, three quaters of them got pissed every night and a quarter of them smoked pot and took xtc every weekend.
Anyway, the way the education system in this country is now, by the time it filters down to classroom level, MP3s, etc, will be way out of date.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
One of the motivations behind the idea of the uniform was that they were to act as a social equaliser.
When everyone wears the same uniform, you can't distinguish social backgrounds thus putting everyone on an equal footing.
If it was regarded as an evil thing, rest assured that the lefty-loonies who are already in control of education would have got it dropped ages ago.
If you're worried about kids being turned into drones, don't. The kids with an individualistic streak (most) find all sorts of creative ways to supplement their school uniform with various add-ons / hair styles etc.
HTH.
Fuck legal. Tell me, what is right?? Would you rather be legal or right??
I've overclocked my brain!!!
This is true.
They may very well be speeding up disobedience, and thus a return to rationality.
Greedy bastards, serves them right.
I've overclocked my brain!!!
You have summed up much of my feelings in less than a page.
Bravo.
BTW. The 2 minute limit SUCKS...
I've overclocked my brain!!!
Realistically its got little chance of making it onto the curriculum ahead of more pressing matters (discrimination, vandalism, drugs, debt, etc.).
Even if it did slip in there for a half-hour lesson I hardly think the teachers are going to suddenly develop brain-washing powers of indoctrination just for that moment - British children have been ignoring what their teachers say for centuries and I doubt if they are going to change now.
It might even make a few of them think about an issue everyone tends to ignore - whatever conclusions they eventually come to this is a good thing.
--
Nic
just wailing about the big bad corporations trying to mind-control the next generation will get you nowhere.
actually discussing various IP issues may be very good in making kids understand it's a complex world out there, and it does affect them, so education by itself is not automatically bad.
Not only corporations have something to gain or lose: the common (or uncommon) citizen also does: make sure such oppinions gets into the curriculum.
if you do, perhaps in 10-20 years our chilren will fix our mistakes.
Working for necessity's mother.
*Sigh* Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. This upsets me on Slashdot to no end. If it's Open Source software, yes, you do. If it's just about anything else, no you don't. There was never any written or unwritten rule that said "everything on CD's can be copied". In fact, the rule should generally be viewed as the reverse: "nearly everything on a CD should not be copied".
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. If you made a Word document that you disavowed all personal copyrights to, yes you can share it. If the software is Open Source, yes you can share it. But no one has a right to share music or software that is owned by someone they personally don't know, regardless of their purported grassroots-it's-a-CD-company, we-have-a-right-to "reasons". When does the grey area start and stop.
I had a friend in college who absolutely hated Napster. The reason was that he was in an independent, yet popular, band whose music was being traded for free online. The problem: the band paid in full for their CD to be recorded professionally without a record label. It was something like $500 for 50 CD's, and they only had 4 songs on each of them. This was a struggling college band. But I imagine most Napster users would have argued "How was I supposed to know they paid? I thought it was an evil record company." Again, where does the grey area start and end?
If UK schools are actually trying to push establishment IP propaganda onto the rebellious young, that's yet another sign that the traditional concept of copyright is D-E-A-D; they know they will never be able to effectively enforce copyrights, so their last resort is to engineer the memepool. Kind of sad to think about it.
I don't know what's next, but I do know that if an "intellectual property" perversion in an "information economy" is ever taken seriously, it will only be a temporary concession. Once the other, physical side of the economics-of-abundance equation is balanced (in a few decades), people can then stop being such selfish little primates because they won't have to worry about putting food on the table. You can just produce your art, get your ego rubbed, and live a good life. (/end happy-happy-joy-joy)
Power to the Peaceful
so this seems to me like a total waste of time. what next? tell kids to breath because otherwise they will die?
"If no one had ever copied Plato, Shakespeare or the Bible that would mean we wouldn't have to read them, right?"
This is good news. Anything your teachers are telling you is "bad" and "illegal" has got to be cool...I see an increase in "copyright theft" by the kids.
Human logic: 1) I can't so you mustn't. 2) I can but you mustn't.
- In Kindergarten, schools store coloring books in locked rooms so kids won't get the originals--the originals are used to make copies in which the kids can actually color.
- In lower grade school, various excercise sheets are copied for the class. I was about ten years old when the teacher first layed out the details of the Xeroxing laws. (It was something like "no more than 30 pages or 10%, whichever is lower, may be Xeroxed in more than 10 copies for classroom use.") They then announced that they're now breaking this rule to give us an education.
- At university, teachers compile their own anthologies of Xerox pages from books, placing them next to the Xerox machines for student use. Teachers said: "We could compile an official anthology, but that would cost a lot more. You are only allowed to read Xeroxed anthologies here. If you were to Xerox them for home use, we wouldn't know about that, though."
Every level of education hammers the message loud and clear: your right to an education, to knowledge, on a strained budget, comes first, not the copyright laws.--
Aaron J. Shaver
http://aaronshaver.com/
"Minds are so much easier to manipulate when they are young."
BTW, how old is the average
sigh...
I will fight for the right to be right
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
So I'm re-iterating, but just to let you know...
I don't remember who I was talking to about schooling here in the Grate State of Texas, (intentional mispeeling ;) but the phrase with which our conversation was summarized was "Factory schools for factory workers!"
Whats next - Special tape players which you place on your womb when pregnant so that the kiddies are well educated and obedient when born ?
What he's really talking about is teaching children what the corporate community considers right or wrong rather than what may be moraly correct.
Whilst i agree that many of these things may be illegal (copyright breach etc) i question that they have any right to teach children what amounts to their views of the law - the laws on music copryright for example are based manily on the money and power of the RIAA and Recording Companies who conveniently ignore the fact that they screw artists for every cent they can make and engage in morally questionable actions in the pursuit of their 'rights'
So this is something we NEED to stop - enough - lets teach children morals and a sense of right and wrong and let them make their own decisions - not give companies the right to educate them about THEIR version of the world.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I think most people have a fair idea of what they are doing is wrong, its only the shades of grey arguement, but i especially like the line "Minds are so much easier to manipulate when they are young" It sound like a quote from a james bond villian!!!
First, the qualifications:
I'm not from Britain, and have never been there.
The mandatory IANAL.
My point:
I agree that copyright law should be taught in the classroom. However, it should not be a subject in and of itself. The Law as a whole should be taught in high school.
When I went to high school in Georgia, U.S., we had mandatory citizenship class where we learned the importance of paying taxes, showing up for jury duty, voting, etc. A "citizenship" class may seem harmless but I don't see it that way. I see it as an indoctrination/brainwash.
It wouldn't be difficult to give students a *working* knowledge of the law and allow them to decide for themselves how to conduct themselves in society. Personally I believe this isn't done because "they" don't want the average person to have this knowledge.
This relates to copyright in that the history of law and how it has evolved to its present form should be taught in class, including the first appearances of copyright law as a direct result of the printing press, a new *technology*. These students may then, on their own, decide that if "technology giveth, technology can taketh away".
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
1. Copyright laws are presently unenforceable.
2. As laws become more draconian (the preferred adjective used to describe DMCA) in order to protect copyright there will inevitably be collateral damage to our freedoms.
3. This results in an artificial marketplace governed by a plutocracy.
I prefer that the whole thing be scrapped in favor of a system that makes sense given todays technology. The music and movie distribution industry did not exist a hundred years ago and people got along fine. People still wrote songs and they *did* get distributed. Does anyone think that if the MPAA and the RIAA ceased to exist creativity would go with them?
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
With all his billions, Bill Gates chooses to charge cash strapped schools thousands of dollars for software which effectively costs nothing to duplicate. Wouldn't any cilivilsed person in his position give away licences to schools? His company would still be one of the most profitable in the world. He and his minions may be clever, but they are not civilized people. They are selfish, interested only in themselves and their money.
Intellecutal property law protects Microsoft, and many similar organisations such as the recording industry cartel. This does not make their position morally justifiable.
Our laws are crude devices. I consider that every time I buy a CD, for instance, the record company is effectively stealing a proportion of the cost from the me, because there is no effective price competition in the CD market. According to the law, no theft is taking place. However, the law is very clear that if a school makes a copy of a piece of software, they are doing something illegal, even when from a moral viewpoint what Bill Gates does (in charging cash strapped schools) is wrong.
I welcome any initiative that makes school children question the current status quo. Let's hope future generations will be more civilized and intelligent about these things than we currently are.