Slashdot Mirror
File-Sharing Ethics Taught In Classrooms?
shams42 writes "According to the New York Times, the movie/record industries are taking their concerns about P2P file sharing into the classroom (free reg. req.) Among other activities, they are planning to play a game called 'Starving Artist' with 5th-9th graders, where students come up with an idea for a record album, cover art, and lyrics only to be told by teachers that the album is already available for download for free."
I remember when I was in the early grades of school and TV networks went berserk over teachers using VCRs to tape shows and play them in class. I thought at the time that it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard of, and I am sure that will be the reaction of the kids today in this analagous situation.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
check out that crossword on the right. What does "3. Take music off the computer" correspond to -- "Digital theft" or "Download" or "Piracy"? And "14. Online Stealing"? Is that "Piracy" too? Arr, matey!
Good lord. "4. Software that traces a person's usage" must be "Spyware" -- are they teaching that Kazaa is evil (must not sleep, clowns will eat me), too?
Not a curriculum for me, thankyouverymuch. Unless it's in a lesson about corporate control of American schools, and they buy all the kids free Pepsis out of the vending machines with which the school has an exclusive contract.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
As a kid, I had no idea what my options for drugs were until a DARE officer showed up in my classroom with the parphenalia display, the scratch-n-sniff pot smelling paper, and the videos of glassy-eyed hippies all whacked out on weed and goofballs.
Needless to say, I'm pretty sure that many, if not most of the kids they try and "teach" this way will just go right out and get the free music they didn't know they were missing. Brilliant.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
After suing a 12 yr old, knowing that they did it, and STILL they settled for $2k US? I think they should play a game called "Greedy Lawyer". Here the kids go up infront of the class, make a band, songs, album art, etc... then the RIAA says "Hey thanks for that, you get 1 cent an album we sell!".
Is this even legal? They are not a public entity like the Fire Dept or Police Dept that can come in and give lecutures on safety and saying no to strangers. They are a privatly owned firm of lawyers that will brainwash our kids to think their way. I really don't want my kids comming subjected to that. Yes, I could keep my child out of school that day but then they would lose any other classes that they would have that day also.
Is this what the education system is comming to these days now? Coperate sponsed education? It's bad enough that M$ is pushed in all the schools (nice that they get free computers though) now we're going to have the RIAA pushing their ethics? What's next? No, seriously, this is frightning to me. My two childern are just entering the school system now and with things like this croping up what will they be learning?
Well isnt it nice to know that education isnt revolving around history, math, literature, science and technology, etc.. Its about how to become a comsumer for the bigger companies. And some people wonder how the american education system seems to falling apart. I think this answers it.
How bout this game, call it rockband.
95% of the kids are told to form bands.
the remaining 5 % are broken up into record execs, AR men and lawyers
The kids in the bands all have to try to get the attention of the AR men, when they do the AR men have to get them to sign a letter of intent.
Once the bands have signed a letter of intent they can then negotiate with the record companies. After going into debt to both the record companies and their lawyers they can then record their album.
Then you can have the fun part. The royalty statement where, the bands can find that even though they have sold 32 million dollars worth of CD's they still haven't made a profit. Matter of fact they are in debt to the record company. And, Their effective earning power would have been better if they were at 7-11
Now you can tell the kids in the band that their fans are downloading their songs.
This is the kind of game I wouldn't mind seeing in schools. You could follow it up with other fun legal games like, Make the laws benefit you, Patent Grab, and sue your competition out of business.
P2P filesharing is a demonstration of classic american values. Whenever in this country a small group has managed to buy laws that are significantly out of line with reality the bulk of the country just ignores them.
Haven't we had enough of morally deviant predators grooming little kids to turn them into compliant bitches?
Now, I'm all for teaching kids (and adults) about the consequences of their actions, but the action that the RIAA are objecting to isn't file copying, it's not buying music. There's a distinction, and I want them to be honest about what they're saying.
What these kids are really being told is: "If you don't do buy Freshy Q's new CD, the police will take your mommy away. Sorry, I mean, Freshy Q is going to die in the gutter."
Now, sure, Freshy is dead meat if you don't buy because you're downloading his m3p, but the thing is, he's just as destitute if you don't buy because you're happy listening to him on the radio, or by streamed webcast, or on MTV-a-like channels, or (shocker) if despite - or perhaps because of - the many ways that the RIAA pays to get the music to you, you simply choose not to buy a CD.
That's the message that the RIAA is giving, once you strip the bullshit away. Buy more music. Buy music, or you've killed Freshy Q. It's not our job to persuade you to pay, it doesn't matter how generic or plastic our miming meat puppets are, the fact is, Billy, it's your responsibility to pay, and frankly, you should pay whether you like the music or not. It's all about stopping poor Freshy Q from starving.
Spooky prediction? Next year, it's Driver's Ed, but first a short message from our sponsors, the Ford Motor Company Inc.
"Hello class. I'd like to tell you the story of Wally Doe. We had to lay Wally off because you selfish little bastards are walking to school instead of pestering your parents to buy you a Ford Weener. Now Wally has to give handjobs for food. Say, kids, how would you feel about choking the chicken of a 400lb trucker to make ends meet?"
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
>If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts
Only if wildly optimistic kids:
Personally, I blame a system that tells kids that they can all be exceptional. It's very motivating and all, but the problem is that so many of them seem to actually believe it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
> Given the amounts the artists have to pay out of their advance on basic expenses, there'd be a hell of a lot of bankrupt artists around if most of them had to pay their advances back! It doesn't work like that, few if any artists would even sign up if it did.
Um, there are a hell of a lot of bankrupt artists out there, and they do have to pay the advance back. See, the contract is written to work royalty recoup before expenses. In the example, the band gets fronted $1M for the record, and they hit the studio. Expenses end up on top of that (say $200K). Now, when the record starts to sell, the record company pays the band 20 percent of the proceeds, but then takes it back to recoup the original $1M. If the record grosses $5M, they recoup the entirety of the advance. Now why that doesn't count as having to pay it back is only academic. It's true that the band doesn't have to pay it back if royalties don't cover the advance, but they still have to pay it back before they make any money.
Oh, and did you forget the $200K in additional expenses? If the record makes $4M, not a dime of the $200K is paid off, and that money is indeed recoverable, which means that the record company makes $2.8M (that's the $4M in sales minus the $1M advance minus the $200K) and can sue the band for the $200K expenses (but not the leftover $200K in unrecouped advance), which forces the band to declare bankruptcy and break up, never to perform under the now-defunct name again. Since they got advanced $200K that they never repaid, assuming five members in the band, they each made $40K for one year, and had to drop the band at the end of that one year. The national average for a manager at a convenience store in the U.S. is $38K a year, and you get to keep the job from year to year, and you get a benefits package.
Not pretty, is it?
Virg
So who consumes a larger chunk of the total revenue from a record -- the filesharers or the RIAA members?
And the "marketing is expensive" line that publishers use is amazing. Yes, that's what you do, RIAA folks -- market records. You're expensive. Nobody is arguing with you there.
May we never see th
The only similarity between physical property and intellectual property is that the ownership thereof has been artificially created in both cases.
The primary difference between intellectual property and physical property is that while "stealing" one may dilute its value, it does not deprive anyone of anything they would have gotten had you not done so, whereas acquiring the other without permission means you are depriving someone of something, and actively costing them money. The legal system can tell the difference, though in this day and age it doesn't seem like it -- can you?
Put simply (in deference to you, Kent) when you stock a store shelf you expend money to do so, and if someone steals your stock, not only is that money gone, but you have been deprived of assets, namely the physical object. If someone puts your CD into their PC, and makes an mp3 rip, or downloads a rip from the internet, you lose nothing except a sale -- assuming that they would have purchased it anyway.
If someone steals stock from your store, you gain nothing. If someone copies your album, you gain exposure.
Hence, copying music to which you are not entitled is illegal, but not necessarily immoral or unethical. That may be your opinion but I don't think it's exactly been proven. What has been proven time and time again is that major label artists, who are overwhelmingly the group most concerned (or at least, the label is concerned on "their" behalf) about music "piracy" (I don't remember firing any cannons at anyone. ARR! PREPARE TO BE BOARDED!) make more money when you go see them in concert than when you buy their album. So, if you want to support the bands you love, while getting something for your trouble, go see their shows as many times as you can, and spread their music to people who have not been exposed to it who like to go see bands live.
I am sure you will write this off as just another justification but the fact is that your basic premise is flawed because taking physical property, which is called stealing, and copying intellectual property, which is a violation of copyright law but is not theft specifically because it does not deprive anyone of anything are not the same thing. That is a fact whether you approach the problem legally, logically, morally, or ethically. Whether copyright violations are wrong is a matter of opinion. Clearly there are many people opposed to the existence of copyright at all, and I don't know if they are necessarily "right" or "wrong". Traditionally, what is "right" is what has been agreed upon by a society, and it varies between groups of people.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"