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 think I'm going to brainwash little kids too.
We'll play a game called "Let's sue 12-year old girls!"
I wonder if they tell the kids the artists are starving since the RIAA gives them $0.00000083 for every CD sold.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, consult.
In school they told me that smoking was bad, I should eat a balanced diet, I shouldn't drink, and I should never smoke pot.
And look at me now!
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!
The children will also participate in a club called the Spies where they learn to turn in dangerous dissidennt traitors.
Can your child meet the expectations like Suzie Q. did last week when she overheard her parents saying that the RIAA should be ashamed of itself for sueing children and the elderly. She marched right over to the local police station and turned them in.
Can your child be as happysafe as Suzie Q.? You had better send them to the Spies and make sure!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
It gets better, I hear they're also sponsoring classes on how to drown puppies for kids who want to become Recording Industry Ass. of America lawyers.
(yes, this is a joke. Probably.)
they could submit their music to mp3.com and maybe even make some money instead and see that the market is shifting..
btw. most of the records I bought the last few years I wouldn't have heard of if it wasn't for p2p-software..
but then.. I'm the kind of the consumer the RIAA doesn't want.. one who choses what he wants to listen too.
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
Presumably there will an advanced course where students will look at how a artist can market his work in an age when record companies monopolise the retail channels and are interested only in supporting artists conforming to some corporate identity.
not
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
1) Their CD will be sold for $20 of which they will get 20 cents.
2) Their new and creative song will be played once per day while they have to listen to boy bands have their song played twice per hour
3) Their CD's will be used to test the latest anti-copying technology which winds up ruining their bands reputation.
4) They will have to pay their own money to make their own tape, and the "record industry" will give their music to a prettier classmate to create a cover song for a totally lame commercial that ruins any hip appeal their song might have had.
Can anyone else think of anything?
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.
C = child, T= Teacher
;)
C: Yes, so I'll make the CD, the album art like that, and it will have 12 tracks...
T: It's already available on the net (smiling)
C: Hmmm... let me think... How many downloads? Yes, they seem to like it, hmm... Yeah, good, so now I'm famous. Let's prepare my next concert around the world.
T: !!!
Starving artist? No way! An artist to play for the public, to have tours around the world, yes!
A good artist will never starve because his art is priceless.
P.S. The "Starving Artist" game is stupid, as showed above
No it isn't theft. Probably copyright infringement under our current draconian and broken copyright laws, but not theft. I for one would prefer my child not to recieve morality lessons in school, especially ones containting brainwashing propaganda like this crap. I send my kid to school for academic advancement, not to be spoonfed some lobbiest's political agenda.
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?
DARE is beyond worthless. I remember getting these lifesaver candies on a necklace that we had to wear all day, and try not to eat. (Supposed to emulate resisting drugs) I ate mine within 5 minutes. And, also if you think about, what they were really teaching us is that drugs are like candy.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Pictures of Keith Richards should not count.
I remember at school being encouraged to share with my peers because it was nice, now big multinationals are giving early lessons in consumerism, what the heck happened?
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.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.
Robert Heinlein
> Why are they always suing in civil proceedings rather than prosecuting with a criminal trial?
Because - for the zillionth time - copy right infringement is not theft, and not a criminal offence. It is copy right infringement, an actionable matter carrying fixed penalties. Some associated activities are criminal: screwing with your cable connection, DMCA violations. But purely copying the data is not a criminal offence.
Is that enough italics, or do we need to go over this again?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
How does "coming up with an idea..." to do something have anything to do with copyright? You have to actually produce something first. If this demonstrates anything, it demonstrates the issue of prior art, where they are not permitted to pursue their dream and copyright it because someone else already did.
If you want the kids to really get an idea, they're going to have to spend all their time and effort working on something, tell them that they'll be able to sell it when they're done, and then after months of effort, take away the fruits of their labors and tell them you were just kidding.
Of course, the problem with this is, they'll have to actually create something that someone would be interested in purchasing, and it's unlikely that the average 5-9th grader will be able to pull this off, no matter what it is, and most especially not a product of an intellectual nature. Sure there are the rare exceptions, but this is a project aimed at ALL students, not the TAG crowd.
So at best this will be another boring assignment that the students will only half heartedly pay attention to. And at worst, the few students that have yet to figure out what "that there interweb" thing is all about will suddenly realize that they're missing out on a ton of free music.
This is probably another one of those sugarcoated efforts to make the public cry for the poor starving artists that are being robbed blind by the malicious 12 year olds who download their music, instead of realizing that the record industry is the one robbing them blind.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I have another game, where you plant a tree, wait for it to grow, cut it, and use the wood to painstakingly make a table, using your bare hands and a pocket knife. After all your efforts, you find out that tables better than yours are available everywhere for almost nothing, done by machines.
So you stop making tables. Big deal.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
I think the RIAA must have missed the kindergarten lesson on sharing.
GL
Big Bird: Look Elmo, I downloaded all this neato music on the 'In-ter-net'.
Elmo: That's stealing. People who pirate music should die of cancer. You're going to hell. Hehehe, that tickles.
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.
The artists are already starving in comparison. Why don't they just tell the truth and call the program "Starving Corporate Executive".
They could show the horrors of the poor RIAA execs who could only buy one BMW this year, or the trauma of having to sell one of their estates.
Ouch, sorry. About 2.2 milliseconds after hitting "Submit", I realised that you were actually asking that question. Sorry for attaching my rant to your post.
For what it's worth, I agree. Intellectual Property law needs to be revisited and some consistency brought to it. Why, for example, is it a criminal offence simply to obtain or supply a tool to break the encryption on a DVD? Why is it not a criminal offence to actually create or even use the tool to make a copy? Why is it a criminal offence to produce and sell shirts with a trademarked Nike logo, but not a criminal offence to sell copied CDs?
The only aspect of the RIAA's position with which I have the slightest sympathy is that they really do have to educate people about this area of the law. However, the fact that they're lying about it (consistently calling copy right infringement "theft") disinclines me to cut them any slack.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Bart: Sounds like a pretty crappy game to me.
Principal Skinner: Yes, well... Get started.
-- ``Bart the Murderer''
So, any special interest group gets to push their morals and agendas on our kids? In their classrooms? It's one thing to transmit their propaganda over the TV and radio, but its another to hold the kids captive and force them to listen/participate in such a way.
Hopefully, parents will be given the option of opting their children out of such activities. If not, let's hope one of these kids has lawyers for parents.
What next? The Right-To-Lifers get to stage a school "assignment" that's really just preaching the evils of abortion? The Brady Bill nuts get to do the same preaching the evils of firearms? Where does it stop?
Hey - why stop there? Let's get Coca-Cola to come in and "teach" how their product is superior to Pepsi. And let's get Dunlop to come in and teach how their tires are superior to Michelins.
This is just stupid.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
When I was in kindergarten, I learned to share....
Now the MPAA is going to teach me that sharing is bad?
If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts, and 7-Elevens would be inundated with job applications from band members who didn't make any money.
But of course, there never seems to be a shortage of new bands polluting the airwaves, so I have to conclude that either your facts aren't entirely true, or aren't entirely complete. Afterall, SOMETHING is driving these bands to aspire for a big contract, and it's not poverty.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Listen, if I'm sitting in the catbird's seat at a major label, I wouldn't be punking these kids out about how filesharing hurts artists, I'd be showing them how the pros do it - legally.
Vanishing royalties, recoupable expenses, double-standard accounting, ball-gripper contracts, long-term litigation - by the time these kids are finished with the class, they'll be dying to work in the industry instead of in front of it as performers. Screw the multiplication table, show 'em how to do math using the Royalty Calculator. Those proficiency tests will get hammered, at least mathematically.
Anyways, your mileage may vary.
Peace.
Wow. The album is available for download before it's even been created. Piracy must be more out-of-hand than I had imagined.
I wonder how much money the record companies spend to have such an influence in schools. Its a well known fact that kids make up the recording industry's largest market, so why is it that this commercial entity has an influence on children's morality and education? What kind of message is this sending?
Why not play the real starving artist game? The kids can sign a contract and never make a dime off of their intellectual property for the rest of their lives while the record company makes a fortune but still claims they haven't recouped their costs!
Sound waves should be free!
Well my version of the game is that you practice guitar since when you were 13 years old, finally get a good band together, do a few local shows for free, eventually get a once-in-a-lifetime deal with a record label, sell a million records, only to find that you still owe the record company $50,000 because they spent so much 'promoting' you, and that you can't make any more music until the record company agrees they like it. Then the record company decides to stop promoting you, and you have to do infomercials and mall openings since you're no longer allowed to make music without the record company's consent. Now that's a fun game.
$8.95/mo web hosting
In other news:
Former Enron executives will teach investment basics
Former Arthur Anderson accountants will teach how to balance a checkbook
Karl Rove will teach civics
Former Pres. Clinton will teach abstinence
Kid: It's done. Cool.
Teacher: Yes. And It's already on the net. So you can't sell it. (smiles broadly)
Kid: How can I find it? I got to tell my friends.
Teacher: Well - I didn't put it on the net. But I could have. You see?
Kid: So how do I put it on the web? I still want to show my mom and friends.
Teacher: Well, it wouldn't make sense to put it on the web because you need a special program to view it.
Kid: And where do I get this special program?
Teacher: You can't. It's only licensed to schools.
There are criminal penalties for certain levels of copying. See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
> 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
That's not exactly true. Copyright infringement is actionable in a civil lawsuit (by the copyright owner) or in a criminal lawsuit (prosecuted by the US government). You should check out the the copyright act's section 506. It's a higher burden to prove criminal copyright infringement (you have to infringe "willfully"), but it still happens, and not just for cable, DMCA, etc. The bottom line is that the labels are suing because they have the money to do it and they can control the legal strategy. Also, the US government may not want to sue because it has other priorities (and a more limited budget).
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
Yeah, it's too bad that most kids' imaginations are well-done by the third grade.
Kids: "Look teacher, we made the new Eminem CD."
Tacher: "Uh, that's already available for download."
Kids: "We know. It actually works, and we're selling copies to the underclassmen."
Teacher: "The lesson for today is... you all get detention."
The kids will learn 2 things from this exercise
1. If everyone just downloads music for free from the Intarweb, well...that sucks for the artists, because they get no monetary compensation from it.
2. The current business model being blasted into our brains by the music industry sucks, because they take too much of the money. We pay too high prices and the artists still get little or no money from it.
Some of these little darlings will grow up to become businessmen and women. A few of them even good businessmen and women.
Maybe one of them will come up with a system that actually does work.
$Deity, I hope it doesn't take that long!
The RIAA gets $2 for each CD recorder. .02% of the manufacturer's sell price for each CD-R and CD-RW sold. This is the "tax" they get to offset the copying of music.
The RIAA gets about
The RIAA has been paid a "tax" for each blank audio tape since the '70s.
Overall, this amounts to millions of dollars.
So, far, no one has found an artist that has received any part of this.
Perhaps, just perhaps, you have already paid for your copies of music.
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.'"
For those who didn't read the article, the Starving Artist game is only a little blurb in the middle. But if that's your hot button and you have kids in school, find out if the school plans to bring in this presentation. Talk directly to the teacher(s) involved. The school also has a PTA or PTSA where you can stand up and object publicly.
Be prepared that teachers in general tend to be unsympathetic toward behavior that seems to break rules. However, they also tend to frown on deceit and deception. Your best argument is the truth about how the music business works. Try this explanation:
Musicians don't make money from record companies selling CDs, they make money by performing. Recording contracts are deliberately written so that all the expenses for producing, advertising and distributing an album are taken out of the musician's share of the profits, which then magically turns out to be ZERO. What musicians get out of CD sales is exposure, which makes them more famous and gets them better paying performance gigs. They get this same exposure whether a person buys a CD, borrows it from a friend, listens to it on the radio or downloads it from the Internet. The record industry's "poor starving artist" mantra is a flat out lie.
Whatever you do, don't beat this into the ground or launch into a tirade about the Evils of Capitalism or whatever. Just tell the real story matter-of-factly and give them a chance to digest it. Tell them you don't want the Recording Industry or any other industry bringing in a marketing campaign disguised as a learning experience.
What teacher would allow this as a part of his/her curriculum? Good grief. Here you go kids--create, have fun, but just so you know, it's the money that makes it worthwhile, not the satisfaction and joy that comes with the act of creation and knowing a job well done. What a crappy lesson to be giving our kids. That's as bad as suing 12 year olds, actually worse, because their propaganda is teaching children corrupt and false moral truths. As a parent I'd be pissed as hell to find out the schools were allowing my children to be taught these things. How about teaching them the importance of obeying the law because it IS the law, and if the law is wrong, it can be changed, but that the law is important and the law should be followed?
I hope I am not the only one that is violently opposed to public schools trying to teach our children about ethics. First of all I don't aggree with a government organization trying to teach children ethics (whatever happened to parents?) and secondly the teaching of ethics by a heavy handed corporation. This is wrong in so many ways that I have to question the ethics of the school boards that allow such a curriculum in the first place.
Stay tuned for new sig...