MPAA Funds School Programs In Copyright Dogma

Matthew Skala writes "This article from the Boston Globe describes the 'What's The Diff?' program, in which U.S. students and teachers can win prizes by learning to endorse the MPAA's version of copyright law. They're using volunteer labour from Junior Achievement - not an organization I would have expected to see doing this kind of thing. I guess I'll have to move its card over in my mental Illuminati: New World Order game."

Comments

Re:Wow, this is terrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is this thing called Fair Use the media mobsters are hell-bent on demolishing.

You can tape shows off the air and swap them with your friends.

Re:Outrageous

[dbarclay10]

What the hell? They're going to just start exploiting schools in order to dump their brainwashing propaganda on young people? Does anyone else think this is completely ridiculous?

Sure, they would be talking about something which is illegal, but that doesn't make this right. The children and parents should have time to discuss things like this and make their own decisions, without being misguided by the people who want to make money.

Actually, they're brainwashing kids into thinking that things which aren't illegal actually are (fair use). Read the article.

Re:The smell of misinformation in the morning

[dasunt]

"Students learn to repeat the program's motto: ''If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it."

That is so incredibly wrong I don't even know where to start.

Don't forget: "...students are asked to write an essay 'to get the word out that downloading copyrighted entertainment is illegal and unethical,'"

Its so easy to find an example of copyrighted music free for download that isn't illegal.

If they had this program when I went to school, I'd probably have been suspended for subversion.

Re:Onwards and upwards...

[sn2k]

Doesn't this also count as political education

It isn't political because the program is simply teaching people what the law is. You can go into a school and teach that abortion is currently legal but you can't go into a school and say abortion is morally justified.

Re:Just like DARE!

[PCM2]

Drug use in America's high schools is at an all-time low.

Oh man, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a study to back that one up.

Leave your comments....

[parcel]

To quote JA:

"Tell what you liked, didn't like, would like to see more or less of, whatever is on your mind."

Guestbook here.

Re:Just like DARE!

[YoJ]

The real test of DARE's effectiveness is the difference in drug use between schools using the program and schools not using the program. The only real data on this that I know of shows that DARE is not effective.

Re:Just like DARE!

[YoJ]

I just found a 10-year followup with the same conclusion, that DARE is not effective.

Re:Onwards and upwards...

[bnenning]

No, the pledge is unconstitutional now.

No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.

Re:Wow, this is terrible.

[jimicus]

Quite right. But if you read the article, you'll understand that what is being taught is basically a simple "MP3s are Evil!" mantra.

No mention is made of legal MP3s, fair use doctrine or indeed any part of copyright law which doesn't agree with the RIAA.

this reminds me of "Don't copy that floppy" rap

[enrico_suave]

I have this horrifically produced avi on CD where the SPA (? the software equivalent to RIAA/MPAA) made a moral parable hip hop rap "don't copy that floppy" so kids in school wouldn't copy oregon trail (or the like) and play it at home...

very amusing .. almost as amusing as those clips mpaa sponsored theatrical trailers where the set designers try to say how piracy hurts them the little guy...

*Shrug* I should divx that and put it up somewhere... (they actualy give you permission to redistribute THAT PSA turd ironically enough...)

e.

Re:Onwards and upwards...

[STrinity]

No, the pledge is unconstitutional now.

No it's not. The 9th Circuit ruled the "under God" bit unconstitutional, but even that's been stayed until the Supreme Court makes its decision. The only thing unconstitutional is forcing people to say it.

Score:-1, Conservative

Please don't tarnish conservatives by associating with us.

Re:Onwards and upwards...

[the_mad_poster]

Commie.

Re:Onwards and upwards...

[Mr. Slippery]

You forget that this country was mostly established by Christians.

Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma.

The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).

To an atheist, it's clearly unconstitutional to have the state push people to make a clearly untrue statement (that God exists).

Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists". Unfortunately we have a surplus of Christian nutcases who are incapable of accepting the plain text of the First Amendment.