Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
It sort of reminds me of this "War on Drugs", except the "War on Drugs" is actually more reasonable.
"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.
Have I stolen the contents of the Harddrive on my linux box?
Have I stolen the concerts I downloaded from etree?
Have I stolen the toys I picked up at the last trade show I went to?
And the worst part is that young kids are really prone to being manipulated and indocternated.
Let's make a difference
Is it just me who is sickened by the use of middle school students? You can't claim it's part of a broad legal education such as most citizens should have; they're not teaching them about anything but media piracy. And why would any school allow a special interest like that to "educate" middle school children?
When I went through school DARE was just getting started. Everybody was jumping behind it as a way to target kids right in the classroom early-on and say "Don't do drugs." However, DARE has been an awesome failure. Some of the buggest potheads that I know sat right next to me in those classes, parroting the lines that "Officer Jim" told us.
I believe that this program will have similar results; Little Suzie says "I'll never download, that's bad" at school then goes home and gets the whole new Britney Spears album because, ya know, it's free!
Also, this part is particularly interesting:
The ''fair use" doctrine allows the public to use copyrighted material for educational purposes. One can use another's work to parody, review, or critique that material. You can even legally swap material, as long as it's not for commercial gain, said Seltzer. ''People tape movies on their VCRs and swap it with friends without getting arrested for piracy," she said.
so, by that logic, all P2P is legal. I'm not getting any commercial by sharing files out, nor are the people that I download from. What's the diff in having 3 friends that swap movies off HBO or 3 Billion friends swapping some AC/DC albums?
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
There are two issues the industry is facing. The first is piracy, where people sell illegal copies of movies at a lower cost and give no compensation to the producers. The second is downloading, where consumers want to see a movie (probably poor quality) before plunking down $20 to buy the DVD. The one that costs the industry money is the first, not the second. But they're addressing the second. It seems like this program is counterproductive. Instead of getting people to reject piracy, they're trying to get people to reject downloading. This is a message that is more likely to get ignored, and as a result people are more willing to pirate movies. After all, "if I'm breaking the law already, I might as well make some money off of it"
Kids are some of the sneakiest people alive. (This is not open for debate. We were all kids once.)
Even little ones are all over music/movie piracy. They already know the thrill of getting something for free rather than asking your parents to buy it.
That thrill and the associated material benefit far outweighs anything the RIAA/MPAA or teachers can do to endorse a strict policy of legal distribution.
The coolest voice ever.
I say take the lesser of the two evils. What's better, attempting to brain wash 12 year olds, or suing them? I'd go with the brain washing, then at least the smart ones will survive.
What they need is a presentation on how to create content that can be legally shared (history of GNU, Creative Commons, and so on).
There is copyright law, and then there is wishful thinking ("Hey, since it is soooooo easy to download this stuff, it should be legal").
Why was this modded down? Its a different opinion, and I don't agree with it becuase it fails to address the obvious coproprate propaganda tie-ins that this program comes with, but geez, a website the claims to support freedom of information and opinion sure seems to contradict that idea when it comes to unpopular opinion.
Yet Darrell Luzzo, senior vice president of Junior Achievement, defends the industry's antipiracy program by saying it's not meant to cover all aspects of copyright law.
Of course it doesn't cover all aspects of copyright law. They seem to have forgotten about section 107 (fair use).
Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
I propose that this will be as effective as the war on drugs. Sure, some kids will write their essays, get some free stuff, and the salespeople, uh, I mean, volunteer educators, will feel as if they did a good job.
But consider the following:
1. Low income children do not have the access to computers and network connections that more well-to-do children have. I doubt, therefore, that they're reaching their target audience.
2. What's more effective at influencing behavior, some JA instructor or your cool friends giving you a copy of the latest hit song/album that they ripped off the net?
3. One sided propaganda campaigns may make people feel good, but they gloss over serious issues (ie, copyright, fair use, etc) and end up breeding a ridiculous environment in which people claim to want such rules and laws yet break them anyway.
All of this sounds a lot like the war on drugs. We have our "just say no" campaigns in schools, celebrities tell us to stay off the drugs, and we make all these claims about how bad drugs are for you while ignoring or outright suppressing the truth about their effects as we trample civil liberties. And just how effective is that?
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
...I don't really see what exactly inherently outrageous about this. Granted, its a slippery slope, having unions finance educations...but come on, who can really defend pirating whole movies? Dont give me that shit about "its not worth 10 bucks to see it in a theatre or the 20 bucks for the DVD," either. If you don't want to PAY for something, you dont deserve to have it. And if you have an honest problem with the pricing system, then refuse to pay. Just because you might think a car is over expensive doesnt mean you just jack it and ride, do you? (And of course i'm referring to blatantly luxury items like movies.) The bottom line here is that most people just dont have any respect for other people's work. And thats where it's really at, respecting another person's product enough to, if not purchase, then at least not blatantly steal. Just because something is in an easily transferable medium does not mean that it should be free. Thats bullshit.
What's weird is that I actually use to believe those words, but now that I'm an adult it's like Santa and the Easter Bunny. What happened? Where did I lose faith and why? Are those corporate liars proud of the fact that they made me doubt those words?
Say it again... slowly... with feeling.
The complaint isn't that schools are discouraging stealing, the complaint is that schools are allowing organizations to define to our children what stealing is. That's why the poster said they were teaching children their "version of copyright law".
School Principal: Well, it's been four weeks and I'd say we've done a stellar job of making Ultra Cola available to our students.
Marketdriod: Well, you might say so, and I'm sure I'd agree with you but unfortunately that won't hold up in court.
School Principal: Huh?
Marketdriod: The idea wasn't making the product available to the students. It was making the students available to the product. The Ultra Cola people say your sales aren't what they should be. You do want to make your quotas, don't you? Or the school won't get that nice big check.
The schools aren't making a lesson available to the kids.
The schools are making the kids available to the lesson.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"Something that is accepted as the truth without proof."
School is all about dogma. "Swallow this and then regurgitate it at exam time."
The merchants of cool (do what we say, it's cool) are all about dogma. Of course they will try to use it to modify our behavior, it usually works quite well.
It's ironic that teachers/schools routinely push "fair use" to the breaking point. So, will the kids listen to the short-lived spew from MPAA, or will they learn by watching their teacher's example?
Be who you are and say what you feel, because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind.
Er, the parent is not a troll.
Whilst it isn't necessarily a good thing to allow the *AA to influence a childs education, copyright infringement _is_ illegal, and as such you could argue schools have a duty to discourage it.
ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
Too bad those words are copyrighted...
I belive it was Noam Chomsky that said: "Education is a system of imposed ignorance"
I used to disagree...
And in 2 generations its heresy to say it used to be round.. The MPAA isn't the only organization doing this. So much of our history and future concepts of right and wrong are being perverted by teachings to the children. They are in it for the long haul.. and we must all be always diligent to teach our children the real truth..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Anyway, I don't see anything new here at all. Yeah, there's way too much corporate influence in the classroom - so let's talk about all those schools that have replaced milk machines and cafeteria lines with soda and sandwich vending machines and made the Nike swoosh part of their campus decor.
When I was in the sixth grade I was grounded from recesses for weeks because I started a petition for longer recesses. an innocent bit of play snowballed within a day and soon there were dozens of handwritten copies of my petition circulating in classrooms. When they found out it was me who started it, rather than take the opportunity to demonstrate real world governenace, I instead got a lecture and made to write something stupid like "I will not create disturbances in class." Which, ironically, means I really did get a lesson in the real world - unfortunately, not the real world as we had been told in the classroom (petitioning the government, speaking out, etc). Obviously this real lesson had a lasting effect on me, as I still can't remember what it was I was supposed to write but the message sent still rings clear 30 years later: don't try to buck the man or you'll get stepped upon.
This program is certain to spawn a new generation of adults with similar memories. Indoctrination of this sort is doomed to fail as soon as the child begins to realize she can think for herself.
Now, getting back to those school lunches and corporate sports programs...
"The success is measured in how many kids did learn from it."
A *LOT* of kids learned from DARE. They just didn't learn the lesson their teachers and the police expected. The course may be diffrent now, but back when I was an elementary and middle-school student (10-15 years ago), the emphasis was on shocking the kids into obedience, not giving them real information. The first lesson we learned was that drugs will mess you up, destroy your life, and eventually kill you. Then we had friends who smoked a little weed and didn't get addicted, messed up, or killed. Then we learned the real lesson of DARE: Our teachers, our school principals, the police, Nancy Reagan, and that girl on TV with the frying pan lied to us all through our childhood.
0 1 - just my two bits
Actually it is terrible, because they are defining what stealing means. And do you know what else? This country was not founded on abiding laws whatever they may be. This country was founded on freedom from government opression (read: stupid rediculous laws that violate consumer rights).
Did you know that us fighting England was not only breaking the law but STEALING THEIR LAND?
Right and wrong may be a solid thin line, but the law rarely follows it thinly and sometimes it's the job of the people to put the government back into place.
Those who follow blindly don't deserve even to follow. Rule is the gift of the masses, and consumers rule a free economy. Read a book troll.
Wait isn't education suppose to be about teaching students the basic skills of living? I agree that the theft of music etc. is excessive.
Except...
a)there is evidence that theft of music has a minimal negative effect, and might even have a possitive effect.
b)companies should not have the right to engage in vigilanty justice.
c)companies should Not dictate to our education system.
d)the statement that theft of music will lead to a world w/out music is the most ridiculous lie I've ever heard.
What happened to the three R's?
Reading, 'Riting, Ripping
hehehe.
Shick's Law: There is no problem a good miracle can't solve.
It isn't political because the program is simply teaching people what the law is.
No. From the article: "Students learn to repeat the program's motto: 'If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it.'" That's just wrong for too many reasons to count.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I'm just not going to worry.
Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
We have the Democrats to thank for that one.
No, you have the Republicans to thank, since they are the ones who allowed the "under God" reference to be added in 1954. Congress passed it, but Eisenhower should have vetoed it. Since try, thank you for trolling.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
"Something that is accepted as the truth without proof."
School is all about dogma. "Swallow this and then regurgitate it at exam time."
Any GOOD teacher will show the students HOW to find the answers, not just the answers themselves. That allows the students to prove to themselves the validity of what is taught. Thus, it is not Dogma.
You forget that this country was mostly established by Christians. Christians don't just assert the existence of God, they believe it. To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).
As someone who lived basically the same life, I have one word for you: BOOOOOOOOO-RIIIIIIIIIIIING!
I spent my whole childhood thinking that rules were there for a reason. Rules were there to protect us, to keep us safe from terrible dangers, and to keep us working towards becoming the best people we could possibly be. To me, rule-breakers were slime. They were worse than slime. They were violating the Great Social Contract that kept everyone from setting fire to old ladies and blowing up kittens.
After high school, I joined the Army. Learning a whole new and intricate set of rules was an interesting experience. I followed the rules dutifully, but ninety percent of the rules governing soldiers in Basic Training are there solely for the purpose of teaching the soldiers to obey without questioning. The need for that obedience is understandable in some situations. The military is just one of those places where sometimes lives depend on swift, coordinated action.
But in the end, I realized that sometimes the rules were wrong, arbitrary, self-serving, or simply lacking in coherence. Sometimes the process by which the rules are made exhibits the same flaws. Enforcement was either non-existent or arbitrary, and breaking them was more than merely harmless; sometimes it was the only way to get things done.
About the same time, I was becoming aware of the effects of being raised in an extremely rule-oriented religion.
Unquestioning obedience is fine for four year olds. But as soon as possible, kids need to be given explanations for the rules, to the best of their ability to understand. If they don't learn the difference between good rules* and bad rules**, then we're all doomed. The whole democracy thing doesn't work if everyone just does what they're told.
I worry almost as much for the kids who follow the rules compulsively, and are afraid to do anything without explicit permission, as I do for the ones who go around vandalizing and stealing out of boredom. I like the kids who creatively push the limits, game the system, and question those who wield power over them. Especially if they show some level of judgment about the actions that will do real damage, as opposed to the ones that merely make things more interesting.
* Don't set fire to old ladies. Never give your passwords out.
** You must request permission to go to the bathroom, and be back in precisely three minutes.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Interesting points but I didn't see in the parent's post any mention of following the rules "compulsively" or being afraid to do anything without "explicit permission". I for one followed the rules more or less coincidentally. I didn't smoke or drink or do drugs because I didn't see the point, or maybe because I wanted to be unique ... or maybe because I was chicken. Not because of rules.
A little off topic I guess ...
Kevin
That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them. That's the whole point of any religion. If it were a fact and not a belief then it would be a science and not a religion, and you woulndn't need faith to believe it.
On this propoganda piece, get them to send you the stuff, then turn it around on them, show how they were trying to use and abuse the kids (examples such as mnemonics used as a conditioning agent, using imagery to invoke an emotional reaction not in line with reality,use of word "piracy", leaving out the fact they have been busted and convicted many times for payola bribery, collusion industry wide to fix prices at obscene profit levels, abuse of the artists with loan programs based on unreasonable expectations and skewed projections, etc) in the program. Take that phrase "if you haven't paid you've stolen it". Bring up the example of the library, where copyrighted material is freely shared to as many who want to share in it, yet the book was paid for only once, etc.
Bring up how the movie and recorded audio industry have no qualms over using the very latest technology to make their copies of copies cheaper to them, while they can still sell them at the older prices that reflected higher production costs, but now they want to have a monopoly on technology, how they don't want YOU as the end user consumer to be able to make use of modern technology.
And stuff like that there, give em a dose of healthy skepticism towards the self serving interests of pure profits above all else crowd and why the predatory model of business should be avoided.
See, to me anyway, there's 3 business modalities, there isn't just one "business". The list: "Business-neutral" (more or less the norm how most businesses work in, neither highly predatory nor entirely honest or fair at all times),
"Business-predatory" ethically challeneged, morally abysmal, "anything goes",the only thing that matters is profits, no matter what actions are taken, as long as you can get away with it, "greed is good" philosophy, etc
Then there's "Business-'class act'"-non gouging, honest, real fair prices that follow advances in productivity,no scandals, always above board and ethical, etc.
should be some *interesting* discussions along those lines if specific businesses and corporations, etc are topics
Well, I'll admit it's no longer fashionable, but many people still at least try to keep up the pretenses of neutrality rather than blatantly admitting that they're trying to indoctrinate students with a particular opinion.
You are correct though that less overtly it happens a lot. Seems to happen in both "conservative" and "liberal" areas, though the "liberal" ones seem to be worse: lots of classes in Women's Studies departments on abortion, for example, start with the assumption that abortion is fully moral and a right. No reading of material from both sides or any of that old-fashioned nonsense.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christians by modern definition.
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."
True, though again, that depends upon your definition of "Christianity". Using the broad definition, there is sufficient evidence contrary to that statement throughout all early writings, including the Declaration of Independence and writings pertaining to the Constitution (cf. "denominations" as opposed to "religion"). If we are to assume that they did not lie in this treaty, then I would suggest that their definition of "Christian" was indeed limited to a very specific sect of the followers of Christ or the Bible.
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".
While I agree with you that that is not the state's job (though the state does a lot that I don't think is its job), I think you are indirectly referring to the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
We must be careful to understand what all these terms mean. As with "Christianity", people have widely varied ideas of "religion" and "establishment", as well as "freedom of speech", etc.
I do not think it is quite as plain as you imply.
e.g. I certainly don't want anyone to be forced to be Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Taoists or Animists or Totemists, etc. But religion is a complicated notion, encompassing morality and human behavior and norms. What exactly is it and how do we isolate it such that we do not create another religion by isolating it?
The first amendment states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof,". I think it's pretty clear that "respecting an establishment of religion" was exactly what Congress intended. This becomes especially clear when you put it in its historical context. This was the time of the "red scare". Communism was the demon of the day. The characteristic that (predominantly Christian) Americans most despised about communism was its official adoption of Atheism. In reaction to that, and to gain political favor at home, Congress made several moves to officially distance the US from the "godlessness" of communism. Freedom of religion is something the US already had (at least officially), so there was nothing to be gained by pushing neutrality or freedom. What the politicians needed in order to win votes was to take a decidedly pro-religious stance, and to favor mainstream religion as much as they could get away with, constitution be damned. "In God We Trust" on the money was another facet of this same effort.
Some will argue that these are OK because they don't specify which god. But seriously, who really believes that Congress intended anything other than the Judeo-Christian God? And how many gods are actually named "God"? (Note the capitalization in the Pledge of Allegiance) To put it in perspective, "one nation under gods" doesn't specify which gods, and "one nation under goddess" doesn't specify which goddess. So by the same argument those should also be considered neutral and clear of any First Amendment complications. Right? Somehow I suspect that the people who are defending the "God" addenda are the ones who would howl the loudest if either of those phrases were in the Pledge. And they should howl about it because those are clearly biased against monotheistic and patriarchal religions, and also against atheism, agnosticism, and just simple non-religiousness. It's just that if they could see past their own religious bias they would be howling about it now because of the clear bias against polytheistic religions, matriarchal religions, atheism, etc. That "In God We Trust" and "under God" deprecate the views of those who do not believe in any gods is particularly hard to counter since it's pretty obvious from the historical context that this is exactly what they were intended to do.
So, regardless of any court's ruling, it is as clear as the nose on your face that the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance as well as "In God We Trust" on the currency is now and has always been unconstitutional.
I believe the only reason these continue to be is that they are political land mines that can blow up in the face of any politician who dares to try to set it right, or even just to speak the truth about it.
This is why there can be no honest politicians. As long as the majority of the populace is unable to be honest even with themselves and put truth above popularity, no honest man can ever be elected.
"That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them."
Not at all. It is a fact that God exists, it is merely one that cannot be proven. A fact does not only become a fact when it is proven. A fact has always been a fact, no matter who doesn't know it.
Even as an atheist, the "under god" part isn't really the big problem for me - it's egotistical and presumptuous, but not anywhere near as much as the rest of the thing - It's a pledge of national allegience - that is PRECISELY the sort of thing that MUST REMAIN VOLUNTARY if it is to have any real deep meaning at all. We don't need mandatory patriotism. It's empty-hearted and evil.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If you read the article you'll see that they are pushing the party line "if you copy it - you stole it".
Whether it's freely available or not, they're making no effort to point out that there are literally gigabytes or terrabytes of data that you can freely copy and distribute to your hearts content and are instead trying to bring it down to a simple point of "if you didn't pay for it then you must have stolen it"... and that's wrong.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips