Slashdot Mirror
British Schoolkids Get Copyright Education
Krafty Koder writes "The Register reports that British school children will be indoctrinated in copyright law , in a scheme backed by the music industry, as part of the government sponsored Music Manifesto initiative. In response, kuro5hin have posted an open letter on this issue." The U.S. has its own version.
Half of our kids can't even spell, now we're wasting time on this crap?
I like muppets.
"We don't need no education"
But understanding the law is an important facet of every day life, whether you live in Albania or Zimbabwe. It is also important to understand the law in order to oppose it. I know knee jerk reactions to things we don't understand are the norm here at Slashdot, but that's precisely why all the venom against the DMCA/CPAA/etc causes no harm to those laws.
The first step is understanding. I don't see how anyone could be against legal education in schools.
Saying that being against piracy is being against sharing is exactly the same sort of BS that organizations like the RIAA use.
English is easier said than done.
Teaching kids about copyright law, ok fine, nothing wrong with knowing what the law is.
Teaching kids the music industry's idea of copyright law, very, very bad idea.
Saying that being against piracy is being against sharing is exactly the same sort of BS that organizations like the RIAA use is exactly the same sort of BS that organizations like the RIAA use.
When a commercial industry lobby can influence the curriculum, where the system is already barely covering the basics and government is ignoring the pleas of academics to invest more in proper education... makes you realise who owns you doesn't it?
Gotta eduh-kate them early on, before the little consumers grow up! It's only sensible!
I'm hoping the kids think this is bullshit, and it might trigger the opposite response. It deeply saddens me that the industry feels so strongly that people are just consumers of products and not that there is an inherent right to fair-use, sharing or collective ownership/stakeholders. Sharing something you own does not make you a thief or a commie -- it's a behaviour that is blessed by the spirit of copyright law, that of fair use and public stakeholdership.
Anybody who says this has anything to do with compensation of artists is arguing a red herring. We have wonderful (read: inexpensive, reliable, ubiquitous) mechanisms for mass information distribution now, and publishers are realizing that they are quickly becoming unnecessary, and they're scared.
There's nothing natural about the way our copyright law in the United States and "intellectual property" in general work. It's a social contract, and, frankly, that contract is tilted rather sharply in the direction of publishers at present. Of course, it only makes sense now that the publishers are going to catch the children at a young age, and indoctrinate them into this idea that the present social contract is "just how things are", and squelch the very idea that society might want to renegotiate the terms of the different monopoly grants afforded by our "intellectual property" law.
It's fucking depressing. We need "intellectual property" revolution while there's still enough of a public who understands that things don't have to be this way.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
Will you bother to tell him that the victims of illegal sharing are the artists and creators themselves?
The victims of the existance of the "publishing industry" are the artists and creators themselves. The advance of new models of compensation for artists and creators is hindered, to the point of non-existance, by the "publishing industry".
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
In any personal relationship, friendship and courtesy (and the sharing implicit in that, be it of emotions, ideas, music or more tangible things) are paramount. This interaction isn't present with most corporations, and certainly not most industry lobby groups. As Rousseau in 'Social Contract' (or perhaps, more accessibly, Lessig in 'Free Culture') would argue, we have no particular debt of respect or obligation towards them. As much as it hurts my rather Gandhian ideals, there must be SOME degree of simultaneity in trust.
Moreover, we've lost recourse in the legal system (here in the UK and otherwise), as it has 1) become far too complicated for anyone 2) become infested with large lobbying groups. 1) means we're down to such a level of nitty-grittying that it isn't possible, even with the very best of intentions (ie ignoring 2)), to create judgements which are universally (or even necessarily majority-wise equitable). The lawyers' obsession with precedent is depressing. 2) means that we are obligated at a grassroots level to promoting art libre.
All these lead to the inescapable conclusion that I will do what I feel just (note: not what I feel LIKE DOING a la Machiavelli). Teaching kids that copyright is the altar before which we must torture ourselves seems to be a dangerously flawed view of society, and of the way it should develop.
Lastly, it was (obviously?) a joke - lighten up!
Our educational system? Sure copyright is an issue that is controversial, and piracy is a problem...
Violations of "intellectual property" law (please don't call it "piracy") are a problem IF SOCIETY SAYS THEY ARE. "Intellectual property" law is a SOCIAL CONTRACT where society grants the creators of works of "intellectual property" a monopoly on their use, distribution, derivation, and/or duplication for a limited time. Of course, in the United States the contract has been so perverted by the lobby of the publishing industry that it bears no resemblence to what was originally specified by the Constitution.
What we need to be teaching is the history of "intellectual property" law, and teaching our children that it's right to question the law, and to ask "Why does this have to be this way?" Anyone who believes that law is static and unchanging, based on the collective opinion of society, needs to recall "blue laws" and other such antiquities.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
Short version: if we're going to find time and money to educate our children on music copyright, how much more important is it to include music in our children's educations?
Because the real agenda is to teach children that the publishing industry is the only way that artists can be "legitimate", and that the creations must be owned by corporations and "protected" by "intellectual property" laws. It has nothing to do with teaching why-- rather, the point is to teach the kids not to ask why.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
The music industry is not dumb enough to believe that a simple class will cause a drop in downloading. I believe the motivation here is to take away a child's ability to plead ignorance on the minutiae of the copyright laws, so the record industry can better sue them.
We all have heard of that little girl whose family was forced to pay thousands of dollars because she downloaded a few harmless songs. Now, the record industry aims to take away the "kids don't know better" loophole, and wash their hands of responsibilty. "Hey, you broke the law. It says so right here and here, in the packet we gave you. Now we're going to make your family pay thousands of dollars for your little error."
It makes sense to me. You get a five minute time out for kicking your brother, and your parents lose a weeks salary for you downloading a three minute pop song.
Does anyone imagine how guilty and horrible that little girl must feel, for costing her family so much money? Apparently not the record industry. She is to be only another wide eyed lamb sacrificed upon the altar of cold money.
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with educating kids about something like copyright law, even if it is supported by the music industry. Except the problem, as everyone already knows and pointed out, is that it will end up as an extremely biased education.
The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby