Slashdot Mirror
Librarians to the Rescue
Duke Machesne writes "Citing concerns over materials being distributed to American students by the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA's evil minions, the American Library Association will begin distributing its own, more balanced material this winter. The material will deal with insignificant and oft-overlooked details like fair use. More information on Wired News."
When money is on the line, companies tend to get cutthroat with their policies and how they deal with free organizations.
Its pretty sad if you ask me.
And not just because to "balance things out", you'd have to push a line that would make all copyright questionable.
The proper way to "balance" this is to not allow the **AA access to the schools. This isn't education, it's propaganda. Let them buy time in the media like every other business.
Librarians and free media have always been the standard-bearer for issues of personal liberty. A while back, a group of publishers sued libraries for distributing books. Libraries have carried books, even when they've been shunned by society. They were the first ones to rail against the PATRIOT Act. They are one of the most significant forces against promoters ignorance, misinformation, disinformation, and junk science in existance right now. Remeber who had the fewest misconceptions about the Iraq war?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Attention all parents and those considering parenthood! Repeat after me: INDOCTRINATION BEGINS AT HOME.
Not to mention literacy, which presumably sustains sales of books in the long term. Imagine what it'd be like if anyone who wanted to read had to pay.
The business Software Association. If they're gonna go by an acronym, they need a different one. BSA ment the Boy Scouts since the early 1900s. They were there first!
Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
This borders on the obvious but librarians love books, which means that they are often well-informed liberals in the enlightenment sense of that word, i.e., someone who is broad-minded and tolerant of the views of others and expect others to behave in the same manner.
They also understand that our cultural heritage depends on free sharing for its preservation and nurturing -as does innovation. Librarians are therefore quite suspicious of those who try to place limits on the sharing of cultural outputs, particularly when they do so to benefit from the social conjectures and economic dislocations produced by a given technological moment in history.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
i agree to the propaganda nature of this:
BSA marketing exec 1: hey, what should we do this year to increase legal software sales?
BSA marketing exec 2: i know! let's infiltrate the schools with some 'educational material' about copyrights, and how they should be reverently followed. 90 some odd years is not enough.
BSA marketing exec 1: sound great, but how are we going to do that?
BSA marketing exec 2: we'll umm, make a cartoon character and have the kids name it, yeah! it will be great
BSA marketing exec 1: what else?
BSA marketing exec 2: we'll have legal work with the teacher's unions to force compliance to instruct the children with our coursework. if that doesn't work, we'll bury them in subpoenas and fines!
in walks a lone librarian.
librarian: your tactics are nefarious and strongarm. we will not allow this without proper perspective.
BSA marketing exec 1: who let this person in here?! security!!!!
there will come a day when this will all be trivial. either that or...
our children will grow up with no capability for creative thought, as that will violate some copyright somewhere somehow, and we know what that leads to.
The librarians have enlisted the help of Legolas Greenleaf of Mirkwood, Sindarin decendent of the Teleri...
I think the chance of being victorious over the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA's evil minions is good !
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
But their doing something... good! This is confusing. I'm not supposed to like them but they are doing something good! This is like MS suddenly putting everything up to 2k under the GPL.
My brain hurts! It's confusing. Why can't anyone just be EVIL. Why do they have to do something good once and a while to make you question them?
Well, as much as I don't like them, in this case the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I suppose. The MPAA/RIAA/etc are the greater evil in this battle (IMHO). The ALA is trying to push a specific world view and ideological slant and co-opt parrents (again, my opinion). The RIAA/MPAA is trying to take away my RIGHTS. One is definatly worse than the other.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It is possible to be both a strong supporter of the philosophy of copyright and yet oppose specific copyright law.
Not to mention private interests being allowed to making their case as fact in the public schools without so much as a representative of a counterpoint.
I certainly hope school librarians take up the gauntlet, but my experience suggests that to do so might well endanger their jobs.
KFG
"We're trying to educate children at a very young age about the importance of protecting copyrighted works," said Diane Smiroldo, vice president of public affairs for the BSA. "It's important to start talking to them at a very young age about creative works online and what you can and can't share with your friends."
Smiroldo compared the BSA's program to an antismoking or antilittering campaign. The curriculum doesn't talk about fair use but focuses on what are "right and wrong" behaviors online.
Hmm, lemme see, smoking harms the kid himself, littering defaces the entire community, and "pirating" copyrighted works hurts -- oh right, the Business Software Alliance.
And lemme see, these kids, having mastered all that readin', writin', and 'rithmeticin' -- ain't no child left behind no any more --, they've got plenty of time to spend learning a corporate lobbying group's version of "right and wrong".
I've never pirated music or software, and I do believe that the MPAA and the BSA should have the protection of copyright -- including the right to bring civil suit.
But when they try to co-opt the education of children and get the Department of Justice to bring their civil suits for them, and to pile criminal charges on top, well, it seems to me the corporations are getting much more than a fair shake.
Begins to remind me of the "War on Drugs" -- a "War" we'll never win but which benefits corporations building and running prisons (and the drug mafias and the prison guards' union) at the expense of cops and taxpayers and citizens.
It even makes me wonder if the "content providers" have gone so far as to forfeit their moral rights to copyright protection. There comes a time when you just have to say that the "cure" is worse than the "disease" (as for instance, the "War on Drugs") and tell those grabbing more than their fair share of money and legal power, "this far and no farther".
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
IMHO, no other group of professionals in our society have done more to protect the American ideal of life. If you don't already, talk to your locla librarian. You will find them to be one of the most remarkable resources in your life.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I doubt most slashdot readers are ignorant of copyright laws, the founders distrust of the concept, and the decision to only include copyright in the US Constitution as a carrot to promote innovation.
;)
I imagine most slashdot readers are aware of the abuses of copyright law: the endless extensions, the DMCA, stifling of free speech and fair use, impoverishment of the public domain, the lack of rights for the creators of content (publishers using contracts and work-for-hire to take the copyrights for themselves). All of which are extensively documented on Slashdot.
I imagine most slashdot readers are well aware of campaigns by copyright holders (the publishers) to use them to extort money from mostly innocent people (as few cases go to court and so the allegations of infringement are unproven).
While it has been a while, I imagine at least some slashdot readers remember Microsoft's terroristic marketing campaigns to scare customers into buying too many licenses just to be "safe" from audits.
If you don't, AC, maybe you should use your computer for something "useful".
It is good that libraries are going to be educating youngsters in Fair Use. After all, libraries are the sacred temples of Fair Use.
As for the media sharks, remember the Yahlen? Quit being mean, or your yachts are belong to Mothra!
(To be used in the Queen of Monster's thirty-eight year old War on Mean Terrorists.)
"Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster", 1966
Imagine what it'd be like if anyone who wanted to read had to pay.
We'd have a culture where most people get their information from visual and audio media like television and radio and ignore in-depth analysis found in newspapers and magazines.
Oh.
I'm sorry, you can disagree but not label the other party evil. It sounds really childish and dilutes the meaning of a rather harsh term. It also distracts people from the message you are trying to get across.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Wonder how many hypocrite copyright holders have ever borrowed a book from a library (and thus ripped off a poor publishing house).
Same with musicians. How many have benefitted from fair use and now vehemently oppose anyone "stealing" their work most of which is a derivation of fair use.
Yup, the article mentions high school librarians will get copies. I'm sure high schools will be thrilled to have more visitors to their libraries. We need a date posted, so we can /. libraries.
Hmm, lemme see, smoking harms the kid himself, littering defaces the entire community, and "pirating" copyrighted works hurts -- oh right, the Business Software Alliance.
To be fair, copyright is a mechanism with a purpose other than just enriching the BSA. It's part of a system designed to allow content funding to be produced.
The ALA is just interested in people not having something presented as "right" and something else presented as "wrong" -- they'd rather have people consider the benefits themselves.
I have no problem with copyright per se -- the question is whether it is still practical and useful in its current from in present day, where it is nearly impossible to enforce, and where it has been extended far, far beyond the intent of its creators.
Many Slashdotters may not like Britney Spears. However, she clearly entertains many people, and I don't have a problem with publishers making money off her if they are entertaining people -- if that's what people want, let them have her.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that they should have her for her lifetime and well beyond, nor am I convinced that copyright can be enforced any more, nor am I comfortable with DMCA-based end runs around fair use. That doesn't mean that we should "drop copyright" -- we have a number of content-producing mechanisms that are based around it, and no good systems that will necessarily replace them. It does mean that copyright reform may be necessary, and given that I feel that the ALA is a group of people with a good deal of insight into copyright-related issues, I'm more inclined to listen to what they have to say than a number of the other players in the copyright game.
May we never see th
Repent! Repent! and Read no More!
Come to think of it, the American school system is actually doing a marvelous job with creating illiterate young adults, so the **AAs have nothing to fear. Eventually, everybody will have to pay someone (in another country) to read for them and all reading will be outsourced to India.
Oh well, what the hell...
It is possible to be both a strong supporter of the philosophy of copyright and yet oppose specific copyright law.
Given the current copyright law, it's pretty much impossible to be a strong supporter of the US founders' philosophy of copyright and *not* oppose specific copyright law.
The only way you can really support the current copyright system is if you buy into the content producers' notion that copyright is some sort of perpetual, natural and even inalienable right to collect cash for every use, rather than the carefully balanced social contract originally intended.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
After a quick look at the Propaganda on their website, I noticed a "Survey" form that includes a "Business Reply Mail" envelope template.
You know, the kind that the person recieving the survey must pay the postage for.
Wouldn't it be great if all of the slashdotters would send in their comments? (2+ Million). At 37c a piece, that would total a little over $740,000.
I personally may send in a few, just so my voice may be heard.
The survey can be found at http://www.playitcybersafe.com/pdfs/BSAsurvey.pdf
It's targeted for teachers, so I guess we all will need to roleplay for this one.
This isn't education, it's propaganda.
My kids are past elementary school, but we've had to deal with at least two other equally bogus programs that were nevertheless strongly supported by some of the administrators:
Much of this nonsense didn't stop, despite numerous complaints from parents, until Consumer Reports wrote up the practice.
The only role that these sorts of things have in the classroom is in a high school level civics style class that discusses why they should not be used in the classroom.
"I think it's important to remind everyone that even slashdot seems concerned about protecting it's copyrighted material"
So does the FSF. What's your point? When Slashdot starts sending out COD letters to people because they've copy and pasted a goatse link, it's time to start shouting and screaming...
How about teaching kids their basic rights, like when they're stopped by police on the street, in their car, or in attempts to search their home? Is copyright more important to inculcate than Miranda rights? Or their rights in a jury to nullify an unjust law used in the trial? Until these priorities are addressed, public education is just another tedious exercise in corporate indoctrination.
--
make install -not war
I think his point was that regardless of how biased or one-sided it was, print media goes farther in examining an issue because of the nature of the medium. It's easier to understand more about a single event (and key supporting events) in ten pages than in 10 minutes of TV coverage.
Not for publishers. Research lowers the cost of entering the publishing business, and thus increases competition. The Internet even allows publishing for free - and I don't mean book pirates, but people who upload their own texts for everyone to enjoy. I've read several book-length quality pieces of writing on the Net, and this had certainly decreased my need to buy paper books.
Research threatens established power bases - or, more to the point, the fruits of research in the hands of the general public threaten established power bases - and thus is a bad thing, as far as those in power are concerned. Do you really think that the Internet would had been allowed to happen if the politicians and big business had known beforehand what it would become ?
Freedom is the natural enemy of Power. People freely exchanging information and making their own decisions is the worst nightmare of a politician. People producing and trading with each other is the worst nightmare of a corporate overlord. And everyone having a cheap access to publishing is the worst nightmare of a publisher.
All of which means that we will propably go back to pre-emptive censoring, of needing a prior permission to publish anything, before long. Propably as soon as we get mandatory DRM on our computers. That's the real reason for it...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I was pleased to hear this announcement and am hopeful that other national library organizations will follow suit in their own jurisdictions - students should not be exposed to a single perspective on this or any issue. To quote Tony Samek, of the University of Alberta's School of Library and Information Studies, "The largest current threat to intellectual freedom in Alberta [Canada] is the dwindling numbers of Teacher-Librarians employed in the province." Who else will defend intellectual freedom in the K-12 system?
i just want to play go
i tend to use resources on the web to write my papers. then ill go to the library to find the books the web site cites and cite them.
Presumably after first reading the relevant text to be sure that it agrees with the paper you've already written.
Of course, even if you do check the original sources like you ought, failing to cite the web site where you originally obtained the information might be a form of plagiarism. Especially if the information is presented in your paper more like the web site presented it and less like the original.
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
yay, go librarians. seriously. this is a good move. last thing I'd want is for my child having to go to school to get brainwashed by some companies to fit their financial interests.
It's much like how the communists infiltrated schools, or the McCarthy era here, where all teachers told their children to report their parents' communist activities to them. etc.
It's very sick that people use children as tools.
One thing people always seem to do is use younge children and the elderly, becauset hey know the two groups arent likely to sock them in the face and tell them to fuck off.
Despite some recent bad law (*cough* DMCA *cough*), it is generally taken to be true that the concept of 'fair use' is a necessary and constitutionally implicit part of copyright. However, until the provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act were passed, the notion of what constituted 'fair use' was left entirely up to the courts. Beyond established case law, there were no hard and fast guidelines to aid an individual or corporation in determining what constituted acceptable and fair 'fair use'.
Through Section 107, Congress created a legal framework in which fair use was defined. Its aim was to describe fair use in a way that was acceptable both to Congress and to the courts, and provide a more formal structure to what has previously been a patchwork of rulings and debates. Until 1976 there was a legislative vacuum in that area, and the courts were left to make it up as they went along. Section 107 allowed Congress to at least shape that doctrine while still working within the bounds of the Constitution. (Incidentally, in some cases it may have expanded fair use, as well.)
~Idarubicin