Slashdot Mirror
Tech-Ed Funding to be Tied to Copyright-Ed?
feminazi writes "Ars Technica is reporting that California Assemblyman Ed Chavez has proposed legislation that would require recipients of an educational technology grant program to educate their students in copyright law as well. There are three areas of education that would be required: 'ethical behavior in regards to the use of information technology,' 'the concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright,' and 'the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing.'"
I can easily see this having the opposite effect of its intention, namely programmers understanding the limitations and loopholes of copyright better than they do now. I mean how many projects have been shutdown by C&D letters sent under the DMCA? How many of those were bogus if you actually knew the law? If they're really going to teach copyright (Including the extensions and expansions), then maybe some programmers would better understand fair use and the "protections" provided by the DMCA.
Or maybe that's just my wishful thinking.
... And so it comes to this.
Copyright is a tricky area. There are many myths that education might help to dispel. Consider these myths: 1) If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted. 2) If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation. 3) If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain. 4) My posting was just fair use! 5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it. 6) If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me. 7) They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights! 8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything? 9) It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising. 10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it. Phew, you know what? After all that, I'm taking up horseback riding.
If the students are *really* taught what copyrights are, how they were originally intended to work in the Constitution and the concepts of fair use, then the students will know when and how full of crap any 'anti-piracy' group might be. An educated group of consumers.
:)
This may end up as a blow *against* the industry lobbyists, as it could create an educated group of consumers. Any EFF volunteers want to teach a class or two?
Better for the MPAA/RIAA to leave them ignorant and terrified so they fold when the letter arrives in the mail.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
An education system depends on quality educators in order to function well. That almost goes without saying. The end result of ideas like this may result in the destruction of the system in which it is "infecting". That will hold especially true if those who would receive such funding end up avoiding California.
Much the same has reportedly been happening with Kansas. As the debate over intelligent design heats up, many talented educators (at all levels, be it university or high school) are now considering either leaving the state, or are not considering taking jobs there. That is by far one of the most harmful things which can happen to an educational system.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I agree. I teach computers to elementary school children. When they use the internet for research, I tend to go over some basic points:
1) Not everything on the internet is true.
2) You cannot simply copy another person's work, and claim it as your own -- you need to rewrite things in your own words, and give credit to the original author (generally, that means you need an author and url in a bibliography, if nothing else).
We might spend 45 minutes discussing why these things are important (the difference between plagarism and research, for instance). It is important that children, who are using the internet for research, understand what research entails, and, hopefully, can apply those ethics to other domains. P2P is irrelevant, and off-topic. It needn't be mentioned in class, unless the lecture for the day is "Using P2P."
Rhapsody in Numbers
I see your point. Some things are illegal and people should be educated. But if you get a ticket for shooting someone in a quail hunt. You can't use the freedom of speech as a defense. You can in copyright law.
So if you teach kids about respecting copyrights, I think you should also educate kids about governments respecting first amendment rights. I have no problem with that.
Well hopfully they money won't be tied to a specific curriculum. Most teachers of course will teach the standard, P2P is bad mkay curriculum though. Possibly some group might then sue the schools for teaching inacurate information, but one can only hope.
Well, what do you expect? This kind of political intrusion into education is an inevitable consequence of a socialised education system. The moment you take something out of private hands and let the Government run it, it's going to become a poorly-funded, poorly-run political football.
The solution is to privatise education completely, and let parents, businesses and charitable trusts run schools - and, more importantly, let parents send children to the best schools they can afford, schools of their own choosing (or, alternatively, homeschool).
The ultimate in subversion... after all, why should the public schools pay for books when they're willing to provide it for free!!
The important question is, will this education be a vehicle for {RI,MP}AA propaganda, or will it actually be informative?
Don't worry, the people most likely to get this education are university students, who will be taught it in a philosphy context. So a diverse range of perspectives should be encouraged.
A friend of mine once argued everything he did was perfectly positively ethical, if you ignore society's definition of ethics and used his.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
I'm going to agree with you on this.
I teach an ed tech class for pre-service teachers, and we base our curriculum on ISTE's NETS-T ( http://cnets.iste.org/Teachers/t_stands.html ), which are now part of NCATE. Standard VI, indicator A states that teachers should "model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use." I separate the "legal" and "ethical" in my lessons.
I teach them the fair use guidelines, some of the case history, and give them sample situations and have them decide which are fair use, and which are not.
Then, I present Lawrence Lessig's part of it. I talk about "common sense revolts", Dmitry Sklyarov, Dr. Ed Felton, DMCA, etc. I show them the evidence and let them decide whether copyright "law" is "ethical" or not.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
*Whooosh*
I'm on your side. My comment was humor. Look at his "buying" line I quoted and look at how he used it and look at what it was he wasn't buying. And then look at the surreal usage of "stealing" that I ascribed to that sort of "not buying". If he doesn't "buy it" then he is "stealing" money out of someone pocket. And just to make sure this horse is throughly beaten to death, my point was to highlight the fact that things can get very surreal and logic goes out the window when you missapply words in that manner, and that maybe we should be more careful with our words.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.