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.'"
First off, let me say that I'm a strong supporter of the EFF, Creative Commons, and hold many libertarian (lower-case "l") beliefs. The thought of the government mandating the instruction of agenda-based ethics makes my skin crawl. However, in the interest of balance, here's a different viewpoint:
Like it or not, copyright violation is against the law. When you're learning about how to handle firearms, drive a car, invest in stocks, skydive--pratically anything that involves risk, the you're *always* taught how do those activities safely and in accordance with the law. Many people hate mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. However, does anyone really beleive that riders shouldn't be educated on this law and the reasons for having it? People who misuse technology are doing risky things: opening themselves (or their parents) upto identity theft by getting a trojan from a P2P app, allowing their PC to be turned into a DDoS zombie, sexual predators, and criminal and civil liablity incurred by swapping pirated music and software. Many of these risks are blown out of proportion by the press, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. Computer users need all the education they can get. Too much technical training is focused on the nuts-and-bolts on how to do something with a PC. As pervasive as the Internet has become in our lives, perhaps we should begin to explore the larger social issues in intro-level instruction as well?
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Sure, at face value this is about getting kids under control for the benefit of the Copyright holders. But, so long as the education is accurate, can you think of a better thing than a population who understands copyright law, what a mess has been made of it, and how crippling the status quo is? Anything that serves to inform is good.
Regardless of what people's personal opinions are on p2p file sharing, the fact is that it is against copyright law. Should it be? Well, only people who understand the issue can intelligently consider that. So bring on the truth.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Will this really work? Perhaps on a few individuals. As with many such compulsory "lessons", the students and teachers would go through with it. But they'd both know to disregard it. Thus it will have no effect but to waste time, money, and other resources.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Fuck you Ed. Politicians should be required to take ethics courses...
~S
Maybe that because it is different. Depriving a retailer of a physical product is not the same as downloading a digital copy from someone! If I download a movie off the net which I would never purchase anyways is far different than stuffing one down my shorts at Walmart. Walmart paid for that DVD and by stealing it, I have stolen money from them. If I download a movie I haven't taken something away from anyone. I'm not saying its legal or moral, but it isn't stealing!
http://religiousfreaks.com/Or did they just want the standard "corporate big-wigs getting rich should have their methods and profits guaranteed?"
Just want to know which I should be teaching...
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
To tell them to go to hell.
I was nodding along, thinking "sure, why not" right up until I read the part about "the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing."
Schools are not there for those kind of shenanigans.
I find this incredibly offensive, if PSAs and advertising doesn't cut it, then that is their problem.
The curriculum should not be set by interest groups.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I could maybe get behind this idea if one of the areas covered included fair use. Why am I not surprised this area is left out, especially in California. Remember, according to Jack Valenti "fair use is not in the law".
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.
They can call it C.A.R.E.--Copyright Abuse Resistance Education. Maybe even have cops come in and show off a simulated pirated download, so the kids can identify them when they encounter them. Teach the students to avoid peer-to-peer pressure...
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+
Regardless of what people's personal opinions are on p2p file sharing, the fact is that it is against copyright law.
P2P file-sharing isn't against copyright law. Sharing copyrighted files, via a P2P file-sharing program, without the copyright owner's permission is against copyright law.
allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment
to me, it seems that the gist of your argument is that since you haven't gotten your hands on a physical thing, you haven't stolen anything. you aren't depriving a retailer of a product or the money they could have gotten in exchange for it.
i submit that a physical object is not necessarily required for theft. if you're a gamer, does it incur your ire when someone steals from you in game? if you developed a neat idea and had it on your hard drive, would it bother you when someone copied it onto their USB drive, and distributed it or claimed it as their own? how about your digitized poetry? your art? i'm not using these as exactly analogous to downloading a movie, but the concept of a noncorporeal object of value is important.
you also speak of downloading off the internet something which you wouldn't've purchased for. to be pedantic, that is not strictly speaking, true. by downloading it, you are spending clock cycles, storage space, bandwidth, and at least some of your own time to obtain said item. now, it may be true that you wouldn't spend $15 for a dvd copy of it, but would you pay $0.01 to see it, or download it? how about $0.40? if it's worth downloading for you, either you want to just have it for the sake of having it, or you've got mild interest in seeing it. either way, there's some price point where you'd be willing to exchange something of value for it. taking even a copy of it without reimbursing the 'owner' is, in a word, a theft. moreover, you don't get to set the price that you pay for it.
moreover, stealing is (amongst other things):
to take (the property of another) without right or permission
the act of theft
to get or effect surreptitiously or artfully
not to get into a slashdot debate about intellectual property, but legally, a movie is, generally speaking, the property of Some Entity Not You. you can be sure that said Not You entity will not give you right or permission to obtain said movie without paying.
now, that being said, i'm a proponent of p2p filesharing in the general case.
i loathe the RIAA and the MPAA and their tactics. i think they've taken entirely the wrong tack. not all theft is inherently immoral, mind you, though i'm notably quiet about the morality of filesharing.
i'm not saying i do it, and i'm not saying i don't.
and i think that you're right that downloading a file is significantly different from stuffing one's outerwear at walmart, but hey--let's not kid ourselves about what we, fundamentally, are doing, alright?
'ethical behavior in regards to the use of information technology,'
This would be the part where they teach kids that using technology to build a copyright mechanism that takes over your customer's computer, and creates security holes, such as the recent Sony-BMG scandal, is unethical. Or perhaps this would be teaching kids about the ethics of setting up a cartel wherein labels make a lot of money off record sales, and artists don't.
'the concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright,'
From this page:
"By granting the copyright holder exclusive rights over a work for a limited period of time, the system fosters the long-term dissemination of new intellectual works for society as a whole." (emphasis added). This would encourage children to discuss why the current copyright system in the United States, where the period of copyrighted works is continually extended, is fundamentally broken.
'the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing.'
And finally, children would learn that the big record labels took about 5 years too long to get into the online music distribution buisness, so that by the time they did, there were illegal free alternatives which produce superior (read: not DRMed, and therefore superior from the consumer viewpoint) products. We could teach kids that file sharing networks allow people to hear artists they wouldn't otherwise hear on pop-dominated radio stations and TV, and promote more diverse and creative music. And, we could teach them that illegal file sharing doesn't seem to have an impact on record sales.
Somehow I don't think this is what Chavez had in mind.
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?